Marxism; transition theories; institutionalism and socio-economics

The development problem under Marxism & transition theories refers that the social order was
distinct from capitalism as major economic activities were not conducted by private firms,
accumulated private wealth and unemployment were not the principal determinants of social
inequalities, and market relationships were largely replaced by non-market mechanisms of
distribution of goods in the economy and society (Bolesaw Domanski as seen in Pike et al, 2011;
p.173).

Marxism is a political method of societal analysis that focuses on class relations and societal
conflict that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, and a dialectical view of
social transformation. Marxist inspired approaches in economic geography also challenge the
neo-classical idea of spatial equilibrium, although coming from a completely different
perspective. Marxist-inspired approaches uneven development is usually seen as both the
necessary precondition and the unavoidable consequence of capitalist economic growth (Martin
Sokol-2011, P-56). This approach argues that aggregate growth figures at the local and regional
level concealed hierarchical spatial structures of interrelations with implications for job quality
and regional functional specialization (Sunley 2000 as seen in Pike et al, 2006; p.84).

Transition Theory Transition theory introduces due to the failure of neo-classical growth theory.
Various theories of structural change emerged that sought to explain substantive transitions in the
nature of capitalism and their implications for local and regional development (Pike et al, 2006;
p.86). From the point of view of local and regional development, the critical change took place in
the functioning of the labor markets (Rainnie et al. 2002 as seen in as in Pike et al, 2011; p.175).
However, The fundamental material legacy of the transition is in the economic structures of
towns and regions, their infrastructure and environmental situation which usually foster
continuity and sometimes change in development trends. They are also affected by local
educational levels and facilities and the demographic structures formed in the past (Bolesaw
Domanski as seen in Pike et al, 2011; p.175).

Institutionalism and Socio-Economics

Institutionalist and socio-economic approaches overlap with theories of innovation, knowledge
and learning and emphasize the importance of local and regional institutions in developing
indigenous assets and resources and promoting adjustment capabilities in localities and regions
(Bennett et al. 1990; Campbell 1990; Storper and Scott 1992; Amin and Thrift 1995; Scott 2004
as seen in Pike et al, 2006; p.156). Moreover, Institutionalist perspective represents a diverse and
evolving group who emphasizes the importance of social, cultural and institutional factors for the
understanding of the ways of economies work. This is in contrast to both neo-classical views and
Marxist approach. However, the Institutionalist perspective sees the economy as always
embedded in and constituted by social, cultural, and institutional sphere (Martin Sokol-2011, P-
57). At the regional level, for instance the concept of institutional thickness has been proposed to
capture the strength of local or regional institutions.

Reference
1. Economic Geographies of Globalization, Martin Sokol-2011
2. Pike, A., Rodrges-Pose, A., and Tomaney, J. (2006). Local and Regional Development. Routledge,
Abingdon: Routledge
3. Pike, A., Rodrges-Pose, A., and Tomaney, J. (2011). Handbook of Local and Regional
Development.