• Richard Muir


Political geography is simultaneously one of the most retarded and most undervalued branches of geography, and one that offers the greatest potential for both theoretical and practical advance. Many fundamental questions remain to be decided, and unanimity is lacking concerning definitions of the subject, the relative importance that should be attached to its political and geographical aspects and the value of quantitative approaches. There is even disagreement as to the causes of political geography’s backwardness, though only a minority of students would deny that the subject is in such a condition when compared to other branches of geography, many of which are of much more recent origin as coherent fields of study. The political-geographical malaise has led to a disregard for, or an awkwardness in the handling of political factors encountered in research by numerous regional and economic geographers, while the geographical preoccupation with (unattainable) objectivity and sometimes embarrassment when confronted with political realities has frequently led to subjectivity in the omission of relevant information of a political nature. Since of all geographers the student of the political branch will be the most exposed to accusations of partisanship, it is of particular importance that his explanations and findings should rest on a sound theoretical base and be supported by a well-stocked arsenal of relevant techniques and methodologies.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Hartshorne, Political geography, in American Geography: Inventory and Prospects (ed. P. E. James and C. F. Jones), Syracuse, NY (1954), p. 178.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. M. Alexander, World Political Patterns, Chicago (1957), p. 32.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. A. D. Jackson, Whither political geography?, Annals Assoc. Am. Geogr., 48(1958), 178–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. B. Cohen and L. D. Rosenthal, A geographical model for political systems analysis, Geogr. Rev., 61 (1971), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. H. Sprout, Political geography, in International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York (1968), 116.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. P. Cole and C. A. M. King, An operational framework for political geography, in Quantitative Geography, London (1968).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Hartshorne, The functional approach in political geography, Annals Assoc. Am.Geogr.,49 (1950), 99.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Hartshorne, Recent developments in political geography, Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., 29 (1935), 785–804, 209–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    See ref. 7,99.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. B. Jones, A unified field theory of political geography, Annals Assoc. Am. Geogr., 24 (1954), 111–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. W. McColl, Political geography as political ecology, Professional Geographer, 18 (1966), 143–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    See ref. 4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S.B. Cohen: Personal communication (17 July 1973).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Ratzel, Politische Geographie (1897).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Bowman, The New World, New York (1921);Google Scholar
  16. D.S. Whittlesey, The Earth and the State, New York (1939).Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    R. Kjellen, Der Staat als Lebensform, Leipzig (1917); Die Grossmächte vor und nach dem Weltkriege, Berlin (1921).Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    This point is emphasised in C. Troll, Geographic science in Germany during the period 1933–45: a critique and justification, Annals Assoc. Am. Geogr., 39 (1949), 99–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    Commander Roncagli, Physical and strategic geography of the Adriatic, Geogr. J., 53 (1919), 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    A. Demangeon, Géographie politique, Annales de Géographie, 41 (1932), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    I. Bowman, Geography vs geopolitics, Geogr. Rev., 32 (1942), 658.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    Quoted in H. H. Sprout, Geopolitical hypotheses in technological perspective, World Politics, 15(1963), 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 22.
    O. Maull, Das Wesen der Geopolitik, Leipzig (1936), p. 31.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    See ref. 21, 190–1.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    See ref. 1.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    See ref. 3, 183.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    See ref. 11, 143.Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    B. J. L. Berry, Geographical reviews, Geogr. Rev., 59 (1969), 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 28.
    P. Schat, Political geography: a review, Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr., 60 (1969), 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 29.
    See ref. 21, 191.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    J. R. V. Prescott, Political Geography, London (1972), p. 14.Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    See ref. 27, 451.Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    See ref. 4.Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    See ref. 30, p. 2.Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    F. Burghardt, Borderland: A Historical and Geographical Study of Burgenland, Austria, Madison (1962).Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    See ref. 30, p. 40.Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    E. W. Soja, Communication and territorial integration in East Africa: an introduction to transaction flow analysis, East Lakes Geogr., 4 (1968), 39–57;Google Scholar
  38. B. O. Witthuhn, The spatial integration of Uganda as shown by the diffusion of postal agencies, 1900–55, East Lakes Geogr., 4 (1968), 5–20;Google Scholar
  39. R. L. Merritt, Systems and the disintegration of empires, General Systems, 3 (1963).Google Scholar
  40. 37.
    See ref. 30, pp. 42–4.Google Scholar
  41. 38.
    W. G. East, The geography of land-locked states, Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 28 (1960), 1–20.Google Scholar
  42. 39.
    See J. Frankel, Contemporary International Theory and the Behaviour of States, Oxford (1973), 33–45, for an evaluation of the systems approach in political science.Google Scholar
  43. 40.
    Main sources used were: C. Harman, The Eastern bloc, in World Crisis (ed. N. Harris and J. Palmer), Hutchinson, London (1971);Google Scholar
  44. F. E. I. Hamilton, Location policy in the Socialist world, in Models in Geography (ed. R. J. Chorley and P. Haggett), London (1967);Google Scholar
  45. W. B. Walsh, Russia and the Soviet Union, Ann Arbor (1968);Google Scholar
  46. E. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, London (1950).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Richard Muir 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Muir
    • 1
  1. 1.Cambridgeshire College of Arts and TechnologyUK

Personalised recommendations