Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

A growth machine is a conceptual term for the view that cities are under the control of development interests who use local government as a tool for their growth goals. First coined by sociologist Harvey Molotch, when cities serve as “growth machines,” those who derive benefit from commercial land use markets—builders, Realtors, local financial institutions, and their supporting professionals (real estate attorneys, accountants, and civil engineers)—are the most potent force at the urban level. Local newspapers, dependent on regional expansion for their own market growth, are also a key constituent for the “growth coalition.” As repeated across the national landscape, growth machine dynamics become the important political and moral force shaping the national urban system—what goes on within cities as well as relationships between them. Congruent ideas have been put forward by political scientists Clarence Stone (based on Atlanta, Georgia), John Mollenkopf (based on San Francisco, California), Todd Swanstrom (based on Cleveland, Ohio), planner Susan Fainstein (using many cities), and Molotch's collaborator, sociologist John Logan.

Contrasts with Other Schools of Thought

The growth machine concept differs from “power elite” theory, with which it is sometimes associated, because it stipulates that only a segment of the business elite—those with interest in local development per se (as opposed, for example, to corporate owners and managers)—play the important local political roles. Although growth elites may act in concert with other business groups and, indeed, help “prepare the ground” for their land use needs, there is a distinction between those who do business in a particular place and those who make money from the manipulation of place itself. This introduces the possibility of conflict within the business community as to how local land use should be managed.

The growth machine concept differs from the views of most economists, who tend to view any form of development as intrinsically good for the locality, or at least those developments emerging from the private market. But using growth machine theory, the consequences of development are suspect because of the way market conditions are structured under elite domination. For growth machine theorists, unless localities carefully measure and capture the true costs of development, any given project is a net loss and the locality would be better off without it. Development is not necessarily good, even when examined under the terms most often represented as its primary advantages: easing problems of unemployment, high housing costs, or fiscal crises. Researchers have found that cities that are larger, denser, or have higher rates of growth do not outperform other cities on standard indicators of public well-being.

Another distinguishing attribute of growth machine theory is its insistence on questioning how specific groups will be differently affected by a given project or by growth policies overall. Some analysts treat a city's rank in population, aggregate production, or volume of construction proxy as beneficial. But again, effects on diverse urban groups need to be traced; growth machine theory invites investigation of just how one sector of the population may be manipulating institutions and geographic outcomes in ways that harm others, sometimes even the majority.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading