Regional economic growth and post-Keynesian economics: unfit for purpose?

This paper sets out to critically analyze the ways in which economic growth theories have been engaging with the regional, or sub-national, aspect of economic growth. Although mainstream theories are also assessed, the primary focus is on post-Keynesian growth theories, and particularly on a regional branch of the Kaldorian literature. First, key notions, such as methodological individualism, methodological nationalism, and emergent properties are presented, and how they are related to both neoclassical and post-Keynesian economics. Second, the paper critically presents mainstream theories and their shortcomings in tackling regional aspects of economic growth. Third, the Kaldor-inspired literature on regional growth is critically discussed. While this Kaldorian literature presents itself as critical of mainstream theories in general, its treatment of the spatiality of economic growth remains cursory. This paper is intended to provide a constructive and sympathetic critique of the post-Keynesian literature in general, and the Kaldorian literature in particular; its key objective is to call post-Keynesian researchers' attention to some of the literature's deficiencies, to indicate areas of synergy between post-Keynesian economics and evolutionary economic geography, and to suggest a new and promising interdisciplinary research agenda.