The article begins with an appraisal of the concepts of urban regimes and growth machines and an assessment of their utility for cross-national urban political analysis, referring particularly to the United Kingdom. It then suggests that the formation of subnational development coalitions has become increasingly common across European liberal democracies but that political scientists, at least those in the United Kingdom, have yet to develop adequate conceptual tools with which to analyze this phenomenon. A final section suggests that the insights of the U.S. literature, suitably adapted, might be incorporated into a comparative research agenda based on the notion of urban governance.

This article uses concepts from the globalization debate and American urban political-economy literature to establish a framework within which the 'new' urban politics of production in Europe can be examined cross-nationally. Drawing upon research which applied this framework in five major European cities, it argues that (a) the urban politics of production has recently become more important cross-nationally and (b) there have been decisive, and relatively similar, changes in the motivations and actions of three major partners in urban development-central and local governments and local business communities. It suggests these changes, although significant, are unlikely to presage a 'Europe of the cities' in which citystates will reassume dominant roles in social and economic regulation.

This article takes up the invitation extended by the co-editors of the recent IJURR debate on city-regions for others to join them in 'a wider dialogue over the constitutive role of politics in the brave new world of 'city-regions'. It begins by considering the extent to which the collection was successful in describing this 'brave new world' and inpopulating it with the variety of social and environmental concerns which, the co-editors claimed, have so far been neglected in recent debates about the significance of city-regions. Adjudging the debate to have been only partially successful in these respects, the article goes on to argue that the goal the co-editors strove for -effectively to liberate 'city-regionalism' from its ostensible captors -is unlikely to be achieved unless and until its critics (1) engage more explicitly and seriously with claims that are made for the significance of changes in the material circumstances of city-regions, and (2) recognize that there is nothing inherently 'neoliberal' or regressive about the concept of the city-region or the way it is used. These arguments are illustrated with reference to the economics of city-regions and the politics of city-regionalism in England.

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.

No abstract