Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place Author(S): Harvey Molotch Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place Author(s): Harvey Molotch Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, No. 2 (Sep., 1976), pp. 309-332 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777096 . Accessed: 13/11/2013 18:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Sociology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:09:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place' Harvey Molotch Universityof California,Santa Barbara A city and, moregenerally, any locality,is conceivedas the areal expressionof the interestsof some land-basedelite. Such an elite is seen to profitthrough the increasingintensification of the land use of the area in whichits membershold a commoninterest. An elite competeswith other land-based elites in an effortto have growth-inducingresources invested within its own area as opposed to thatof another.Governmental authority, at thelocal and nonlocal levels,is utilizedto assistin achievingthis growth at the expenseof competinglocalities. Conditions of communitylife are largelya con- sequenceof thesocial, economic, and politicalforces embodied in this growthmachine. The relevanceof growthto the interestsof various social groupsis examinedin thiscontext, particularly with reference to the issue of unemployment.Recent social trendsin oppositionto growthare describedand theirpotential consequences evaluated. Conventionaldefinitions of "city," "urban place," or "metropolis"have led to conventionalanalyses of urban systemsand urban-basedsocial problems.Usually traceableto Wirth'sclassic and highlyplausible formu- lation of "numbers,density and heterogeneity"(1938), therehas been a continuingtendency, even in more recent formulations(e.g., Davis 1965), to conceiveof place quite apart froma crucialdimension of social structure:power and social class hierarchy.Consequently, sociological researchbased on the traditionaldefinitions of whatan urbanplace is has had verylittle relevance to theactual, day-to-day activities of thoseat the top of local powerstructure whose priorities set the limitswithin which decisionsaffecting land use, the publicbudget, and urbansocial life come to be made. It has not been veryapparent from the scholarshipof urban social sciencethat land, the basic stuffof place, is a marketcommodity providingwealth and power,and that some veryimportant people conse- quentlytake a keeninterest in it. Thus, althoughthere are extensivelitera- tureson communitypower as well as on how to defineand conceptualize a cityor urbanplace, thereare fewnotions available to linkthe twoissues coherently,focusing on the urbansettlement as a politicaleconomy. This paper aims towardfilling this need. I speculatethat the political 1 I have had the benefitof criticalcomments and assistancefrom Richard Appelbaum, Richard Baisden, Norman Bowers, Norton Long, Howard Newby, Anthony Shih, Tony Pepitone, Gerald Suttles,Gaye Tuchman, and Al Wyner. AJS Volume 82 Number2 309 This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:09:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology and economicessence of virtuallyany givenlocality, in thepresent Amer- ican context,is growth.I furtherargue that the desirefor growth provides the key operativemotivation toward consensus for members of politically mobilizedlocal elites,however split they mightbe on otherissues, and that a commoninterest in growthis the overridingcommonality among importantpeople in a given locale-at least insofaras they have any importantlocal goals at all. Further,this growthimperative is the most importantconstraint upon available optionsfor local initiativein social and economicreform. It is thus that I argue that the veryessence of a localityis its operationas a growthmachine. The clearest indicationof success at growthis a constantlyrising urban-areapopulation-a symptomof a patternordinarily comprising an initialexpansion of basic industriesfollowed by an expandedlabor force, a risingscale of retail and wholesalecommerce, more far-flungand in- creasinglyintensive land development,higher population density, and increasedlevels of financialactivity. Although throughout this paper I indexgrowth by the variablepopulation growth, it is thisentire syndrome of associatedevents that is meantby the generalterm "growth."2 I argue that the meansof achievingthis growth,of settingoff this chain of phe- nomena,constitute the centralissue for those seriouspeople who care about theirlocality and who have the resourcesto make theircaring felt as a politicalforce. The cityis, forthose who count,a growthmachine. THE HUMAN ECOLOGY: MAPS AS INTEREST MOSAICS I have arguedelsewhere (Molotch 1967, 1973) that any givenparcel of land representsan interestand thatany givenlocality is thusan aggregate of land-basedinterests. That is, each landowner(or personwho otherwise has some interestin the prospectiveuse of a givenpiece of land) has in minda certainfuture for that parcel which is linkedsomehow with his or her own well-being.If thereis a simple ownership,the relationshipis 2 This association of related phenomena is the common conceptualization which students of the economic development of cities ordinarilyutilize in their analyses (see, e.g., Alonso 1964, pp. 79-81; Leven 1964, pp. 140-44; Brown 1974, pp. 48-51; and Durr 1971, pp. 174-80). As Sunquist remarks in the context of his study of population policies in Western Europe, "The key to population distributionis, of course, job availability.A few persons-retired,notably, and some independentpro- fessionalssuch as artists,writers and inventors-may be free to live in any locality they choose but, for the rest,people are compelled to distributethemselves in what- ever pattern is dictated by the distributionof employment opportunities.Some investorsmay locate their investmentin areas of surplus labour voluntarily,and so check the migrationflow, and others may be induced by governmentassistance to do so. But if neitherof these happens-if the jobs do not go where the workersare -the workersmust go to the jobs, if they are not to accept welfareas a way of life. When population distributionis an end, then,job distributionis inevitablythe means" (1975, p. 13). 310 This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:09:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The City as a GrowthMachine straightforward:to the degree to which the land's profitpotential is enhanced,one's own wealthis increased.In othercases, the relationship may be more subtle: one has interestin an adjacent parcel, and if a noxioususe shouldappear, one's own parcel may be harmed.More subtle stillis the emergenceof concernfor an aggregateof parcels: one sees that one's futureis boundto the futureof a largerarea, thatthe futureenjoy- mentof financialbenefit flowing from a givenparcel will derivefrom the generalfuture of the proximateaggregate of parcels. When this occurs, there is that "we feeling" (McKenzie 1922) which bespeaks of com- munity.We need to see each geographicalmap-whether of a smallgroup of land parcels,a wholecity, a region,or a nation-not merelyas a de- marcationof legal, political,or topographicalfeatures, but as a mosaic of competingland interestscapable of strategiccoalition and action. Each unit of a communitystrives, at the expenseof the others,to enhancethe land-usepotential of the parcelswith which it is associated. Thus, forexample, shopkeepers at bothends of a blockmay competewith one anotherto determinein frontof whichbuilding the bus stop will be placed. Or, hotel ownerson the northside of a city may competewith thoseon the southto get a conventioncenter built nearby(see Banfield 1961). Likewise,area units fightover highwayroutes, airport locations, campus developments,defense contracts,traffic lights, one-way street designations,and park developments.The intensityof groupconsciousness and activitywaxes and wanes as opportunitiesfor and challengesto the collectivegood rise and fall; but whenthese coalitionsare of sufficiently enduringquality, they constitute identifiable, ongoing communities. Each memberof a communityis simultaneouslythe memberof a numberof others; hence,communities exist in a nestedfashion (e.g., neighborhood withincity within region), with salience of communitylevel varyingboth overtime and circumstance.Because of thisnested nature of communities, subunitswhich are competitivewith one anotherat one level (e.g., in an interblockdispute over wherethe bus stop shouldgo) will be in coalition at a higherlevel (e.g., in an intercityrivalry over wherethe new port shouldgo). Obviously,the anticipationof potentialcoalition acts to con- strainthe intensityof conflictat morelocal loci of growthcompetition. Hence, to the degreeto whichotherwise competing land-interest groups collude to achieve a commonland-enhancement