Abstract
Hailed by economists as an idea whose time has come, the ‘new economic geography’ has not been quite as favourably received by geographers. Frequently seen as a prime case of academic imperialism, few appear willing to concede that economists may have something to contribute to economic geography. Conversely, beyond the token reference to vintage publications, economists often dismiss geographers' economic geography as a dead end. In this paper we take a more detached view. Exploring points of convergence and divergence, we identify lessons that either side may learn from the other. While not shying away from existing differences, we conclude that there is indeed some common ground.