Progress in Human Geography 26,3 (2002) pp.

391400

Political geography: globalization,

metapolitical geographies and
everyday life
Colin Flint
Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA 16802, USA

I Introduction

The processes of globalization dominate contemporary political geography, and their

multifaceted expressions reinforce the plurality of the subdiscipline (Slater, 2000).
Seeing globalization as the spatial and sectoral unification of systems of valuation
(Webber, 2000) uncovers political geographies of equalization and differentiation
(Harvey, 2000; Smith, 2000a) or a dialectical process of homogenization and differentia-
tion (Yeung, 1998). Moreover, everyday political practices that constitute globalization
are constructing a new metageography, a move away from the dominance of nation
states in thought and practice and the emergence of networks (Agnew, 1999; Taylor,
2000a). Political geography is tilling the fertile field of inquiry established by globaliza-
tion through the study of geopolitics, broadly defined as the spatiality of power
struggles between a variety of political actors.

II Geopolitics

It is no longer accurate to talk of the revival of geopolitics. Rather, the consolidation of

geopolitics is more apt. Political geographers have placed the contested nature of
defining political spaces, through both words and action, at the heart of geographical
thought and established significant bridgeheads of engagement with international
relations and international political economy. Yet the study of geopolitics faces an
important moment. The time is ripe for geographers critiquing geopolitical thought to

Arnold 2002 10.1191/0309132502ph377pr

392 Political geography

move beyond deconstruction and wrestle with the ontological problems of creating
alternative spaces (Agnew, 2000a).
The task of deconstructing dominant tropes that structure our world-views and hide
power relations continues (Moisio, 1998; Tuathail, 1999; Sharp, 2000; Takagi, 1998;
Tuason, 1999), as does a discussion of the legacies of past geopolitical thought (Dodds
and Atkinson, 2000; Mayhew, 2000). Also, geopolitics, as the geographic expression of
power relations, is seen to extend into the realms of food supply (Boland, 2000), and
development and water policies (Brown, 2000; Kartin, 2000).
Agnews ontological critique requires a consideration of how the foundations laid by
critical geopolitics can lead to analyses that look at the construction of sites, tech-
nologies, power, and identities that are not simply textual (Agnew, 2000a: 98). Two
alternative, yet complementary, paths are suggested by Thrift (2000) and Taylor (2000a).
Following Billig (1995), Thrift calls for a consideration of how everyday practices
construct identity and forms of governance, though some would, perhaps, say that this
is what deconstruction does ( Tuathail, 1999; Sharp, 2000). Taylor (2000b) expands the
vision of geopolitics to alternative structures that will challenge the embedded statism
of geopolitical thought and practice. A combination of the views of Thrift and Taylor is
possible by the invigoration of a truly Braudellian world-systems analysis that is, a
study of the capitalist world economy that does not merely pay lip service to the insti-
tutions and practices of everyday life but promotes them as the focus of structural
analysis rather than abstract and macro trends and structures (Arrighi and Silver, 1999;
Taylor, 1999; Wallerstein, 1999).
A geopolitical perspective on identity and movement is a means to make the
transition to the analysis of new sites and means of political action called for by Agnew
(2000a). Globalization has required a change in military strategy by powerful countries
(Ek, 2000) and also a change in the way that wars are fought (Kaldor, 1999). Moreover,
it has created a geography of flows and relationships ( Tuathail, 1998; 2000) and
consequent political resistance (Gallaher, 2000). One important implication of this new
geography is the demise of embedded statism, and, hence, the taken-for-granted
primacy of national identity (Taylor, 2000a; 2000b). In a time of geopolitical instability,
geopolitical issues have greater saliency (Heffernan, 2000). Moreover, the negotiation of
a new metageography means that contemporary geopolitical thought will be strongly
tied to the defense of old, and the establishment of new, identities (Bradnock, 1998;
Goodman, 1998; Newman, 2000; Rumley, 1999; Smith, 1999).

III Identity

Geopolitics of flows have challenged the ability of state borders to define national
identity (Knippenburg and Markusse, 1999) and increased the importance of identities
operating at other scales (Herb and Kaplan, 1999). Challenges to national identity
require a consideration of its relationship to other identities, such as race and gender
(Radcliffe, 1999a; Tyner, 1999). The result is a concentration on the body (Harvey, 2000;
Simonsen, 2000), questions of femininity and masculinity, and the engendering of
citizenship (Dwyer, 2000; McEwan, 2000). In sum, the dualisms of otherness required
 Colin Flint 393

by the nation state are challenged (Anderson, 2000).

It is in this move from a deconstruction of the nation state to an analysis of new
identities and political spaces that geopolitics has been making the transition to the
identification and analysis of new ontologies. The identification of political practices
that undermine the nation state, such as transnational communities, borderland
identities and spiritual movements (Mandaville, 1999) or diasporas (Kolst, 1999), and
the consequent extraterritorial expansion of political constituencies (Laguerre, 1999),
produces different understandings of the state (Doty, 1999). Experiences of migrants
and refugees challenge dominant views of the world and explore spaces of belonging
and exclusion other than the state (Indra, 1999; Lawson, 2000), particularly through the
notion of transversality (Soguk and Whitehall, 1999). In sum, processes of deterritorial-
ization and reterritorialization not only raise questions about the power and role of the
state but also have implications for identity, language and semantics (Pringle, 1998).
Globalization and its challenges to national identity are also promoting the
importance of place-based identities, and their role in political struggles. The role of the
symbolism of places in mobilizing and legitimating politics is seen within national
contexts (Alderman, 2000; Azaryahu, 1999; Azaryahu and Kellerman, 1999; Sucharov,
1998). In addition, contests between place-specific identities and state and global
hegemonic practices are visible (McNeill, 2000; Raento and Watson, 2000), as is the
dynamism of territorial constructions as the political battles they legitimate change
(Giordano, 2000; Peckham, 2000). As the current metageography is changing, it is
informative to see the role of identity and spatial othering in previous epochs (Jones,
2000), while the discovery of new metageographies requires establishing the connection
between subjective identities and sovereignty (Edkins et al., 1999).

IV Sovereignty

The issues of geopolitics, identity and metageographies come together in the study of
state sovereignty. Processes of globalization under the stewardship of American
hegemony (Eva, 1998; Slater, 1999) have disrupted the notion of the homogeneous
nation state and required analysis of the form and functions of states (Barton, 1999;
Hudson, 2000). Though there is evidence of the changing spatiality of power towards
the geographical expression of networks (Agnew, 1999), we must be careful of making
claims that are cavalier with history. Power was expressed through networks in the
medieval period (Jones, 1999), and, though networks of relationships are important in
defining contemporary geographies of investment (Yeung, 2000), states still play an
important role in mediating global flows (Dos, 1999; Lin, 2000).
The contribution political geographers are making lies in the detailed studies of
exactly how state sovereignty is changing, and the new spatialities of power negotiated
within the push and pull of centripetal globalizing forces and centrifugal forces of
regionalism, separatism and nationalism (Kavanagh, 1998). Case studies have
identified pseudo-, quasi- or trans-state entities (OLoughlin et al., 1998; Relyea, 1998;
394 Political geography

Sparke, 1998) and causal processes, such as the politics of ethnic identification
(Kolossov and OLoughlin, 1998) or the role of illegal flows and illicit forms of
governance (Luke and Toal, 1998).

V Borders

If we are experiencing a change in metageographies from that of nation states to one of

networks (Taylor, 2000a; 2000c), then borders are obvious sites of change in state
sovereignty and collective identity (Newman and Paasi, 1998; Newman, 1999). Borders
are components of larger geopolitical structures (Brunn, 1998; Dalby, 1998) and yet are
granted multiple meanings by a variety of actors (Anderson and ODowd, 1999a; Paasi,
1998). Borderland processes provide the potential for inter- and intrastate conflict or
new trans-state forms of organization or identity (Donnan and Wilson, 1999; Heyman,
1999; Kaplan, 2000), including the tension between ethnonationalist borders and the
increasing permeability of borders to commercial transactions (Anderson and ODowd,
1999b). Such analyses require a breadth of theoretical frameworks, including the
psychology of human agents (van Houtum, 1999), postmodern views (Albert, 1998) and
regulation theory (Scott, 1999). The significance of border studies is their relationship to
issues of sovereignty and governance (Church and Reid, 1999; Perkmann, 1999), and
seeing borders as institutions is the most productive way of using borderlands to
investigate how new spaces of power are managed and controlled (Hudson, 1998;
Lustik, 1999; Mercer, 1999; Steinberg, 1999).

VI Governance

A changing metageography produces changes in governance with regard to relations

between, and control within, states. Analyses of how global cities create new forms of
governance highlight the potential for a new metageography (Beaverstock et al., 2000a;
2000b; Taylor 2000c; Taylor and Hoyler, 2000). On the other hand, extensive analysis of
the United Kingdom shows that the form of local governance is changing (Bennett,
2000; Imre and Raco, 1999; Jones and MacLeod, 1999; Valler et al., 2000; Ward, 2000).
Such changes in the form of the state are tied to issues of regional identity (Tomaney
1999a; 1999b; 2000) leading, perhaps, to the breakup of Britain (Lynch, 1999; Mohan,
1999; Nairn, 2000).
Discussions of governmentality show how the central state shapes local and regional
institutional practices (MacKinnon, 2000; MacLeod and Goodman, 1999; Webb and
Collis, 2000). Governance is a matter of the political construction of geographic scale
(Sadler, 2000), or the impact of the nature of the state on everyday life (Robbins, 2000);
for others, it is the coming together of networks of political actors to define the spatial
extent of particular political issues (Hkli, 1998).
The goal for political geography is to relate local experiences of governance to macro-
changes. For example, Lester et al. (2000) relate transitions in the form of governance in
South Africa to global shifts in capitalist production, and debates framed by globally
hegemonic groups. Thus, the politics of the everyday is linked, recursively, to structural
change (Thrift, 2000; Taylor 2000a).
 Colin Flint 395

VII Voting

What role can electoral geography play in a political geography of globalization?

Studies of elections at the national scale have extended beyond the United Kingdom
and the USA to include South Africa (Lemon and Fox, 2000), Russia (Clem and
Craumer, 2000; Gehlbach, 2000; Hough, 1998) and Ukraine (Craumer and Clem, 1999).
Also, electoral geography is making advancements in its knowledge of how voters
perceive the local (Johnston et al., 2000; Pattie and Johnston, 2000; Tunstall et al., 2000),
and the role of party organization and financing (Forrest et al., 1999; Johnston and
Forrest, 2000). Elections are also being linked to other political processes and structures,
such as patriarchy (Webster, 2000) and civil society (OLoughlin and Bell, 1999).
However, electoral geographers must realize that their theoretical contribution is
limited if they see local action only within a national setting. Instead, the mutuality of
the local and global scales should be addressed, with local voter support for the extreme
right as a reaction to global migration flows as an example (De Vos and Deurloo, 1999).
Electoral geographers should be making explicit theoretical connections between the
actions of voters within localities and global flows and structures.

VIII Conclusion

How to make sense of the politics of globalization? On the one hand, it seems that
theoretical frameworks that are already in existence are still useful. The centripetal and
centrifugal forces of globalization may be interpreted using the Marxist notions of
equalization and differentiation (Harvey, 2000; Smith, 2000a; Swyngedouw, 2000).
However, Marxists do need to reintegrate class with issues of identity and cultural
politics (Smith, 2000b). A consideration of structure as a much deeper causative force
than recognized by structuraton theory is seen to be important by Dodgshon (1998),
perpetuating the relevance of world-systems theory to political geography (Shelley and
Flint, 2000). Perhaps though, a changing metageography requires new and innovative
theories? For example, actor network theory has been promoted as a way of investigat-
ing the translation of power through different institutional settings (Holloway, 2000).
Agreeing with Thrifts (2000) call for the study of the everyday and Taylors (2000a)
call for metageographies seems common sense, but requires theoretical creativity.
Potential avenues lie in the suggestion that human geography must be relational rather
than dualistic (Massey, 1999), requiring the study of networks in their totality (Taylor,
2000b) and emphasizing the role of power (Allen, 1999) and scale (Harvey, 2000;
Marston, 2000; Radcliffe, 1999b). The spatiality of global politics is again at the forefront
of debate, and so now is the time to create spatial theories of the transfer and commu-
nication of power (Allen, 1999). While discussions with political scientists and interna-
tional relations scholars often display a troubling lack of mutual understanding (Elazar,
1999; Murphy, 1999), the equalizing and differentiating nature of globalization suggests
that intradisciplinary and transnational connections may be more productive (Slater,
1999; 2000).
Finally, spatial theories of power are best developed in conjunction with an analytic
mode of inquiry which can remain eclectic while following the guidelines of
developing rigorous typologies and ideal-types of organizations and behaviors that are
396 Political geography

then put to use in classifying and analyzing real-world cases (Agnew, 2000b: 91). The
freedom to call for spatial typologies and ideal-types shows that political geography
has successfully acknowledged and learned from the classical geopolitical skeleton in
the cupboard and can, with confidence, investigate the spatiality of the many power
contests in the changing world.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Lorraine Dowler for her helpful comments.

References

Agnew, J. 1999: Mapping political power beyond
state boundaries: territory, identity, and
movement in world politics. Millenium 28,
499521.
2000a: Global political geography beyond
geopolitics. International Studies Review 2, 919.
2000b: Classics in human geography
revisited. Progress in Human Geography 24,
913.
Albert, M. 1998: On boundaries, territory and
postmodernity: an international relations
perspective. Geopolitics 3(1), 5368.
Alderman, D.H. 2000: A street fit for a King:
naming places and commemoration in the
American South. Professional Geographer 52,
67284.
Allen, P. 1999: Spatial assemblages of power:
from domination to empowerment. In Massey,
D., Allen, J. and Sarre, P., editors, Human
geography today, Cambridge: Polity Press,
194218.
Anderson, J. and ODowd, L. 1999a: Borders,
border regions and territoriality: contradictory
meanings, changing significance. Regional
Studies 33, 593604.
1999b: Contested borders: globalization and
ethno-national conflict in Ireland. Regional
Studies 33, 68196.
Anderson, K. 2000: Thinking postnationally:
dialogue across multicultural, indigenous and
settler spaces. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 90, 38191.
Arrighi, G. and Silver, B.J. 1999: Chaos and
governance in the modern world system.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Azaryahu, M. 1999: McDonalds or Golani
Junction? A case of a contested place in Israel.
Professional Geographer 51, 48192.
Azaryahu, M. and Kellerman, A. 1999: Symbolic
places of national history and revival: A study
in Zionist mythical geography. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers NS 24, 10923.
Barton, J.R. 1999: Flags of convenience:
Geoeconomics and regulatory minimisation.
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
90, 14255.
Beaverstock, J.V., Smith, R.G. and Taylor, P.J.
2000a: Geographies of globalization: United
States law firms in world cities. Urban
Geography 21, 95120.
2000b: World-city network: a new meta-
geography? Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 90, 12334.
Bennett, P. 2000: Environmental governance and
private actions: enrolling insurers in interna-
tional maritime regulation. Political Geography,
19, 875900.
Billig, M. 1995: Banal nationalism. London and
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boland, A. 2000: Feeding fears: competing
discourses of interdependency, sovereignty,
and Chinas food security. Political Geography
19, 5576.
Bradnock, R.W . 1998: Regional geopolitics in a
globalizing world: Kashmir in geopolitical
perspective. Geopolitics 3(2), 129.
Brown, E. 2000: Still their backyard? The US and
post-Mitch development strategies in
Nicaragua. Political Geography 19, 54372.
Brunn, S. 1998: A treaty of silicon for the Treaty of
Westphalia? New territorial dimensions of
modern statehood. Geopolitics 3(1), 10631.
Church, A. and Reid, P. 1999: Cross-border
cooperation, institutionalization and political
space across the English Channel. Regional
Studies 33, 64355.
Clem, R.S. and Craumer, P.R. 2000: Spatial
patterns of political choice in the post Yeltsin

era: the electoral geography of Russias 2000
Presidential election. Post-Soviet Geography and
Economics 41, 46582.
Craumer, P.R. and Clem, J.I. 1999: Ukraines
emerging electoral geography: a regional
analysis of the 1998 Parliamentary elections.
Post-Soviet Geography and Economics 40, 126.
Dalby, S. 1998: Globalization or global
apartheid? Boundaries and knowledge in
postmodern times. Geopolitics 3, 1, 13250.
De Vos, S. and Deurloo, R. 1999: Right extremist
votes and the presence of foreigners: an
analysis of the 1994 elections in Amsterdam.
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
90, 12941.
Dodds, K. and Atkinson, D., editors 2000:
Geopolitical traditions: a century of geopolitical
thought. London and New York: Routledge.
Dodgshon, R.A. 1998: Society in time and space: a
geographical perspective on change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Donnan, H. and Wilson, T.M. 1999: Borders:
frontiers of identity, nation and state. Oxford and
New York: Berg.
Dos, R.J. 1999: The spatiality of class and state
power: the case of Indias land reforms.
Environment and Planning A 31, 210326.
Doty, R.L. 1999: Racism, desire, and the politics
of immigration. Millennium 28, 585606.
Dwyer, O.J. 2000: Interpreting the Civil Rights
Movement: place, memory and conflict.
Professional Geographer 52, 66071.
Edkins, J., Persram, N. and Pin-Fat, V., editors
1999: Sovereignty and subjectivity. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner.
Elazar, D.J. 1999: Political science, geography,
and the spatial dimension of politics. Political
Geography 18, 87586.
Ek, R. 2000: A revolution in military geopolitics?
Political Geography 19, 84174.
Eva, F. 1998: International boundaries, geopolitics
and the (post)modern territorial discourse: the
functional fiction. Geopolitics 3, 1, 3252.
Forrest, J., Johnston, R.J. and Pattie, C.J. 1999:
The effectiveness of constituency campaign
spending in Australian state elections during
times of electoral volatility: the New South
Wales case, 198895. Environment and Planning
A 31, 111928.
Gallaher, C. 2000: Global change, local angst:
class and the American Patriot Movement.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
Colin Flint 397
18, 66792.
Gehlbach, S. 2000: Shifting electoral geography
in Russias 1991 and 1996 presidential
elections. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics
41, 37987.
Giordano, B. 2000: Italian regionalism or
Padanian nationalism the political project of
the Lega Nord in Italian politics. Political
Geography 19, 44571.
Goodman, J. 1998: Post-cold war self-determina-
tion: Ireland and East Timor. Geopolitics 3(3),
5382.
Hkli, J. 1998: Cross-border regionalisation in the
New Europe theoretical reflections with two
illustrative examples. Geopolitics 3, 3, 83103.
Harvey, D. 2000: Spaces of hope. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Heffernan, M. 2000: Fin de sicle, fin du monde?
On the origins of European geopolitics,
18901920. In Dodds, K. and Atkinson, D.,
editors, Geopolitical traditions: a century of geopo-
litical thought, London and New York:
Routledge, 2751.
Herb, G. and Kaplan, D.H., editors 1999: Nested
identities: nationalism, territory, and scale.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Heyman, J.M. 1999: Why interdiction?
Immigration control at the United States-
Mexican border. Regional Studies 33, 61930.
Holloway, J. 2000: Institutional geographies of
the New Age movement. Geoforum 31, 55365.
Hough, J.F. 1998: The political geography of
European Russia: republics and oblasts. Post-
Soviet Geography and Economics 39, 6395.
Hudson, A. 1998: Beyond the borders: globalisa-
tion, sovereignty and extra-territoriality.
Geopolitics 3(1), 89105.
2000: Offshoreness, globalization and
sovereignty: a postmodern geopolitical
economy? Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers NS 25, 26984.
Imrie, R. and Raco, M. 1999: How new is the new
local governance? Lessons from the United
Kingdom. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers NS 24, 4563.
Indra, D., editor 1999: Engendering forced
migration: theory and practice. New York:
Berghahn Books.
Johnston, R. and Forrest, J. 2000: Constituency
election campaigning under the alternative
vote: the New South Wales Legislative
Assembly election, 1995. Area 32, 10717.
Johnston, R., Dorling, D., Tunstall, H., Rossiter,
398 Political geography
D., MacAllister, I. and Pattie, C. 2000: Locating
the altruistic voter: context, egocentric voting,
and support for the Conservative Party at the
1997 General Election in England and Wales.
Environment and Planning A 32, 67394.
Jones, M. and MacLeod, G. 1999: Towards a
regional renaissance? Reconfiguring and
rescaling Englands economic governance.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
NS 24, 295313.
Jones, R. 1999: Mann and men in a medieval
state: the geographies of power in the Middle
Ages. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers NS 24, 6578.
2000: Changing geographies of governance
and group identities in the Middle Ages: The
role of social interaction and conflict. Political
Geography 19, 90126.
Kaldor, M. 1999: New and old wars: organized
violence in a global era. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Kaplan, D.H. 2000: Conflict and compromise
among borderland identities in northern Italy.
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
91, 4460.
Kartin, A. 2000: Factors inhibiting structural
changes in Israels water policy. Political
Geography 19, 97130.
Kavanagh, A. 1998: Postmodernity, globalisation
and nationalist conflict in the former
Yugoslavia. Geopolitics 3(3), 3452.
Knippenberg, H. and Markusse, J., editors 1999:
Nationalising and denationalising European border
regions, 18002000: Views from geography and
history. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.
Kolossov, V. and OLoughlin, J. 1998: Pseudo-
states as harbingers of a new geopolitics: The
example of the Trans-Dniester Moldovian
Republic (TMR). Geopolitics 3(1), 15176.
Kolst, P. 1999: Territorialising diasporas: the
case of Russians in the former Soviet Republics.
Millennium 28, 60731.
Laguerre, M.S. 1999: State, diaspora, and
transnational politics: Haiti reconceptualised.
Millennium 28, 63351.
Lawson, V.A. 2000: Arguments within
geographies of movement: the theoretical
potential of migrants stories. Progress in
Human Geography 24, 17389.
Lemon, A. and Fox, R. 2000: Consolidating
democracy in South Africa: the second open
election. Area 32, 33744.
Lester, A., Nel, E. and Binns, T. 2000: South
Africas current transition in temporal and
spatial context. Antipode 32, 13551.
Lin, G.C.S. 2000: State, capital, and space in
China in an age of volatile globalization.
Environment and Planning A 32, 45571.
Luke T.W . and Toal, G. 1998: The fraying
modern map: failed states and contraband
capitalism. Geopolitics 3(3), 1433.
Lustik, I.S. 1999: Geography and political
science. Political Geography 18, 901904.
Lynch, P. 1999: New Labour and the English
Regional Development Agencies: devolution as
evolution. Regional Studies 33, 7378.
MacKinnon, D. 2000: Managerialism, govern-
mentality and the state: a neo-Foucauldian
approach to local economic governance.
Political Geography 19, 293314.
MacLeod, G. and Goodman, M. 1999: Space,
scale and state strategy: rethinking urban and
regional governance. Progress in Human
Geography 23, 50327.
Mandaville, P.G. 1999: Territory and translocali-
ty: discrepant idioms of political identity.
Millennium 28, 65373.
Marston, S.A. 2000: The social construction of
scale. Progress in Human Geography 24, 21942.
Massey, D. (with the collective) 1999: Issues and
debates. In Massey, D., Allen, J. and Sarre, P.,
editors, Human geography today, Cambridge:
Polity Press, 321.
Mayhew, R. 2000: Halford Mackinders new
political geography and the geographical
tradition. Political Geography 19, 77191.
McEwan, C. 2000: Engendering citizenship:
gendered spaces of democracy in South Africa.
Political Geography 19, 62751.
McNeill, D. 2000: McGuggenisation? National
identity and globalisation in the Basque
country. Political Geography 19, 47394.
Mercer, D. 1999: Closing the gap: Australian-
Indonesian relations, the perilous moment
and the Maritime Boundary Zone. Tijdschrift
voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 90, 6179.
Mohan, J., editor 1999: A United Kingdom?
Economic, social and political geographies.
London: Arnold.
Moisio, S. 1998: Finland, geopolitical image of
threat and the post-Cold War confusion.
Geopolitics 3(3), 10424.
Murphy, A.B. 1999: Living together separately.
Thoughts on the relationship between political
science and political geography. Political
Geography 18, 88794.
Nairn, T. 2000: After Britain: New Labour and the
return of Scotland. London: Granta Books.

Newman, D., editor 1999: Boundaries, territory and
postmodernity. London: Frank Cass.
2000: Citizenship, identity, and location: the
changing discourse of Israeli geopolitics. In
Dodds, K. and Atkinson, D., editors,
Geopolitical traditions: a century of geopolitical
thought, London and New York: Routledge,
30231.
Newman, D. and Paasi, A. 1998: Fences and
neighbours in the postmodern world:
boundary narratives in political geography.
Progress in Human Geography 22, 186207.
OLoughlin J. and Bell, J.E. 1999: The political
geography of civic engagement in Ukraine.
Post-Soviet Geography and Economics 40, 23366.
OLoughlin, J., Kolossov, V. and Tchepalyga, A.
1998: National construction, territorial
separatism, and post-Soviet geopolitics in the
Transdniester Moldovan Republic. Post-Soviet
Geography and Economics 39, 33258.
Tuathail, G. 1998: De-territorialised threats
and global dangers: geopolitics and risk
society. Geopolitics 3(1), 1731.
1999: A strategic sign: the geopolitical signif- Shelley, F.M. and Flint, C. 2000: Geography,
icance of Bosnia in US foreign policy.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
17, 51533.
2000: The postmodern geopolitical
condition: states, statecraft and security at the
millennium. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 90, 16678.
Paasi, A. 1998: Boundaries as social processes:
territoriality in the world of flows. Geopolitics
3(1), 6988.
Pattie, C. and Johnston, R. 2000: People who talk
together vote together : an exploration of
contextual effects in Great Britain. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 90, 4166.
Peckham, R.S. 2000: Map mania. Political
Geography 19, 7796.
Perkmann, M. 1999: Building governance institu-
tions across European borders. Regional Studies
33, 65767.
Pringle, D.G. 1998: Globalisation, reterritorialisa-
tion and national identity. Geopolitics 3(3), 113.
Radcliffe, S.A. 1999a: Embodying national
identities: mestizo men and white women in
Ecuadorian racial-national imaginaries.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
NS 24, 21325.
1999b: Popular and state discourses of
power. In Massey, D., Allen, J. and Sarre, P.,
editors, Human geography today, Cambridge:
Colin Flint 399
Polity Press, 21942.
Raento, P. and Watson, C.J. 2000: Gernika,
Guernica, Guernica? Contested meanings of a
Basque place. Political Geography 19, 70736.
Relyea, S. 1998: Trans-state entities: postmodern
cracks in the great Westphalian dam. Geopolitics
3(2), 3061.
Robbins, P. 2000: The rotten institution:
corruption in natural resource management.
Political Geography 19, 42343.
Rumley, D. 1999: The geopolitics of Australias
regional relations. Dordrecht and Boston:
Kluwer.
Sadler, D. 2000: Organizing European labour:
governance, production, trade unions and the
question of scale. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers NS 25, 13552.
Scott, J.W. 1999: European and North American
contexts for cross-border regionalism. Regional
Studies 33, 60517.
Sharp, J.P. 2000: Condensing the Cold War: Readers
Digest and American identity. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
place, and world-systems analysis. In Hall,
T.D., editor, A world-systems reader: new perspec-
tives on gender, urbanism, cultures, indigenous
peoples, and ecology, Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Simonsen, K. 2000: Editorial: the body as
battlefield. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers NS 25, 79.
Slater, D. 1999: Situating geopolitical representa-
tions: inside/outside and the power of
imperial interventions. In Massey, D., Allen, J.
and Sarre, P., editors, Human geography today,
Cambridge: Polity Press, 6284.
2000: The processes and prospect of political
geography. Political Geography 19, 14.
Smith, G. 1999: The masks of Proteus: Russia,
geopolitical shift and the new Eurasianism.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
NS 24, 48194.
Smith, N. 2000a: Author s response. Progress in
Human Geography 24, 27174.
2000b: What happened to class? Environment
and Planning A 32, 101132.
Soguk, N. and Whitehall, G. 1999: Wandering
grounds: transversality, identity, territoriality
and movement. Millennium 28, 67598.
Sparke, M. 1998: From geopolitics to geoeconom-
ics: transnational state effects in the
borderlands. Geopolitics 3(2), 6298.
Steinberg, P.E. 1999: Lines of division, lines of
connection: stewardship in the world ocean.
400 Political geography
The Geographical Review 89, 25464.
Sucharov, M. 1998: Regional identity and the
sovereignty principle: explaining Israeli-
Palestinian peacemaking. Geopolitics 3(1),
17796.
Swyngedouw, E. 2000: Classics in human
geography revisited. Progress in Human
Geography 24, 26668.
Takagi, A. 1998: Japanese nationalism and geo-
graphical thought. Geopolitics 3(3), 12539.
Taylor, P.J. 1999: Places, spaces and Macys:
place-space tensions in the political geography
of modernities. Progress in Human Geography 23,
726.
2000a: Geopolitics, political geography and
social science. In Dodds, K. and Atkinson, D.,
editors, Geopolitical traditions: a century of geopo-
litical thought, London and New York:
Routledge, 37579.
2000b: Embedded statism and the social
sciences 2: geographies (and metageographies)
in globalization. Environment and Planning A 32,
110514.
2000c: World cities and territorial states
under conditions of contemporary globalisa-
tion. Political Geography 19, 533.
Taylor, P.J. and Hoyler, M. 2000: The spatial order
of European cities under conditions of contem-
porary globalisation. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie 91, 17689.
Thrift, N. 2000: Its the little things. In Dodds, K.
and Atkinson, D., editors, Geopolitical traditions:
a century of geopolitical thought, London and
New York: Routledge, 38087.
Tomaney, J. 1999a: New Labour and the English
question. Political Quarterly 70, 7482.
1999b: In search of English regionalism: the
case of the north east. Scottish Affairs 28, 6282.
2000: Democratically elected regional
government in England: the work of the North
East Constitutional Convention. Regional
Studies 34, 38388.
Tuason, J.A. 1999: The ideology of empire in
National Geographic Magazines coverage of the
Philippines, 18981908. The Geographical Review
89, 3453.
Tunstall, H., Rossiter, D.J., Pattie, C.J.,
MacAllister, I., Johnston, R.J. and Dorling,
D.F.L. 2000: Geographical scale, the feel good
factor and voting in the 1997 General Election
in England and Wales. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers NS 25, 5164.
Tyner, J.A. 1999: The geopolitics of eugenics and
the exclusion of Philippine immigrants from
the United States. The Geographical Review 89,
5473.
Valler, D., Wood, A. and North, P. 2000: Local
governance and local business interests: a
critical review. Progress in Human Geography 24,
40928.
van Houtum, H. 1999: Internationalisation and
mental borders. Tijdschrift voor Economische en
Sociale Geografie 90, 32935.
Wallerstein, I. 1999: The end of the world as we
know it: social science for the twenty-first century.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ward, K.G. 2000: A critique in search of a corpus:
re-visiting governance and re-interpreting
urban politics. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers NS 25, 16985.
Webb, D. and Collis, C. 2000: Regional
Development Agencies and the new
regionalism in England. Regional Studies 34,
85764.
Webber, M. 2000: Globalisation: local agency, the
global economy, and Australias industrial
policy. Environment and Planning A 32, 116376.
Webster, G. 2000: Women, politics, elections, and
citizenship. Journal of Geography 99, 110.
Yeung, H.W . 1998: Capital, state and space:
contesting the borderless world. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers NS 23,
291309.
2000: Local politics and foreign ventures in
Chinas transitional economy: The political
economy of Singaporean investments in China.
Political Geography 19, 80940.