The article seeks to elaborate on Forester's notion of planner as a 'deliberative practitioner', aiming to add sensitivity to the institutional conditions of planning, focusing especially on Finland. In terms of trust, the concept of deliberative practitioner mostly focuses on interpersonal trust as a planner's resource in mediating particular interests. Thereby, when applied to the Finnish context, institutional trust may be undermined as a key resource for the Finnish planner's jurisdiction, justifying his/her proactive role and authority in bringing broader concerns to the planning agenda. This undermining prevents the acknowledgement of important institutional resources that the Finnish planner has in coping with the tensions between communicative ideals and the neoliberal realities. A more context-sensitive and institutionally responsive theory of communicative planning is needed, to help the planning professionals and other stakeholders conceive the deliberative ideals as supportive for the planners' institutionally strong agency. Hence the notion of "deliberative bureaucrat." The article seeks to develop an outline for such a theory by drawing on studies on legal culture, sociology of professions, deliberative democracy theory and the concept of trust.
Among theorists, there are rather strong differences in opinion whether communicative planning theory helps to fight or advances neo-liberalism. This article takes some distance to the debate concerning the role of communication in planning and analyses it from the point of view of different legal cultures in different European countries. It is argued in the article that the sources of legitimacy of public planning might be fundamentally different outside the Anglo-American context, in which communicative planning theory has largely been developed. Planning works in different ways in different national contexts; this is why it is not obvious that communicative planning theory would help to fight neo-liberalism in planning. The article explores the topic from the Finnish perspective, and draws on writings about legal mentality and comparative law.
Land use planning practices in different municipalities and urban regions in Finland vary substantially, as do attitudes towards land ownership and land use policy. Consequently, inter-municipal cooperation in strategic land use planning is often weak, despite central government efforts such as the introduction of the PARAS Act in 2007, which exhorts municipalities in the urban regions to consolidate or cooperate. However, governmental steering has been vague on most sensitive and pragmatic land use policy issues such as planning and policy tools to control dispersed development patterns leading to urban sprawl. This article examines the challenges of consistent steering of land use practices by presenting observations from follow-up studies of five Finnish urban regions, all in the first stage of implementing the PARAS Act. The analysis reveals that mixed messages and defensive routines are preventing effective political debate on core issues. These defences are fostered by the vagueness of central government policy. Since these core issues have not been brought up in the legislation, they are now being tackled – or ignored – at the local level in an unpredictable manner.
The paper offers a theory-based evaluation of the ongoing reforms in the Finnish spatial planning regime. The paper argues that Finnish planning is moving in a reactive and market-driven direction. This development is not being brought about solely through a direct decrease in public discretionary powers in planning, but is also unfolding indirectly through a process of rescaling in the spatial planning regime. These processes increase municipal autonomy in relation to other planning scales, despite problems observed in the municipality-centred market-driven planning orientation. The resulting reduction in manoeuvring room in public planning is conceptualized in the paper as expanding vacuums of strategic planning. Building on concepts from the literature on state transformation theory and scale theory, the paper draws together theoretical and empirical conclusions from several case studies conducted in close-to-administration projects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization 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 and 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.