The new economic geography is a recent body of literature that seeks to explain how resources and production come to be concentrated spatially for reasons other than the standard geographic ones. Some authors outside the new economic geography have criticized it a simplistic, irrelevant, or passe. They claim it employs overly abstract analysis, prioritizes mathematical technique over realistic explanation, and is reminiscent of the much earlier worlds of Gunnar Myrdal and Francois Perroux - in comparison to which, however, it falls short. This paper investigates the similarities and differences between the new economic geography and the work of Myrdal and Perroux. It examines how the techniques of analysis and intuitive explanations of agglomeration compare between these economic sociologists and the new economic geographers. The paper highlights what has been gained and what has been lost by the new economic geographers, who generally eschew interdisciplinary study.