Search

We propose four ways that the urban growth machine theoretical perspective can be expanded for social scientists whose focus is not necessarily urban. First, we believe the thesis is useful for analysis at larger and smaller geographic scales than the city. Second, once focused on a goal and set in motion the growth machines have inertia. This leads to continuity over time and also leaves records which are useful in analyzing how particular outcomes occur. Third, the processes growth machines set in motion can lead us to practices that are on the edge of our ability to control, potentially resulting in unanticipated and even disastrous consequences, having relevance for the study of disasters. Finally, the very success of the growth machine, particularly when growth is centered on the exploitation of land based resources can lead to the exhaustion of the very basis of its success and thus to collapse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While 'economic development' projects have long been proposed and supported by local growth machine elites, technological change has affected the social desirability of large projects in three ways. First, large development projects-we examine water transportation-have grown in size, meaning that backers often seek public funding. With increased size and the need for external funding, many years or decades can elapse by the time a project can be conceived, politically supported, funded, and built. Second, during that time, the technology of the industrial sector in question may have changed radically-to the point that the project can be obsolete, or rapidly nearing obsolescence, by the time it is actually completed. Third, the massive size of the project may also mean that even if the project is obsolete as well as environmentally harmful, we may find ourselves unable to undo it or the environmental damage that it has caused. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic debates can be entertaining and even useful, but they can also have drawbacks. The present debate has at least three of them. First, despite our ability to discern differing central tendencies between ''environmental'' and ''resource'' sociology, the excitement of a debate can cause such modest differences to be exaggerated, potentially being reified into a ''divide.'' Second, only a limited number of social scientists are studying resource/environmental issues, even today, so any researcher attention that is focused on navel gazing or worse, navel warfare is being diverted away from the research topics themselves. Third and most disturbingly, as human impacts on the environment grow more pervasive, we are likely to see an increasing number of cases where problems involve both ''resource'' and ''environmental'' issues, simultaneously. The true need is thus not to argue about differences or to create them but instead to develop synergies across differing points of view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The theory of ecological modernization has received growing attention over the past decade, but in the process, it has been interpreted in conflicting and sometimes contradictory ways. In this article, we attempt to bring greater clarity to the discussion. Reviewing the works both by the theory's best-known proponents and by its most outspoken critics, we note that difficulties are created not just by the combining of theoretical predictions and policy prescriptions - a point that has already been noted in the literature - but also by the stark and highly significant differences in expectations between ecological modernization and most prevailing theories of society-environment relationships. Perhaps in part because of these differences, disagreements have often been expressed in stark, black-and-white terms. If the problems are to be resolved, there will be a need for greater theoretical precision, developed in conjunction with empirical research that is more focused, more finely differentiated, and more rigorous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]