Community Power and Population Increase: An Empirical Test of the Growth Machine Model

This article examines four ways in which the ‘two faces of power’ argument might be, or has been, subjected to empirical test. These include taking into account the impact of structure and socialization; re-defining ‘non-decisions' as observable acts; substituting the question ‘who benefits' for ‘who governs’; and, finally, comparisons between cities. The analysis concludes that each poses difficulties of empirical verification, some of which can be overcome, some not. Even if overcome however, they would not nullify existing findings on power in communities.

Download Full-text

(De-)Activating the growth machine for redevelopment: The case of Liede urban village in Guangzhou

Urban Studies ◽

10.1177/0042098017729788 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 55 (7) ◽

pp. 1420-1438 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Youliang Guo ◽

Chengguo Zhang ◽

Ya Ping Wang ◽

Xun Li

Keyword(s):

City Government ◽

Future Research ◽

Power Relationship ◽

Machine Model ◽

Growth Machine ◽

Urban Village ◽

The Village ◽

The City ◽

Land Manager

This research investigates the mechanism of urban village redevelopment in south China. Through a revised typology of place entrepreneurs based on the growth machine thesis and a case study of Liede village in central Guangzhou, it illustrates how land-based interests embedded in an imbalanced power relationship can (de-)activate urban village redevelopment. The study reveals that while urban villagers, as represented by the village collective, have entrenched interests in the redevelopment process, the city government – as monopolistic land manager and place entrepreneur – plays the deciding role in forging and halting a growth machine geared towards urban village redevelopment. Although developers are also part of the process, the (de-)activation of redevelopment growth machine/coalition in Guangzhou has largely been dominated by the city government. With a comparative view on the original growth machine model, it is hoped that this study would furnish both theoretical and practical thoughts for future research.

Download Full-text

Collective Action and Dimensions of Power

Rational Choice and Political Power ◽

10.1332/policypress/9781529206333.003.0005 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 83-112

Author(s):

Keith Dowding

Keyword(s):

Collective Action ◽

Social Power ◽

Local State ◽

The Other ◽

Three Dimensions ◽

The Political ◽

Bargaining Model ◽

Machine Model ◽

Growth Machine

Taking the resource bargaining model of the previous chapter and applying the theory of action this chapter explodes some myths about the analysis of power. It carefully explains Steven Lukes three dimensions of power which forms the basis of much of the analysis of social power and then demonstrates Lukesaccount can be re-interpreted within the resource bargaining model. We do not need to impute several dimensions of power. By ignoring the collective action problem Lukes commits the same error that he attributes to others in their analysis of power. The chapter elucidates the political power or blame fallacy wherein one groups failure to promote their interests is explained by another’s group power over them. But groups can be powerless all on their own, and that is true even if the other groups could act to stop them. Distinguishing the capacity to act and the actual exercise of power is important if we wish to measure the power in society. We have to model capacities since they are not always revealed through action. It discusses the important work of John Gaventa and how his findings can be interpreted through the resource-bargaining model. It then applies the analysis to local government in the local state autonomy and the growth machine model.

Download Full-text