Mechanism, process and the wider context of economic geography

This commentary responds to Henry Wai-chung Yeung’s call to develop clearer causal explanations in geography through mechanism-based thinking. His suggested use of a critical realist framework to ground geographical research on economies is, on one level, appealing and may help to counteract taken-for-granted assumptions about socio-spatial conditions and the significance of economic structures for everyday lived experiences. However, the general lack of applied critical realist research means the distinction between ‘mechanism’ and ‘process’ is often difficult to define in analyses of specific empirical events or geographical episodes. Not only is there a need for methodological development but, I suggest, also for greater recognition of critical realism as a reflective practice. We need to consider the means by which scholars distinguish between contingent and necessary relations, identify structures and counterfactuals and infer how mechanisms work out in particular places. The critical realist goal of advancing transformative change through the provision of causal explanation relies upon inferences made on the basis of researcher experience. Hence, we need to recognise that research is always a political practice and be careful not to discount knowledge borne from other analytical approaches.