The Problem with Cumulative Causation

Some of you have downloaded the Development notes (in PDF format) from the LMS, and have asked me why is it that the cumulative causation in the notes has links with core-periphery model, which is not the case in your textbook.

First, cumulative causation is under economic factors that lead to UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT. Hence, cumulative causation is suppose to explain WHY one place is MORE DEVELOPED than the other.

There are 2 popular definitions of cumulative causation.

The first definition is the one given by your textbook, which is how the start of one industry leads to a chain of other events, which leads to the creation of more industries, and the cycle is repeated, leading to more development. (http://www.answers.com/topic/cumulative-causation)

This definition is popularly used by economists. It does explain why a place becomes more developed, but it does not explain WHY there is uneven development between 2 places.

The 2nd definition, which is used in the notes, is more frequently used by geographers. It is an expansion from the first definition, but with some difference. The essence of the 2nd definition is as follows - cumulative causation is a process where an economic activity at the core leads to the core becoming more developed (this is where the first definition stops) than the periphery, by draining resources and labour from the periphery (adapted from Royal Geographic Society: http://www.geographyinthenews.rgs.org/glossary/?word=cumulative%20causation)

Hence, the notes used the 2nd definition, as that definition of cumulative causation explains WHY one place (the core) is more developed than the other (the periphery), which was the reason why you all learnt cumulative causation - to explain why there is uneven development. Also, in this way, it is easier to tie in the concept of spread effect and backwash.