Global Conference on Economic
Geography
5-9 December 2000, Singapore
Kris Olds
Department of Geography
National University of Singapore
In December 2000, the National University
of Singapore (NUS) played host to the first ever “Global Conference on
Economic Geography”. The
conference was organised by the Department of Geography, NUS, in collaboration
with economic geography study groups of Association of American Geographers,
Royal Geographical Society-Institute of British Geographers, Institute of Australian
Geographers, International Geographical Union and Commonwealth Geographical
Bureau. Blackwell (publisher of
the Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography) also allocated significant financial
resources to the running of the conference as well, supporting two journal
related events – a Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography plenary session and tea, and
an Antipode
plenary session and evening wine and cheese social. The journal Economic Geography, published by Clark
University, also sponsored a plenary session and wine and cheese social.
The conference was initiated because of
feelings within the Department of Geography at NUS that there are few
opportunities for “economic geographers” (broadly defined) to
engage in genuinely global dialogue. In the context of globalising tendencies
in the world economy, such dialogue is increasingly important for it
facilitates the development of knowledge, and the establishment of
international collaborative relations for both teaching and research. Such
dialogue also requires economic geographers to face head on, the complex issues
of vantage point and ethnocentric bias. The issue of vantage point and
ethnocentric bias is a particularly troublesome one for geographers working in
Asia, and in the tropical world more generally, given that the vast majority of
geographical literature is produced in the North, regardless of geographic
focus (Yeung, 2001). Given this state of affairs, we believed that the timing
was appropriate for a “global” conference on economic geography.
Furthermore, given economic geography’s role as a key sub-discipline in
Geography, we felt that it was time to discuss and debate current research
agendas. Finally, we sought to create an event that contributed to the
rethinking of the relationship between the sub-discipline (within human
geography) and the wider social science community; a “project”
invigorated by the recent collection Geographies of Economies (Lee & Wills, 1997), and
the American Association of Geographers Economic Geography Specialty
Group’s initiatives (details available at
http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~wwwgeog/aagecon.html).
In organising the global conference on
economic geography, we had three specific objectives, as stated in the
promotional “call for papers” that was disseminated via multiple
channels at a global scale from 1998 onwards:
·
The
conference will provide a forum for constructive cross-regional dialogue among
economic geographers from all regions and countries. Such dialogue is critical
for the advancement of the subject.
·
The
conference will provide an opportunity for economic geographers from outside
Asia to interact with geographers and other interested social scientists from
within the host region. While acknowledging the Anglo-American influence in
much of the recent work in economic geography, we recognise that there is a
considerable stock of knowledge in the Asian region that contributes to our
understanding of regional and global economic geographies. In short, the
conference will enhance the global interdependence of networks of economic
geographers.
·
The
conference and its associated activities will enable economic geographers from
outside the Asian region to experience (first-hand) the dynamics of economic
transformations in Singapore and Southeast Asia. Through carefully designed
field trips, both within and outside of Singapore, the conference will offer
insightful educational experiences that can be brought home for the benefits of
students and institutions.
Suffice it to say the conference was
relatively successful. We were pleased with the registration numbers (196
academics, approximately twice as many as expected), and people genuinely
seemed to enjoy and learn from the field trips, the plenary and regular
conference sessions, and the social events that ran throughout the five days in
Singapore. Indeed, at times, one felt that this was a truly global affair, with
people from countries like Indonesia, Sweden, New Zealand, and Brunei in
dialogue during the sessions, or sharing a lunch-time table of Singaporean
food, itself a hybrid of Malay and assorted Chinese and Indian cuisines. Table 1 profiles the country base of
the conference participants.
|
Country of Work |
Number of attendees |
|
Australia |
19 |
|
Austria |
2 |
|
Bangladesh |
1 |
|
Belgium |
1 |
|
Brunei |
1 |
|
Canada |
15 |
|
China |
2 |
|
Denmark |
5 |
|
Finland |
6 |
|
Germany |
14 |
|
Hong Kong |
3 |
|
Israel |
1 |
|
India |
2 |
|
Indonesia |
6 |
|
Ireland |
2 |
|
Italy |
2 |
|
Japan |
5 |
|
Malaysia |
7 |
|
Netherlands |
3 |
|
New Zealand |
6 |
|
Norway |
9 |
|
Portugal |
1 |
|
Sri Lanka |
2 |
|
Singapore |
34 (16 academics) |
|
South Africa |
1 |
|
South Korea |
1 |
|
Sweden |
9 |
|
Taiwan |
1 |
|
UK |
29 |
|
USA |
24 |
|
TOTAL |
214 (196 academics) |
The papers themselves were organised into 12 themes, many of which ran over several sessions. The themes were: Culture and Ethnicity in Economic Geography; Development Geography; Dynamics of Urban and Regional Development; Economy and the Environment; Finance and Economic Geography; Geographies of Global Capitalism, Geographies of International Trade and Investment; Geographies of Transitional Economies; Innovation, Learning, and Communities of Practice; Labour Geographies; Rural and Resource Economies; and Virtual Economies. Given that over 150 papers were scheduled for presentation, it is impossible to summarise the nature of the topics that were presented. Fortunately the official conference web site will be maintained for some time at http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/geoywc/econgeog.html and interested readers can download the full conference handbook which includes abstracts of all the papers that were presented. It is important to note, however, that the quality of the presentations were of consistent high quality.
Apart from the individual papers, plenary
talks were given by Ash Amin (Durham University), Katherine Gibson (Australian
National University), Chua Beng Huat (National University of Singapore) and
Trevor Barnes (University of British Columbia). In brief, Amin spoke about theorisation of the spatialities
of globalisation. He made a strong case for shifting emphasis in the discipline
away from the currently dominant discourse of scalar and territorial
relativisation, towards relational processes and network forms of organisation
that defy a linear distinction between place and space. A revised version of his insightful
paper will be published in Environment and Planning A in 2001. Trevor Barnes’ talk focused on
the “performances” that have helped to constitute the
sub-discipline of economic geography, especially in the Anglo-American
world. Using the cases of two
classic texts - George Chisholm’s Handbook of Commercial Geography published in 1889, and Peter
Haggett’s Locational Analysis in Human Geography published in 1965 - Barnes
highlighted the interdependent relationship between human (the geographers) and
the non-human (their texts) in the transformation of the dominant nature of
geographic thought at particular times. Barnes’ paper will be published
alongside Amin’s in Environment and Planning A. Chua Beng Huat, in a talk
rich with regional flavour and a good dose of humour, focused on the contested
nature of the “Chinese diaspora” concept. His talk grounded the discussion in an examination of
complexities within what can problematically be termed a Chinese cultural
economy (Chinese “pop” music to more specific). A revised version
of his paper is included in this issue of the Singapore Journal of Tropical
Geography. Katherine Gibson’s plenary talk
was designed to further some of the ideas that were laid down in the now
classic text by J-K Gibson Graham (1996), The End of Capitalism (as we knew
it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. In her talk, titled, “Performing
the Diverse Economy: Explorations in the Asia-Pacific Region”, Gibson
applied a poststrucuralist perspective on development issues in the
Asia-Pacific region. She drew upon recent fieldwork in Hong Kong, the
Philippines and Papua New Guinea in an attempt to “animate” what
she calls “post-development economic” futures that are not necessarily
capitalist in nature. As she noted
these are futures that “engender a sense of enchantment and a vision of
virtual possibilities. In conversation with the NGO Unlad Kabayan or the transnational
corporation New Britain Palm Oil Limited, glimpses of new economic
subjectivities for migrant workers and oil palm small holders have been
sighted, and the possibility of different, more equitable and diverse economies
have become tangible”. Gibson’s paper is likely to be published in
the journal Antipode.
Apart from the papers, three field trips
were organised. The first field
trip was to Johor, Malaysia, and it was organised by Tim Bunnell (NUS). Johor
is Peninsula Malaysia’s southern-most state and forms part of the
Singapore-Malaysia-Indonesia Growth Triangle. The southern part of the state
has undergone dramatic urban expansion and economic transformation since the
mid-1980s. The fieldtrip was designed to give delegates an overview of state
economic development as well as in-depth insights into key industries. The
second field trip was titled “Exploring the Diverse Industrial Landscapes
of Singapore” and it was organised by K. Raguraman (NUS). This fieldtrip
began with a bus-ride to the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) in Singapore.
Officials there provided a brief presentation on the evolution of the
industrial landscape in Singapore over the past 30 years. This was followed by
a guided tour of various industrial sites in Singapore, including business
parks, science parks and other planned industrial estates. The aim of this
field trip was to give participants an opportunity to appreciate the changing
character of industrial land use in Singapore. Finally, the third field trip
was titled “Industrialising Indonesia: Economic and social dimensions of rapid
development on Batam” and it was organized by Philip Kelly (York
University, Canada). Batam Island is located south of Singapore in
Indonesia’s Riau archipelago. Over the last decade it has seen very rapid
growth in population as migrants have come from across the country to work in
industrial estates and other new employment opportunities. While industrial
estates and commercial developments are burgeoning, many social problems, such
as housing provision, remain unresolved. The fieldtrip involved a 45 minute
ferry ride to the island and visits to the Batam Industrial Development
Authority, the Batamindo Industrial Estate, the factory of a multinational
corporation located in the industrial estate, and a “squatter”
settlement currently being formalised.
In the end, the conference exhibited the
potentials and pitfalls associated with organising relatively open and ideally
“global” conferences in the discipline of geography (Olds,
2001). While not perfect, this
conference, set in the tropical city-state of Singapore, helped to reinforce
the need for the continual critique of geographic knowledge that is dominated
by the Anglo-American world, at least with respect to the English language, and
of the need to engage in face-to-face discussion in a diversity of locales.
Lee, R. & Wills, J. (1997) Geographies
of Economies,
London: Arnold.
Olds,
K. (2001) ‘Practices
for “process geographies”: A view from within and outside the
periphery', Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 19(2), 127-136.
Yeung, H.W.C. (2001) ‘Redressing
the geographical bias in social science knowledge’, Environment and
Planning A,
33, 1-9.