“In dealing with capitalism we are dealing with an evolutionary process”; Schumpeter declares “capitalism is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary” (Schumpeter 1975, 82).
Furthermore, “The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers, goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates” (Schumpeter 1975, 82). Capitalism is constantly changing, and in so doing it is forming and reforming geographical landscapes (Harvey 1985, 150).
Even the store content on making a base level of profit must still survive the capitalist system. If a store consistently fails to turn a profit, it will shutter. Retail landscapes are thus constantly evolving as competition ensues and environments change. Retailers are constantly evolving, much like organisms in the natural world as first described by Darwin (Darwin and Burrow 1968). They go through a process of natural selection, where those best suited to their environment carry on, while those who cannot adapt fail to continue (Roth and Klein 1993).
There is one major difference between how organisms and retailers evolve. The former, barring humans (and beavers), generally do not have direct control of their environments while the later can manipulate their environments to suit their current needs. Retailers can choose locations that are accessible to as many
customers as possible, and create environments that heighten emotions and spur sales. In fact, it is through these environmental influences that many retailers evolve.
Davies proposes to use evolutionary principles in describing retail change; however, she uses the common misconception that evolution connotes progress: “the march of retail progress supplanting more ‘primitive’ retail forms” (Davies 2002, 279). Evolution is not about progress, but rather, adaptation; progress being a more subjective term. Arguably there are aspects of previous retail landscapes which were actually more advanced, such as the manipulation of desires through elaborate store window displays which have been largely supplanted by cheap advertisement signs and basic mannequins found in contemporary store windows. It is quite easy to see these earlier windows as more advanced, and the newer windows more
primitive; however, in order to explain these changes it must be understood that the earlier windows became outdated, while the newer ones are better suited to the contemporary retail environment.
Retail change has drawn quite a lot of attention (Brown 1987). The evolutionary approach to retail change is mostly concerned with institutional changes in retail practice, such as chaining, store size and marketing techniques (Roth and Klein 1993; Davies 2002). Rather than looking at the institutional change in retailing, this research applies evolutionary theory to describe change in the retail landscape composed of the individual stores that retailers fashion to adapt to the changing market.
It is assumed that retailers adapt their stores’ locations and atmospheres to meet the current demands of the market and the available technologies of the day. The demands of the market not only include its spatial configuration, but also product selection, and fashions popular in the culture of the day. Those retailers that fail to adapt their stores to the market fail to attract customers and turn profit and will eventually close. Only those retailers that are able to adapt their practices to meet contemporary market expectations will succeed. This is all occurring with
ongoing fierce competition between retailers, much like animals compete for scarce resources in the wild. At times retailers find it advantageous to cooperate, as do animals which live communally and cooperate to secure the resources. Much like honeybees, stores typically cluster together, forming a colony. This strategy produces a significant cluster to attract potential customers.
An outcome of this evolutionary dynamic which sees retailers adapting
practices to best suit their environments is the loss of some elements. The process of creative destruction is at play, whereby through advancements some elements are lost. The portable cassette player has vanished, for example, due to the advances in Mp3 players. Although the Mp3 player is arguably a better device, some qualities of the cassette players were desirable, but have been lost as the technology has been replaced.
Although not explicitly using the term, the ideas behind creative destruction were put forth by Marx, who describes a tactic used by the bourgeoisie to manipulate the economy by destroying values amid crises to better their own profits and patch the sinking ship of capitalism (Marx and Engels 1955). Schumpeter elaborated on the concept and brought the term to wider-use, relating the advancements to the long-range business cycles (Schumpeter 1975). Page (1999) shows how the creative destruction process is active in New York, a city where the old is quickly replaced with the new due to its limited land availability and intense demand for space.
Marx’s poetic yet prophetic phrase “All that is solid melts into air” (Marx and Engels 1955, 13) is telling of the way that concrete structures can be destroyed very quickly to make room for new stores. The old can vanish to be replaced by the newest retail environments. Oakridge Mall stood for decades at the corner of Oxford Street and Hyde Park Road in London, Ontario, but was destroyed in a matter of months. A new centre of big box outlets now occupies the site, the redevelopment being better suited to the contemporary market. Creative destruction can also occur for non-concrete elements of the retail landscape. The Smallman & Ingram’s brand was destroyed when the department store was bought by the Simpson’s chain of Toronto and renamed under that banner. The ideas and opinions associated with that name in London quickly vanished with its brand as the retail landscape evolved, driven by the pursuit of profits in the capitalist system.