3 CONCEPT OF RESOURCE GEOGRAPHY

Peerzada Raouf Ahmad

epgp books

   

 

 

Learning Objectives:

 

After studying this unit you should be able to:

  • Discuss the concept of Resource Geography
  • Understand the types of concept in Resource Geography Explain the developments in Resource Geography

   

KEYWORDS

 

Social capital, use-value of resources, production factor, historical materialism

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Geography can be defined as study of area, line & dot. All the physical features found on the earth’s surface can be classified in the above three mathematical representations. But, to appreciate and make proper assessment of these features, human interference becomes the central theme for any study of the physical features. Human geography evolved from physical geography, when the geographers realized that resource can’t be studied in isolation from humans. Then, came the question of establishing a branch of geography which could study the economical relation of the human with the nature in a given spatial dimensions. These gave birth to resource geography, which studies not only the natural resources, but also provides a spatial analysis to the resources in context to the human economical needs. The subject was systematically designed to include human and their material aspect as a sub branch within the scope of the discipline. With time, resource geography became a merging point for the economic and political aspect of a branch of geography. This merging has given a space to the Marxist approach in resource distribution and spatial justice. The talk of social injustice involved in resource appraisal has become a new trend in geography. With geographers like David Harvey debunking the old bourgeois idea of static concept in resource geography, the discipline has developed itself into a dialectical science to study the human and nature relation within a spatial framework (HARVEY 2010).

 

Resource geography is an integrating subject for two major concepts in geography i.e. human and the nature. Nature in these disciplines implies natural resource and human includes human beings, their cultures and the technological advancement which has been achieved by humans as a collective whole. Concept of any subject is and should be flexible with time, i.e. it should keep on widening its scope so as to include every material change within the societal space, that concerns the nature of the discipline. In contiguous to this aspect, resource geography has been widening its horizon from once being a subject, which studied resources in an ‘as is where is’ vision. But in the present scenario and specially after the formation of the socialist republic, in USSR the scope of resource geography has widened to an unprecedented level. It has included in its horizon the study of spatial injustice involved in resource distribution and also in its appraisal. For the first time in the discipline’s history, resource management, its distribution and the question of the ownership was seen as an ideological apparatus of the capitalist state to subjugate and plunder people’s resources.

 

The human aspect in the discipline is explained as: –

 

“Human beings, through the labor they provide and the organizations they staff, are also considered to be resources, the term Human resources can also be defined as the skills, energies, talents, abilities and knowledge that are used for the production of goods or the rendering of services. In a project management context, human resources are those employees responsible for undertaking the actions defined in the project plan” (UNIVERSITY n.d.).

 

 

RELATIVE CONCEPT

 

From the framework of spatial human analysis of resources on the earth’s surface. Resource geography evolved a concept, which is relative to the patterns of human economic relational setup in a given natural framework of resources. The relativity involved gives a dialectical perspective to resource appraisal and management. There is an over lapping between the economics and geography of resources which can be analyzed only in a relative framework.

 

  From a substantive to a relational understanding

 

“Human action is relational in character because individuals do not act atomistically, without context” (Granovetter M 1992,). Economic decisions are made considering the social structure of the institutions and their relational attributes. This decides the policy frames and the set of actions that need to be done. This concept is to be applied in the field of resource in order to develop the relational understanding of resource in geo-spatial platform. One way of doing this is to [point out the shortcomings of conventional views on resource management. Resources are produced in a relational space having a relative connection with the various components of the resources. The process of resource production is done through the control over relational space that comprises of the political, economic and social make-up of the society around. This set of analysis brings us closer to the economic and social Geography but yet the resource centric study of society and economic is different from the traditional branches of geography. The ultimate utility of the resources is to be judged in accordance to the use value it generates. Resources generated on a relational space cannot be appropriated by an individual. In the following table “four types of resource which are increasingly important in the technology-intensive and knowledge-intensive economy: material resources, knowledge, power, and social capital” are shown (Glu«ckler 2005).

TABLE-1  (Glu«ckler 2005)

 

Material resources: – the explanation for the material resources goes as to explain the materiality of every source which satisfies human wants: “When we talk about material resources we usually think of raw materials, intermediate products, machinery, and equipment, as well as the different kinds of infrastructure which are used by firms, these resources are limited in terms of their availability, and are used up through consumption; there is therefore a shortage problem, which drives economic action according to neoclassical economics” (Peteraf M A 1993,). From a substantive view, these resources are production factors which can be acquired by firms and which are exploited according to the firm’s needs. In a relational understanding, material resources are not automatically viewed as factors with an inherent use-value and predetermined application. In this view, it is acknowledged that resources can be used in many different ways for different purposes. “The use-value of a resource depends upon the social context within which goals and capabilities are shaped. Resources can be defined as bundles of possible services” as said by Penrose. It is necessary to differentiate between resources and their respective services because it is possible to acquire and to characterize resources independently from the purpose they serve. Only the particular use determines the way in which they enter the production process as inputs, how valuable they are, and in what way they might strengthen a firm’s competitiveness. Penrose prefers the term `resource’ over `production factor’, as the latter does not allow for a distinction between the factor itself and its possible services: “Strictly speaking it is never resources themselves that are `inputs’ in the production process, but only the services that the resources can render”. “A relational concept of resources has consequences for the conceptualization of firms. In conventional economic analysis, firms are defined in terms of the outputs they produce. In a resource-based view of the firm, in contrast, a firm is defined according to its inputs. In this view, firms are defined as bundles of resources and can be characterized by their specific resource profile”(Mahoney J 1992,). Thus it is visible that different combination of resource can lead to different economic benefit to the firms. Only by distinguishing between material resources and their multiple potential applications is it possible to understand the heterogeneity of firms, their output specificity, and different strategies. Resources are not just the material that satisfies human present needs but is also the future of humans` political economic development. Firms do not necessarily gain higher returns than others because they have better resources. Their better performance is also a consequence of using their resources in a different or superior manner (P 2001). The difference in return between the best and second-best service of a particular resource can be defined as its `quasi-rent’ (Mahoney J 1992,). Here, the distinction between a substantive and relational understanding of resources becomes clear. Whereas in a substantive understanding resources are defined as objective production factors characterized by predefined input output relationships, in a relational understanding the multiplicity of potential services of these resources is emphasized. The particular use of a resource does not only depend on its physical characteristics but is also influenced by a number of contextual conditions, some of which are described below.

 

(1)  Firm-specific competencies. Each firm has a stock of knowledge, capabilities, and experience which it has developed over time and which shapes the identification of particular uses for the resources at hand. It is through these specific competencies that firms are able to integrate resources into their production processes in a particular way. The set of accumulated knowledge of a firm can also be viewed as a resource.

 

(2)  Mental model. The competencies of a firm are part of its overall mental model, or dominant logic. This interpretative framework impacts the way in which existing competencies are used, and enables a joint understanding of knowledge pools. The interpretations which are attached to the internal and external information flows of a firm indicate its organizational capabilities.

 

     Routines which have been developed over time, and through which new information can be processed and transformed into action, shape the interpretations. According to Nelson and Winter, organizational routines are the skills of a firm. Through the development and diffusion of new interpretative schemes, it is possible to reinterpret existing knowledge and to attach it to new uses, or to find new, innovative uses for existing resources.

 

(3) Market conditions. The potential returns of an innovative use of resources also depend on the productive opportunities and constraints in the market. These productive opportunities define which specific competencies can be combined with, or adjusted to one another for success. This depends on the overall competitive, demand, and supplier ^ customer environments capable of supplying innovative resource applications and of processing the resources further. External market conditions may also constrain the development and use of resources, depending, for instance, on the market power of key players or institutional constraints such as dominant technological standards.

 

Knowledge: – The distinction between resources and their possible services emphasizes that the value and use of material resources are not predetermined, but are contingent and depend on their particular social context. Hence substantive concepts of resources cannot explain how firms gain competitiveness and become innovative. To understand this fully we have to consider the processes of knowledge generation both within and outside the firm. Interdependencies between the knowledge basis and the structure and strategy of a firm generate a reflexive process of specialization through which particular capabilities are continuously reproduced and extended. At the same time, knowledge is not just the result of the previous productive use of resources: it can be conceptualized as a relational resource itself. In the knowledge-creation view of the firm, which can be viewed as a generalization of the resource-based view, knowledge is the decisive asset of a firm and knowledge creation is the key mechanism through which firms produce and sustain competitiveness. In this perspective, knowledge is viewed as the key resource of the developing reflexive or learning economy.

 

Power: –In substantive concepts, `power’ is viewed as a characteristic of an economic actor or organization based on ownership and control of material resources. According to this perspective, agents either have power or they have not. By controlling access to these resources, some actors in economic processes dominate others. In light of this understanding, critical analysts have described multinational firms as being extremely powerful primarily because of their size and capability to regulate access to resources and labor in international markets. This is sometimes recognized as the main cause of stagnation and underdevelopment in Third World countries and, in this line of thought, has to be fought against and limited by state intervention. This view still exists today in discussions about the power of firms versus that of nation-states (for example, Dicken, 2003). Although there is a lot of truth in this view, it is based on a limited conceptualization of power. Power cannot be regarded as an `inscribed capacity’ which an actor possesses based on ownership of resources (Allen J 1997). Using a geographical lens, we can find many examples which demonstrate that asymmetrical distributions of material resources do not determine the outcome of economic action, which is the major scope for study in resource geography. It can, for instance, be quite difficult for a firm to coordinate its production activities in remote branch plants located in different countries even if resource access is under the full control of headquarters. There are also many reports of international mergers and acquisitions which have failed because it has not been possible to synchronize the activities in the different workplaces despite centralized resource control.

 

Social capital: – A substantive understanding of resources presupposes that resources have objective, inherent values and that they can be assigned to specified actors based on property rights. As explained earlier the social ownership, distribution and appraisal is the part of resource geography. In the foregoing discussions of material resources, knowledge, and power we have already demonstrated that a substantive conceptualization can be quite problematic. In the case of social capital, it is virtually impossible to develop a useful substantive perspective. In contrast to material resources (or physical capital), social capital cannot be attributed to individual actors or firms. Generally, it refers to the opportunities that actors draw from the quality and structure of their relations with other actors in order to pursue individual objectives. Social capital is thus constituted in the very relations between the actors involved, and is a result of ongoing social practices. Actors simply do not have the universal capability to exploit networks according to their own goals. They can never possess or build social capital without the active involvement of others. This concept introduces a perspective that acknowledges nonpecuniary resources as a fundamental source of power and influence, and integrates these resources into a framework of multiple forms of capital.

 

 

MATERIAL CONCEPT

 

The material concept in the resource geography implies the material link to human perspective in resource appraisal and management. Matters in contemporary human geography are inextricably bound up in the historicity of particular thoughts and contestations over the currency and intelligibility of academic knowledge. it has to be stated that the focus on ‘materiality’ more appropriately dates back to Marxism’s (known as historical materialism) profound influence on geographical thought. This is to recall that Marxist geographers are largely concerned with the structural conditions of inequalities, class struggles and housing segregation (D 1973), which still remain crucial for some geographers to explore the material fabric of society. This inequality is materiality involved in the undemocratic management and distribution pattern in the resources. The question of appropriation for primary accumulation centers the question to resource geography. However, there are two points to be made. First, the emergence of these works has to be understood as part of a response to the persistent call to re-materialize human geography. Second, the successful (to some extent) re-materializing of human geography is not simply a ‘return’ to the brick and mortar of materiality. Instead, the traditional materialist understanding of inequalities, spatial segregation and discrimination based on social differences take on new meanings; and not a simple revisionist ideal of returning to the political economy approach. New theoretical-empirical lines of focus emerge (https://chengyien.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/materiality-human-geography-what-matters-next/ n.d.).

 

   Something rather strange has happened to ‘resource geography’. Issues of resource supply, resource control and the effects of rampant resource consumption on planetary health are now resurgent in geopolitics; questions about value and identity are articulated with stunning clarity in popular struggles over resource appropriation; ‘nature’ continues to enjoy a prolonged moment in the sun within academic inquiry; and yet the scope and purpose – even the existence – of a formal sub discipline of ‘resource geography’ are surprisingly unclear. This journal, for example, has not published work that identifies itself as resource geography since the early 1990s. The disappearance of resource geography as a formal field, however, is misleading. There is, on the one hand, a substantial body of work in the applied and teaching traditions of ‘resource management and ‘environmental conservation’ that embraces the term ‘resource’ unproblematic ally, and which seeks to organize, administer and produce new resource geographies that operationalize public and/or private management objectives like efficiency, the optimization of welfare, or ‘sustainability’. On the other hand, resources (soil, groundwater, timber, fish) form the empirical heart of some of the most exciting theoretically informed research by geographers in recent years: most often, however, this work flies under the flag of political ecology, eco-Marxism, agro food studies or environmental history, and applies to resources – rather than derives from them – theoretical approaches (like the production of nature or the social construction of nature) developed elsewhere in geography. In short, if resource geography is recognized at all it is most often as a managerialist agenda and not as a theoretically vibrant area of inquiry or a field with its own set of approaches. To a degree, this resurgence of studies of resource geographies was anticipated by call to place the ‘matter of nature’ squarely within the sights of a politically engaged human geography. FitzSimmons decried the ‘peculiar silence on the … geographical and historical dialectic between societies and their material environments’ within human geography, while acknowledging that calling forth ‘the material’ is not unproblematic. Indeed, as recent discussion of urban (im)materiality makes clear, concepts of materiality can be enlisted to shore up, as well as radically challenge, conventional modes of explanation. From the point of view of geographies of resources, the most interesting accounts of hybridity eschew this Toffleresque focus on the monstrous/miraculous objects of a ‘fast arriving tomorrow’ in favor of the hybrid’s potential for an ontological critique of materiality itself. Indeed, the significance of work on hybridity for resource geography lies not in the figure of the hybrid or quasi-object, which ultimately are rather blunt analytical devices (not least because of the profligacy of hybrids). It lies, rather, in the relational and distributed view of materiality that provides a way to unpack apparent permanencies and stabilities, and to show how the competencies and capacities of ‘things’ are not intrinsic but derive from association (htt31).

 

 

SUMMARY

 

–  With time, resource geography became a merging point for the economic and political aspect of a branch of geography. This merging has given a space to the Marxist approach in resource distribution and spatial justice.

 

–Resources are not only bundles of potential services, but are also assets for future returns.

 

–Something rather strange has happened to ‘resource geography’. Issues of resource supply, resource control and the effects of rampant resource consumption on planetary health are now resurgent in geopolitics; questions about value and identity are articulated with stunning clarity in popular struggles over resource appropriation.

you can view video on CONCEPT OF RESOURCE GEOGRAPHY

 

References

  • Allen J. 1997. ““Economies of power and space”.” Geographies of Economies.
  • D, Harvey. 1973. Social Justice and the City. Edward Arnold, London.
  • Glu«ckler, Harald Bathelt & Johannes. 2005. “Resources in economic geography: from substantive concepts.” Environment and Planning A 2005, volume 37, . Granovetter M. 1992,. “Economic institutions as social constructions: a framework for analysis”.
  • HARVEY, DAVID. 2010. CLIMATE AND CAPITALISM. MAY 23. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2010/05/23/david-harvey-the-political-implications-of-population-resources-theory/.
  • https://chengyien.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/materiality-human-geography-what-matters-next/.
  • Mahoney J, Pandian J R,. 1992,. “The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic.
  • P, Maskell. 2001. “The firm in economic geography” Economic Geography .
  • Peteraf M A. 1993,. “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view” Strategic.
  • UNIVERSITY, RAI TECHONOLOGY. n.d. world economic geogrsphy.
  • http://lasisummerschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Bakker_Bridge_2016.pdf.