Future urbanization - urban growth - seems to always be presented from a positivist standpoint as a neutral fact. However, from a critical perspective, it seems obvious that urbanization as well as economic and material growth are tightly intertwined and mutually feeding phenomena. Urbanization is embedded in a system of policies, economic incentives, cultural norms, etc. Urbanization is rooted in a political economy. It is not neutral. It is at the same the condition of and the requirement for economic growth through the availability of workforce for industry and services, accumulation of capital, etc.

Do you know of any academic work that has articulated a proper critique of the premise that urbanization would be an inescapable future or necessity? In other words, a critique of the fact that urbanization projections may well be performative? I am particularly interested in a critique from a socio-ecological point of view.

It seems to me that the whole sustainability discussion is entirely accepting current business-as-usual urbanization projections not only as an inescapable phenomenon, but a desirable one. And because it is accepted as the only scenario and goes unchallenged it will inevitably be self-fulfilling. In other words this business-as-usual urbanization projection is performative.

But, I see a few points where this premise can be challenged and I would expect that scholars have already done it. Still I have hard time finding it. Any hints?

I would anticipate critique from neo-marxist theorists of urbanization like David Harvey or from academic communities as #degrowth, #postgrowth, #DiverseEconomies, #FeministEconomics, etc.