Territory, Place, Flow, and Scale: Spatial Analysis in the IPE of Trade
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assess the presence and use of the geographical concepts of territory, place, flow, and scale in the International Political Economy (IPE) literature on trade. While IPE scholars have arguably responded somewhat to earlier calls to embrace geography, the uptake remains limited. Relatively few articles incorporate such concepts explicitly and tend to ignore critical scholarship on these ideas. After summarizing the theoretical dimensions of territory, place, flow, and scale in geography, we analyze publications in six leading political science/IPE journals from 2010 to 2022 to identify articles related to trade that draw on one or more of these four concepts. Using a mix of quantitative text analysis and close qualitative readings of selected articles, we find that IPE scholars occasionally use territory, flow, and scale explicitly, but more often their use is implicit. In contrast, place is used rarely, only implicitly, but perhaps offers the greatest opportunity to frame new questions in studies of trade. More generally, we conclude that explicit attention to these four concepts and their use in critical geography scholarship, would help to develop richer, more critical IPE approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it