2025/04/24 by Robert Hassink, Dieter F. Kogler, Davide Ponzini +1 · 1 voice
Business, Management and Accounting · Decision Sciences · Engineering · #Construction Project Management and Performance #Public-Private Partnership Projects #Underground infrastructure and sustainability
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/cjres/rsaf009
openalex publication_date 2025/04/24 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/22
Across both industrialised and emerging economies worldwide, megaprojects have become important drivers of economic development. These large-scale ventures take diverse forms across multiple sectors, from cultural institutions and infrastructure to energy systems and industrial development (Huda, 2022; Lauermann, 2019; Müller, 2011; Sovacool et al., 2023). Due to their exorbitant costs, extraordinary complexity and transformative ambitions, megaprojects consistently attract scrutiny. While early criticisms primarily focused on financial sustainability and public expenditure burdens, contemporary debates have increasingly centered on their symbolic value. Megaprojects serve as powerful but contested symbols, with their meanings evolving throughout the project lifecycle. Different stakeholders ascribe competing values to these ventures, making their symbolic significance inherently unstable. This special issue advances a new generation of megaproject research that examines this volatility of symbolic value. Through cases ranging from Tesla factories and TikTok data centres in Scandinavia to transportation and waterfront regeneration in Latin America, and from new city developments in China and the Middle East to global infrastructure projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative, our contributors analyse how megaprojects’ purported symbolism, as economic saviours, sustainability champions or manifestations of geopolitical ambitions, is persistently contested. Ultimately, the fluctuating symbolic value mirrors shifting visions of urban-regional futures and explains the rise and fall of megaprojects. Megaprojects are defined as “large-scale, complex ventures that typically cost 1 billion USD or more, take many years to develop and build, involve multiple public and private stakeholders, are transformational, and impact millions of people” (Flybjerg, 2014, 6). They have attracted sustained research attention in global urban and regional studies since the 1990s (Audikana et al., 2024). The pivotal moment that transformed research surrounding megaprojects came around 2008, at the time of the global financial crisis. Prior to that research on megaprojects focused on those in global cities in the West, Middle East and China, the regions that saw a boom of iconic architectural megaprojects. Scholars examined the conception, design, implementation, impact and contestation of the megaprojects in these regions (Orueta and Fainstein, 2008). The focus of these analyses was on the valorisation of the economic impact of megaprojects, mobilised by the private sector and the neoliberal state at the national and local level. Urban entrepreneurialism often formed the primary lens of such analyses, and megaprojects are seen as paradigmatic examples of entrepreneurial policies aimed to attract investment and enhance prestige in the competitive global arena. With the financial crisis in 2007–2008, the times have changed from boom to austerity. Megaprojects, while continuing to be proposed and built, have also been turned into symbols of governance failure. More recent literature converges on the theme of legitimacy of megaprojects, examining how state and private elites try to justify their megaprojects in times of austerity. In this “legitimation game,” the symbolic aspect of megaprojects gains salience, as supporters and opponents selectively use elements of local history, regional identity, iconic aesthetics and environmental sustainability to justify or challenge megaprojects. Contemporary megaproject research has evolved and expanded to a wider range of geographies outside the West, Middle East and China. Emerging scholarship examines megaprojects in Latin America, in relation to urban redevelopment and gentrification (López-Morales et al., 2023); in Africa, in the context of building private cities (Ablo, 2023; Côté-Roy and Moser 2019); in Russia (Kinossian and Morgan, 2023) and in South, Southeast and other parts of Asia, often in connection to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (Santasombat and Lee, 2024; see also Shin and Gimm, 2025). Some of this scholarship re-examines familiar topics such as policy mobility, place branding, starchitects and “worlding practices” and identifies similar tendencies of the local elites’ attempt to use megaprojects to represent a prosperous global city in the fashion of London, Dubai or Shanghai. Some examine the social polarisation and spatial fragmentation brought about by megaprojects. Others uncover new themes unexplored previously, such as the undercurrents of populism, right-wing politics and rising authoritarianism. In the evolving scholarship on megaprojects covering more diverse geographies, the symbolic value remains a focal point of analysis. “Symbols are intended to transmit meanings among some group of agents” (Davis, 2019, 450) and “symbolic value of an object refers to the semantic and cultural universe linked to it” (Bonazzi, 2015, 1), which goes beyond its functional use. In the post-crisis decade, the symbolic value of megaprojects seems to have become more diffused, no longer confined to icons of globalisation, economic competitiveness and local entrepreneurialism. Megaprojects are under more scrutiny today, as they often signify over-spending, corruption, authoritarian governance and environmental wastefulness. Several countries learned at their own expense that phasing and segmenting urban development may be more manageable than deploying one single megaproject. Moreover, the megaprojects conceived under China’s Belt and Road Initiative are even more polarised and contested. As some articles in this special issue illustrate, what determines the success or failure of a megaproject is not only economic calculus. The rise and fall of some megaprojects are also closely tied to the new international order, and the engagement of the recipient city and country with the United States vs. China. This special issue aims at contributing to the debate by gathering the latest scholarship on the symbolic dimensions of megaprojects. The central questions addressed are: What do megaprojects symbolize? What are their symbolic values? How are the symbolic values created, deployed, or represented in city imaging, nation building, or even transnational development initiatives? How do the symbolic values boost or hamper the urban-regional economy, enhance or threaten legitimacy of the governing coalitions, shape the sense of place? Below, we will first review the evolving roles of megaprojects in driving urban and regional development. Next, we examine the symbolic dimension of megaprojects and their contestation. At the end, we will briefly introduce the articles that follow in this special issue. Megaprojects, large-scale and capital-intensive infrastructure ventures, are often deployed as strategic instruments for economic and urban development (Altshuler and Luberoff, 2003; Flyvbjerg, 2017). In both industrialised and emerging economies, urban and regional development is affected by megaprojects as complex ventures of 1 billion USD or more. This financial threshold is relevant but we interpret it as a reference to the “magnitude” of such projects rather than a way to filter case studies, as other megaproject features other than financial size are important to explore their symbolic value. Megaprojects are notorious for their exploding costs and are hence often controversial, in different sectors. The range and scope of megaprojects vary. While some focus on single large-scale transport, energy and utilities infrastructure projects, megaevents such as the infrastructure and facilities for Olympic Games (Lauermann, 2019; Müller, 2011), or specific urban revitalisation, smart cities, or industrial and economic zone initiatives, others take on a more geographically spread and multi-facetted approach, such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative (Deng, 2021). The overall objective that drives most, if not all, of these complex ventures is to initiate economic development, revitalisation and growth, in an attempt to enhance national, regional, urban competitiveness, integration and, more recently, also to support aspects of environmental sustainability (Eriksson et al., 2024; Metaxas, 2024). However, designing a megaproject that produces widespread socio-economic and environmental benefits is challenging, in particular, once other highly relevant factors are considered, i.e., issues that relate to budgeting, financing, governance, public engagement, or even potential corruption and political conflicts. Despite these latter negative connotations, which frequently only emerge once a project has got underway, the initial motivation and set-up of a megaproject are usually characterised by overwhelmingly positive messages, and, of course, these usually refer to the great benefits that will be enjoyed universally following completion. Megaprojects create substantial employment opportunities, both during construction and after completion, stimulating local economies through direct and indirect job market effects (Hodge and Greve, 2007). The construction phase alone generates jobs across multiple sectors, including materials supply, transportation and local services, fostering regional economic activity. Additionally, these projects are said to produce multiplier effects, where increased employment boosts demand for goods and services, further expanding job opportunities (Flyvbjerg, 2014). Large infrastructure developments, such as transport and energy megaprojects, can reinvigorate local economies and drive sustained economic growth (Altshuler and Luberoff, 2003). Moreover, well-executed megaprojects enhance long-term economic productivity by improving infrastructure efficiency and attracting further investments (Siemiatycki, 2013). When securing financing for large-scale megaprojects, foreign direct investment increasingly plays an important role. It enables domestic economies and host locations to undertake ambitious projects that may otherwise exceed their financial capacity, while also attracting multinational firms and boosting global economic integration (Mistura, 2019). This also adds to economic benefits enjoyed by foreign investors due to the move towards the international financialization of domestically motivated megaprojects, which is especially evident with projects located in the Global South (Klagge and Nweke-Eze, 2020). The possible loss of control on the part of national and local government is usually justified with the potential benefits that go well beyond simple job creation, such as more competitive environments that enable business clusters and innovation ecosystems to thrive. Megaprojects can also revitalize economically declining areas into vibrant, multi-functional spaces that attract businesses, residents and tourists. Moreover, megaprojects can contribute to the establishment of more sustainable urban environments by integrating green spaces, cultural facilities and public transportation networks, all of which, in turn, are expected to enhance urban livability and social engagement (Johnstone et al., 2012). Many of these aspects need to be problematised as megaprojects mobilize strong political narratives and symbolic power, that is “… a type of power associated with symbolic systems and their ability to impose a particular vision of the world” (Cohen, 2018, 1), that tend to escape the high risks involved in such planning processes. Frequently a focus on improving infrastructure to increase regional connectivity and to stimulate private sector investments is of particular relevance in large-scale urban regeneration projects. Infrastructural improvement seems to hold immense potential for transforming economic landscapes, shaping urban environments and influencing social dynamics. The scale involved in such endeavours, e.g., transport-focused megaprojects, frequently transcends from the local to the regional and evidence indicates that improved connectivity between cities can bolster regional economic activity, resulting in increasing tourism and local business revenues. After the completion of such projects, formerly isolated areas become more viable for development, and as such it drives urban renewal and economic revitalisation in previously underdeveloped or declining neighbourhoods (Anas and Chang, 2023; Rothengatter, 2019). Some notable examples are large-scale redevelopment projects, such as the Bilbao waterfront renewal centered around the Guggenheim Museum, which was said to have successfully rebranded the city, boosted tourism and spurred economic growth but, in fact, iconically represented a season of massive investments in infrastructure and economic base conversion (Ponzini, 2010). In other words, the megaproject of the museum and its surrounding area, namely Abandoibarra, became the symbol of urban change but, arguably, it was not its cause. The Canary Wharf redevelopment in London, which reinforced the image of London as a global financial hub attracting significant investment and job creation in East London, raised substantial questions regarding democracy and social justice (Fainstein, 2010). Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) often drive megaproject They to private sector and while public financial are due to their ability to and their potential to in more project as well as financial sustainability throughout project and and some notable success surrounding large-scale transport infrastructure through a e.g., are examples where have to on their even the economic and political to and In such public can infrastructure private financing while public is et al., 2019). significant to the of a which frequently and of stakeholders that different visions in the context of a megaproject. These and can in and project to issues that in the phase potential financial by public towards significant in particular if a megaproject not the revenues. In these megaprojects will for intended for other public focus social and The will urban and regional economies due to job creation and economic growth (Hodge and Greve, 2017). Megaprojects are frequently by significant socio-economic and megaprojects often which can to the of and the of residents In some this can gentrification and social polarisation and 2003; infrastructure frequently do not and it is especially the that in new and improved due to The of public in the planning and of public infrastructure megaprojects can further of and regarding the of and benefits and in social and public and engagement are highly relevant to the success and sustainability of megaprojects, and the of the public in the can further enhance the vision of a megaproject that and benefits et al., et al., 2014). In to socio-economic opportunities and also environmental are frequently in the context of megaprojects and sustainable development 2024). megaprojects have significant and, in a in and loss et al., a environmental especially in the context of environmental risks and and sustainable and green energy are increasingly and large-scale development projects are and and 2008). As we in the of the literature on megaprojects is on their economic Moreover, in and studies, on and issues (Flyvbjerg, et which is also to as the to megaprojects (Audikana et al., 2024). on the significant symbolic values of such megaprojects in that literature are for et al., et al., et al., and 2019; which in opportunities to this of by and megaprojects in an urban and regional However, we do not of the economic and symbolic value as a to how et in of between the and in megaprojects studies, we also see potential for economic studies on megaprojects by including the symbolic value The issue of and of megaproject planning during the early debates of the of the The relevance of the political and symbolic dimension was not the its In megaproject the and planning and that are than they to be in In this to complex projects as the or even the of all the relevant the to values and are part of such but the latter tend not to on of the of that to the and complex development projects tend to from This as a to the costs and from on projects. The projects time and may mobilize and or new to emerging More this as negative or even and for and even on the part of (Flyvbjerg, 2014). the of the economic in seems a way to on these debates and the symbolic dimension of such projects as a potential to many of these risks are to the narratives that megaprojects. In other words, the political and symbolic of megaprojects the and of megaprojects the economic and high risks and negative and, may be an important dimension that and and symbolic others to megaprojects from different The political and may escape and regarding international power and driving rather than only what course, the symbolic value to a project on the of the and The latter may their symbolic to prestige and and and cultural through ambitious projects their Megaprojects by and to a of one city or and on the other are in megaprojects as symbols of or This symbolic on megaprojects can also be to futures and visions that are often by and a way the of symbolic see under of and or may policies and projects that are not intended to be in while and in their political on a case of megaprojects in South Africa, that the symbolic dimension to economic and political has an potential in and effects of such projects. also see the relevance of this of the symbolic relevance of infrastructure megaprojects that projects are of political values and social meanings that can the and urban and regional effects 2017). global in that megaprojects become symbols of success and urban and economic development and, spread The of transnational is and it is by as a powerful symbolic Moreover, the symbolic value of megaprojects can also be in relation to 2011), local (Fainstein, sense of place and place et al., The of the symbolic one to how and meanings are of attracting public and attention and, are to or political in of fragmentation or regarding urban and regional economic The construction of a megaproject public in to mobilize and even in the of urban and regional and effects that can be to economic et al., 2003). This special issue of and one questions that in the with symbolic value power of to different and in multiple the the following themes can be many the of megaprojects and their symbolic value in relation to the urban In their of waterfront regeneration megaprojects, et focus on megaprojects in the Latin cities of and They that Latin America, policy mobility, and are to these projects, to and and At the the symbolic dimensions of the megaprojects are on and and are contested and not on the symbolic power of sustainability and the green of megaprojects with the case of that use the in Dubai as a to the of a political studies the planning of a new city in China, as a megaproject with symbolic political power, as it is to be of the for other It and in in China. from due to the of from it is to a of and as a to the more and other have an regional With the case of in et how large-scale investments of multinational as potential transformative megaprojects, are in regions to different Moreover, they that they have different symbolic values for different social political and at different which or et analyse the megaproject for a data in from a regional development They the of narratives and symbolic value in relation to futures and visions for regional development. They that the of the symbolic value of a megaproject on the such as change and et analyse megaprojects in the of They that these green megaprojects are on by green tend to by or They for a of green megaprojects in relation to their symbolic power, also to green studies the case of the of a namely the in the the of regional It a about the rise and loss of symbolic power and how by and time from to failure. In this the of costs plays an important as of many the of the symbolic power of megaprojects for political In their on the and of the group of in strategic et the of the symbolic power of megaprojects. the one they have the symbolic power to on the other they can also become the of political contestation and such as Olympic Games and the and the of increasing political in potential host regions due to the high and increasing costs of these This has to a in the of countries and The symbolic value and of these are often the effects, such as and a as they are to which to in by a more analysis. In other such as in the on Dubai and on China, megaprojects as of political the megaprojects and their symbolic power are often in and transnational et the Belt and Road Initiative as a global of megaprojects by on projects in and They the change that has place from the economic symbolic value of the project to geopolitical symbolic value. They megaprojects as megaprojects that of projects, such as in the case of the Belt and Road In a of the megaproject in the state on megaprojects the of competing urban visions and conflicts. also on different of and how these with the development of the megaproject. In with the of a of megaprojects in that megaproject planning and go beyond It the of and to a of their and Moreover, the of foreign direct investment or foreign for megaprojects is in some studies, such as in et and et In some foreign direct investment and foreign have a symbolic such as in the case of Dubai with the symbolic of international and The in this special issue and different particular attention to the public planning and processes. They the of the different public and private involved as well as of the and by such projects. The economic and the symbolic are often in but they can become more for how and if seen as processes. this special issue beyond in megaproject scholarship by and The symbolic dimensions of megaprojects, as both of and for for The at The first is which a single case a of megaprojects to its as by of The type is which or more cases to develop with and and 2019). The type is which megaprojects global networks, such as et of waterfront regeneration across Latin some to in megaproject development et al., while others analysis. et construction in that more than other such as more the symbolic of tied to such projects and support for the governing in This special issue the symbolic dimensions of megaprojects, how they are or diverse and it to megaproject scholarship into a new by a political for urban-regional development through the lens of sustainability and In many of the case studies in this special megaprojects state power in specific or Different elites in use the infrastructure and urban renewal as to their power costs, in the effects, from local and other many cases in this special issue. the symbolic beyond the economic and social In a phase political narratives from we the symbolic as an increasingly important dimension for research to the and public debates beyond the In this we that this special issue will more research regarding megaprojects and other manifestations of power in the urban and regional to for on an of the The