The extent to which the period since the mid-1980s has seen the development, in UK towns and cities, of organisations comparable to the urban growth coalitions common to the USA is examined. The focus is particularly on property interests which are the dominant players in US coalitions. An attempt is first made to disaggregate the interests making up the UK property sector into its component parts. The growth-coalition concept, as applied in the USA, is then examined and brief comment made on the extent of its relevance for the contemporary United Kingdom. The third section is an examination of the key contextual factors which have triggered the development of UK variants of growth coalitions. Fourth, recent empirical work is drawn on to examine the part which various property interests have played and the strategic weight which is attached to property development in a number of recent UK public–private partnership organisations. Last, the implications for the process and impact of urban change are examined and it is asked whether the growth-coalition model, and the role of property within it, is likely to be an enduring feature of UK urban economic and political life through the 1990s.
BoyleR, 1990, “Glasgow: Urban leadership and regeneration”, in Leadership and Urban Regeneration Eds ParkinsonMJuddD, (Sage, London) pp 109–132
3.
BUD, undated, “Leader in urban regeneration”, British Urban Development Ltd, 22 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AA
4.
BradleyI Campbell, 1987Enlightened Entrepreneurs (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London)
5.
CawsonA, 1985, “Corporatism and local politics”, in The Political Economy of Corporatism Ed. GrantW, (Macmillan, London) pp 127–147
6.
Centre for Urban Studies, 1991, “Urbanisation and the functions of cities in the European Community”, report for the European Commission, Centre for Urban Studies, University of Liverpool, Liverpool
7.
ClavelP, 1986, The Progressive City: Planning and Participation, 1969–1984 (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ)
8.
CookeP, 1988, “Municipal enterprise, growth coalitions and social justice”Local Economy3191–199
9.
CowieH, 1985, “The Phoenix partnership: Urban regeneration for the 21st century”, National Council of Building Material Producers, 26 Store St, London WC1
10.
CoxA, 1984Adversary Politics and Land: The Conflict over Land and Property Policy in Postwar Britain (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
11.
DunleavyP, 1980Urban Political Analysis (Macmillan, London)
12.
ErieS P, 1988Rainbow's End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840–1985 (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
13.
FoslerR SBergerR A, (Eds), 1982Public–Private Partnership in American Cities: Seven case studies (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA)
14.
GoldsmithMNewtonK, 1988, “Centralisation and decentralisation: Changing patterns of intergovernmental relations in advanced Western societies”European Journal of Political Research16(4) 1–17
15.
GyfordJ, 1985The Politics of Local Socialism (Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
16.
HardingA, 1989a, “Central control in British urban economic development programmes”, in The New Centralism: Britain Out of Step in Europe? Eds CrouchCMarquandD, (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) pp 21–38
17.
HardingA, 1989b, “Partnership experience in UK cities”, unpublished paper for Liverpool City Council, Public–Private Partnership Study, September; copy available from the author
18.
HardingA, 1990a, “Public–private partnerships in urban regeneration”, in Local Economic Policy Ed. CampbellM, (Cassell, London) pp 108–127
19.
HardingA, 1990b, “Local autonomy and urban economic policies”, in Challenges to Local Government Eds KingD SPierreJ, (Sage, London) pp 79–100
20.
HarveyD, 1989, “From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation of urban governance in late capitalism”, paper given to seminar on “Cities' economic policies in Britain and France”, Nuffield College, Oxford, January; copy obtainable from the author, St Peter's College, University of Oxford, Oxford
21.
HealeyPBarrettS M, 1990, “Structure and agency in land and property development processes: Some ideas for research”Urban Studies2796–111
22.
HudsonRWilliamsA M, 1989Divided Britain (Belhaven Press, London)
23.
KingR, 1985, “Corporatism and the local economy”, in The Political Economy of Corporatism Ed. GrantW, (Macmillan, London) pp 203–228
24.
LloydM GNewlandsD A, 1988, “The ‘growth coalition’ and urban economic development”Local Economy331–39
25.
LoganJMolotchH, 1987Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
26.
MasseyDCatalanoA, 1978Capital and Land: Landownership by Capital in Great Britain (Edward Arnold, London)
27.
MolotchH, 1976, “The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place?”American Journal of Sociology82309–332
28.
MolotchHVicariS, 1988, “Three ways to build: The development process in the US, Japan and Italy”Urban Affairs Quarterly24(2) 48–69
29.
ParkinsonMJuddD, (Eds), 1990Leadership and Urban Regeneration (Sage, London)
30.
PetersonP E, 1981City Limits (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
31.
RobinsK, 1988, “Beyond Fordism? Place, space and hyperspace”, working paper, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne
32.
SaundersP, 1985, “Corporatism and urban service provision”, in The Political Economy of Corporatism Ed. GrantW, (Macmillan, London) pp 148–172
33.
ShawK, 1990, “The politics of public–private partnership in Tyne and Wear”Northern Economic Review number19, pp 2–16
34.
SimmieJ, 1981Power, Property and Corporatism: The Political Sociology of Planning (Macmillan, London)
35.
SimmieJ, 1985, “Corporatism and planning”, in The Political Economy of Corporatism Ed. GrantW, (Macmillan, London) pp 173–201
36.
SwanstromT, 1985The Crisis of Growth Politics: Cleveland, Kucinich, and the Challenge of Urban Populism (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA)
