i This chapter was written while I held a Hallsworth Research Fellowship in Political Economy in the School of Geography at Manchester University. I am grateful to my colleagues there for many fruitful discussions which have helped to shape my analysis. The usual disclaimers apply.
ii The recent turbulence in East Asian economies does not signify the end of that challenge -- their restructuring could, in due course, strengthen their competitiveness.
iii This can occur either by reducing the time a given 'event' takes to produce within a given spatial frame of action; or by increasing the ability to discriminate more steps in an 'event' and so enhancing opportunities to modify its course or outcome by intervening into the event as it happens.
iv One could ask interesting questions about the unequal distribution of capacities to shape social relations over time and space and/or to compress the timing of events and to overcome the frictions of space. They concern both different types of actors within the same system (e.g., financial vs. industrial capital) and different types of actors across systems (e.g., global economic players vs. national state managers).
v Whereas the former term refers to the relative availability of factors of production and their impact on the spatial division of labor, the latter two terms refer in different ways to the sources of dynamic collective efficiency in a socially embedded, socially regularized economy. More specifically, these two concepts refer to the capacity of economic spaces to compete through the creation and retention of core economic competences with strong vertical and horizontal integration in a number of interrelated sectors together with the specific socio-political and cultural supports necessary for these always socially embedded, always socially regulated economic activities to occur and prosper. Different modalities of structural and/or systemic competitiveness have been identified in the literature and these can be linked in turn to position in the global hierarchy of economic spaces and the capacities to move within (or transform) that hierarchy.
vi This does not mean that accumulation and reproduction were ever contained within the framework of individual national economies and national states. It means only that these provided the scalar fix within which local and supra-national processes occurred.
vii Another meaning of postnational is also relevant. This is the movement from a nation-state (whether Volksnation, Kulturnation, or Staatsnation) towards a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and more 'diasporic' society within given national territorial borders.
viii These termes are defined in Jessop 1982: 254-255.
ix The temporal dimension of low is capture in the metaphors of ‘liquidity’ and ‘stickiness’.
x The KWNS had its own hidden forms of exclusion and marginalization too, of course, even within the national state framework. These intensified during the 1970s and helped contribute to its crisis. The KWNS also imposed costs on the economies, states and societies which were outside the virtuous circle of Atlantic Fordism.
xi The following argument is indebted to the work of Carpi (1997) but has been rephrased to fit with the more general approach developed in earlier parts of the chapter.
xii The concept of ‘reabsorption’ derives from Gramsci’s prison notebooks (Gramsci 1971). But it needs to be re-specified in the light of subsequent economic, political, and social developments, including those noted above.