Moving on: Institutionalism in Economic Geography

we expect from it. My viewöconfirmed by the rich papers in this theme sectionöis that there is little to be gained from reducing institutionalist thought to a series of testable hypotheses or normative assertions (for example, that institutional presence or local associational networks are necessary or sufficient for regional economic success). Instead, its real test lies in whether it advances our knowledge of the workings of the space economy, through its powers of abstraction of what constitutes and orders economic life. The question, then, is what do we want to use theory for? This is the first issue I wish to address, by returning to what we might gain from an institutionalist theorisation of urban and regional economic development. Then, any verdict on the institutional turn also depends on what we count as institutionalist thought, and on how tightly we want to mark its boundary. The papers here go a long way towards addressing this question. For example, Bob Jessop's distinction between varieties of institutionalism and levels of institutionalismöthe thematic study of institutions, the ontology of institutions as the basic unit of social organisation, and the epistemology rooted in the study of institutionsöis a helpful clarification. So is his attempt to identify the varied institutionalist methodologies situated between methodological individualism and more structured approaches (for example, structuration theory or his own strategic ^ relational approach) that attempt to grasp the contextualised and instituted nature of social action. Similarly, the papers by Gordon MacLeod, Martin Jones, and Nick Henry and Stephen Pinch are right to remind us that the recent interest in soft institutionalism (for example, ideas in institutional and evolutionary economics or economic sociology emphasising habituated routines and conventions), should not overshadow insights elsewhere (for example, regulation theory) which identify the macro and micro institutions of accumulation and regulation, from the practices of firms to state policies, monetary and financial rules, and governance regimes in general (see also Martin, 2000; Peck, 2000). Finally, the papers help to sharpen the distinction between an interest in institutions as containers of socioeconomic organisation, and institutions as processes of institutionalisation of socioeconomic practices. Notwithstanding their sharp criticisms of certain institutionalist claims (including my own) or their preference for particular variants of institutionalism, the general tone of the papers here is supportive of a plural and open institutionalism. I welcome this tone for three reasons. First, as Jessop intimates, unlike Marxism or neoclassical economics, institutionalism is not a canonical theory with strong claims about the laws of the economy, but a nexus of convergent positions on what counts as the economic, how it is organised in different contexts, and how it might be examined. Second, it is too early to close the door on institutionalism in economic geography. The ideas are only ten years old (younger, if we do not include the turn Moving on: institutionalism in economic geography