Who makes up the growth machine
Molotch (1976) argued that the core of urban politics is 'growth'. Landowners, developers and banks, along with organizations that gain as cities grow, such as local newspapers, utilities, universities and professional sports teams, form coalitions to promote growth. Politicians backed by these coalitions attract investment through roads, stadiums and tax breaks. Molotch argued that the coalition spreads an ideology that 'growth is good for everyone' to build consensus. This is a political economy critique of Chicago School urban ecology, which saw cities as natural ecological processes.
Use value and exchange value
Logan and Molotch (1987) argued that for residents, place has 'use value' as home, neighborhood and community, while for growth coalitions it has 'exchange value' as rent and development profit. Contrary to claims that growth increases tax revenue and jobs, costs such as congestion, environmental damage and rising housing costs often fall on residents. This sparks resident movements against development, linked to NIMBY and siting conflicts. Peterson (1981), by contrast, argued that cities must choose development policies under competition, echoing the inter-city competition logic of the Tiebout model.
Extensions and critiques
Cox and Mair (1988) added the concept of 'local dependence', in which firms tied to a locality lead development coalitions. Harvey (1989) showed the macro context by analyzing how city governments shifted from managerialism to entrepreneurialism after the 1970s. Logan, Whaley and Crowder (1997) assessed 20 years of research, finding growth coalitions widely confirmed but their effects varying by place. Jonas and Wilson's (1999) volume noted limits in applying the theory to Europe or Asia, where central government plays a larger role.
FAQ
- What is growth machine theory in simple terms?
- Landowners, developers, local media and politicians team up to grow the city and raise land values.
- What are use value and exchange value?
- Use value is a place's value as somewhere residents live; exchange value is its value as money, such as rent or development profit.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 309–332. The founding article.
- Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. University of California Press. Use vs exchange value.
- Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. University of Chicago Press. Contrasting economic logic.
- Cox, K. R., & Mair, A. (1988). Locality and community in the politics of local economic development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78(2), 307–325. Local dependence.
- Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 71(1), 3–17. Urban entrepreneurialism.
- Logan, J. R., Whaley, R. B., & Crowder, K. (1997). The character and consequences of growth regimes: An assessment of 20 years of research. Urban Affairs Review, 32(5), 603–630. 20 years of research.
- Jonas, A. E. G., & Wilson, D. (Eds.). (1999). The urban growth machine: Critical perspectives, two decades later. State University of New York Press. Critical perspectives.