What’s Wrong with American Regional Science?

* A version of this paper was given at a plenary session of the Canadian Regional Science Association in Victoria on M ay 31, 20 03. I app reciated v ery mu ch the q uestions and com ments that followed my presentation, and which were more generous than I had any right to expect. I am also grateful to SSHRC for fundin g the rese arch on w hich this p aper is b ased, to W. Isard and A. Scott for granting me interviews, and to S. Prudham and J. S eidl who provided logistical assistance and much m ore when I undertook archival work at respectively Cornell Univ & LSE. This paper overlaps in content with another paper of mine published in the Journal of Econo mic Geography, “The rise (and decline) of regional science: les sons for th e new e conom ic geography? ” The latter is concerned with using the history of regional science to think through the prospects of the new ec o no m ic geography, and represented especially by Paul Krugm an’s work. In contrast, this paper is concerned with making an argument about the decline of regional science based upon its universalist methodological position. * * Ed itor 's Note: It is appropriate that we start this first issue of the second quarter century of publication of the Canadian Journal of Regional Science with Trevor Barnes ' questioning of one of the conerns tones of Can adian regional scien ce. Becaus e of what Tre vor Barnes h as to say, I invited three colleagues to provid e their comm ents on his pa per. I hope this will encourage other readers to send in their own comments and analyses to our Dialogue section in subsequent issues