Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice - the case of Finland

Abstract

In this article the arrangements for the participatory planning of the five largest Finnish cities are examined from the perspectives of both democracy and planning theories. Four paradigms that form the continuum of general planning theoretical debate are identified as being relevant in the Finnish context: comprehensive-rationalistic, incrementalist, consensus-oriented communicative and conflict-oriented agonistic planning theory. These are discussed in relation to the parallel development of democracy theory: from the aggregative to the deliberative and further to the agonistic model of democracy. The empirical study reveals that while each paradigm shift in theory purports to replace the former theory with a new one, in practice the new theory emerges as a new addition to the palette of coexisting theoretical sources, to be drawn upon as a source of guidance and inspiration in organizing participatory planning. The five Finnish cities combine traits of different theories in their arrangements of planning participation, often in a fashion that generates institutional ambiguity. The argument concludes with discussing the necessity of further empirical and developmental research, where the contexts of both planning theory and democracy theory are related to the institutional challenges of planning conduct. If this does not happen the emerging agonistic planning theory, too, may become a paradigm shift at the level of theory only, thereby contributing to the widening gap between theory and practice.

Rediscovering nature as commons in environmental planning: new understandings through dialogue

“…In this sense, it could serve as a communicative tie between expert rationalities and everyday life perspectives in planning. However, it also shares the same pitfalls as other conceptualisations; that it becomes a conceptual mean to reach consensus and thus serves to close the deliberative planning arena (Bäcklund and Mäntysalo 2010).…”

“…Fundamentally, it could be asked whether current participatory efforts in environmental planning continue to be conflictual in local communities because they are mainly concerned with developing answers to fulfill planning objectives that are already defined by national policies, experts, and planning professionals. Such an approach would create a situation where (local) participants are unable or less capable of deliberating perspectives that transcend or even contradict the institutional planning rationality (Elling 2008;Bäcklund and Mäntysalo 2010). The participatory efforts in environmental planning could perhaps benefit from employing a distinctive conceptualisation of nature-society relations that can facilitate communication across the contested nature and society rationalities present in nature protection.…”

“…However, the notion of participation becomes meaningless if it is merely aimed at answering predefined objectives, and unable to deliberate other perspectives, even those that contradict or oppose to the initial planning objective (Hansen 2007;Bäcklund and Mäntysalo 2010). Strengthening participatory efforts in nature protection therefore depends on a planning arena that allows explorations of diverse (and conflicting) understandings of naturesociety relations in the planning arena (Hansen 2007).…”

Looking for the role of nature experiences in planning and decision making: a perspective from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area

“…In the city of Espoo, for example, each district has a board that initiates open district-level forum activities. Espoo thus employs the approach that the stakeholders may agree on certain issues and respectfully agree to disagree on others, which is the idea of agonistic planning (Hillier, 2002;Bäcklund & Mäntysalo, 2010). The city of Vantaa, instead, has district boards based on party political representativeness, in line with aggregative planning relying on voting as the central instrument of decision making.…”

“…The city of Vantaa, instead, has district boards based on party political representativeness, in line with aggregative planning relying on voting as the central instrument of decision making. Helsinki does not have district boards and different sectoral departments have various orientations in relation to theoretical ideas about planning and democracy (Bäcklund & Mäntysalo, 2010).…”