Convergence, Divergence, or Constancy of Spatial Planning? Connecting Theoretical Concepts with Empirical Evidence from Europe

Abstract

Spatial planning across much of the world is experiencing reform in response to common challenges of globalization, sustainable development, economic competitiveness, economic reforms, and demographic change. In Europe, greater transnational networking and cooperation on spatial planning, often facilitated by European initiatives, have resulted in planning policy makers at different levels being increasingly influenced and exposed to policies and practices from elsewhere. These processes might be assumed to be leading to some sort of convergence of spatial planning policy. However, this is not necessarily the case: there are deeply embedded differences between nations in terms of political, professional, and administrative cultures and structures. There are also significant differences in social models and welfare systems across Europe, as well as different histories. These differences, which are explored conceptually and empirically in this article, potentially put a brake on the idea of the convergence or harmonization of national and sub-national arrangements for spatial planning.

Planning Culture—A Concept to Explain the Evolution of Planning Policies and Processes in Europe?

“…Cultural change can also be recognized in altered paradigms or "programmatic ideas". Here, the EU or other intergovernmental organizations become a cognitive and Planning Culture 11 normative frame providing orientation to the logics of meaning and action (Gualini, 2003;Böhme and Waterhout, 2008;Stead, 2013) as the "internationalization" of planning professionals indicates. Furthermore, changes in planning practices and cultures can take place as a (endogenous) result of "institutional self-transformation" (Gualini, 2003, pp.…”

“…Looking at, for example, Germany or the Scandinavian countries (Othengrafen, 2012), the principles of reducing regional disparities, providing equal living conditions and nationwide comprehensive public approaches and services become apparent. This is rooted in the specific social model of these countries (Nadin and Stead, 2008;Stead, 2013). In contrast, questions of "social justice" do not yet appear to be particularly clear in the Eastern European states, nor is the "role of the public" clearly defined (Staniunas, 2009), including the social model and its implications.…”

“…Spatial planning policies and processes across Europe are experiencing reforms in response to a range of challenges such as economic globalization, the European integration process, economic reforms, demographic change, sustainable development and climate change (Healey and Williams, 1993;Stead, 2013). On one hand, this has led to similar policy approaches across EU member states when dealing with, for example, demographic change in peripheral areas, climate change issues or migration strategies in urban areas.…”

Legitimate planning processes or informed decisions? Exploring public officials' rationales for participation in regional green infrastructure planning in Estonia

“…At the same time, participatory practices in these countries have encountered various problems, such as public agencies' limited capacities to use participatory approaches meaningfully (Zacharchenko & Goldenman, 2004). These problems derive not only from the historical patterns of formal institutions (e.g., legislation) or from a potentially low interest in participation on the part of the stakeholders but also from the administrative culture, which affects policy choices and may carry path-dependent ways of thinking among public officials (Stead, 2013).…”

Dutch planning policy: The resurgence of TOD

“…From the information recipients' perspective, Stead (2012Stead ( , 2013 concluded that the scope of policy transfer in spatial planning within Europe is limited due to substantial differences in the economic, political, and social situation of member states. In transport, Marsden and Stead (2011) found that the motivation for learning from others is strongly bounded to funding opportunities and that policy transfer is sometimes introduced for political reasons, to legitimate conclusions already reached by an organization.…”