ancient cities

argue that one interesting thing about the model is
its variations and specificities across time and
space. For example, it is becoming increasingly
clear that pro-growth coalitions in many cities
now aim at gaining global visibility to attract flows
of money and people so that growth can take
place, but one of the keys is to identify the specific
local outcomes produced by the articulation of
local, regional, national, and global forces as they
develop over time. Rather than becoming a metanarrative,
the model gets enriched by accounting
for multiple scales of social and political action,
and especially so if one deals with cities and
regions showing contentious political relationships
with their nation-states.
Global visibility is sometimes achieved by the
organization of mega-events, and thus another
cross-national application of the concept has been
in studies of urban development and more specifically
the impact of mega-events on urban development.
Mega-events such as the Olympics and world
fairs are typically short-term and high-profile
events aimed at having a significant impact on the
urban realm. They have an impact on policy priorities
and discussions about best uses of facilities.
In addition, they tend to enhance redevelopment
strategies and serve as catalysts for urban ideologies
and plans aiming at maximizing economic
growth. Cities in emerging regions and nations
have been joining the trend of urban mega-events
usually organized in Western cities. In studying
mega-events in connection with growth coalitions,
one can pose the question as to whether the form
of development represented by mega-events just
legitimizes growth machines and business interests
or whether this phenomenon may be analyzed in
conjunction with the role that state actors and
agencies play in urban restructuring. Growth
machine coalitions may represent a form of urban/
national boosterism repositioning cities in the
global economy. Mega-events, as pro-growth strategies
advocated by political and economic elites,
may be less important as events at the grass roots
than as symbols or catalysts of economic improvement
and potential prosperity.
Contemporary problems such as urban environmental
challenges have been studied from a growth
machine perspective and framed within the entrepreneurial
city debate. Urban officials and elites
increasingly need to approach the politics of local
Growth Machine
331
economic development with effective policies and
tools to manage environmental expectations and
demands, as well as economic impacts. Obviously,
interurban competition and pressure from the
grass roots foster debates about quality of life in
cities, but the increasing significance of ecological
concerns is also a reflection of larger forces working
to change the relationship between nature, the
environment, and the urban realm. As a result,
there is evidence that adopting and implementing
green ecological policies may have a significant
impact on the social regulation of urban governance,
as it may represent a shift away from neoliberal
approaches. This may lead to a redefinition
of the growth machine concept by suggesting that
evolving urban economy–environment relations
can be understood as a set of practices of government
designed to manage and ideally resolve shifting
and conflicting demands (economic, political,
sociocultural) at various spatial scales.
Criticism
There is considerable debate as to whether the
growth machine idea can be fruitfully applied in
empirical research beyond the United States. One
approach to this question is that the concept can
be used for the study of cities abroad insofar as it
is appropriately applied. According to proponents
of this view, the limitations of the growth machine
idea in transnational settings simply originate in
misunderstandings and misapplications of the
concept. In his review of research about business
interest mobilization in Britain, Wood critically
examines this argument and reaches the opposite
conclusion. Wood’s central claim is that, even
when focused on the right issues and questions,
U.S. frameworks quickly exhaust their explanatory
capacity. The author suggests that one needs
to acknowledge the narrowness of the growth
coalition approach and leave it behind for an
appropriate understanding of disparate urban contexts
in different national settings.
In addition, one can argue that the growth
machine concept needs to be used carefully, considering
how its geographic emphasis changes over
time, from suburban to city core growth, as has been
happening in U.S. and European cities for the past
20 years. Authors proposing this criticism argue
that, rather than being value free (as is suggested in