What is required of the citizen to make planning more democratic? In this article, I argue this previously overlooked question illuminates key challenges for democratising planning in theory and practice. Distinguishing between deliberative and agonistic conceptions of communicative planning, I review the qualities these theories demand of citizens. Through examples from Scotland, I then contrast this with the roles citizens are currently invited to perform within a growth-orientated planning culture, drawing attention to techniques that use constructions of 'good' and 'bad' citizenship to manage conflict generated by development. I conclude by suggesting that while 'ordinary' citizens' experiences draw attention to the strengths and weaknesses of deliberative and agonistic accounts, they also highlight hidden costs associated with participation that present significant challenges for the project of shaping a more democratic form of planning.
The traditional relationship between politics and policy making has been challenged in recent years, highlighting how policy itself can generate political action. This raises questions about how confl ict produced or mediated through the policy process is managed, particularly within what has been described as a 'postpolitical settlement' where fundamental politicoideological issues are liable to be 'displaced' rather than opened up for debate. I argue that such displacement generates its own distinctive politicomanagerial logic. Drawing on the discourses and practices of planning reform in England, I suggest that ongoing systemic reform might be understood as a product of a politics of displacement that seeks to cover over the causes of the antagonism generated by the logic of urban development. Tracing this logic through the policy process, I further suggest that displacement has a range of underexamined eff ects on local democracy and the legitimacy of local government.
Universities of LeedsSince 2001 the English planning system, has been subject to a complex series of ofessional planners in the public sector. The discourse of culture change is rooted in the managerialist thinking that has been central to long-term processes of state restructuring. du Gay (1996) describes this as the identities of public servants. This article therefore explores the modernisation of planning through the experiences of public sector planners seeking to negotiate their identities within this change environment.
This article explores the value of Stuart Hall’s approach to conjunctural analysis for examining the complex relations between ideology and planning. By ‘thinking conjuncturally’, we explore planning as a site where multiple social, economic and political forces coalesce; ideology is one of these forces whose role and influence must be tracked alongside others. To illustrate this, we draw on recent and ongoing planning reforms in England and their relationship with housing development. Highlighting the faltering role of a particular ideological formation in ‘suturing together contradictory lines of argument and emotional investments’ around housing and planning, this article draws attention to planning as a space where ideological struggle takes place within the frame of a broader, contingent cultural hegemony. This struggle may help to reaffirm that hegemony, but it can also open space for alternative visions to be articulated, with potential to transform dominant logics of planning, and reveal routes to practical and progressive action.
The paper offers an analysis of recent and ongoing reform to English local planning through consideration of the structural contradictions of planning. It goes on to relate these to an understanding of the contradictions within New Labour's 'Third Way' ideology. Finally, at greater length, it positions the attempts to 'modernize planning' since 1997 within this contradiction-laden political context. In so doing, the paper seeks to understand the ambiguous nature of the relationship between New Labour and planning, and how it has been interpreted within planning's policy and professional communities. The argument suggests that there is a need for re-evaluation of the often derided political value of planners' roles as street-level regulators within the complexities of the neoliberal state.
2015) Partnerships of learning for planning education Who is learning what from whom? The beautiful messiness of learning partnerships/Experiential learning partnerships in Australian and New Zealand higher education planning programmes/Resnonverba? rediscovering the social purpose of planning (and the university): The Westfield Action Research Project/At the coalface, Take2: Lessons from students' critical reflections/Education for "cubed change"/Unsettling planning education through community-engaged teaching and learning:
scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.