Exploring the Planning-Governance Nexus

Schmitt, Peter; Danielzyk, Rainer

doi:10.1080/02513625.2018.1562792

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This “planning-governance nexus,” however, gave rise to two conflicting interpretations (Jessop, 1998; Schmitt and Danielzyk, 2018; Swyngedouw, 2005). The first, inherent to the revivalist spirit of strategic planning and the communicative turn in planning, assumes a positive stance and the strengthening of planning democracy (Ali, 2015; Gisselquist, 2012; Grisel and Van de Waart, 2011; Healey, 2003; Tasan-Kok and Vranken, 2011).…”

Section: For a Piecemeal Interpretation Of Soft Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A standard state-run planning model has given way to a complex networked melting-pot of multi-level, multi-sector, and multiactor interconnections that involve the coordination and integration of multiple, often divergent, territorial interests and assets. With the resurgence of strategic spatial planning (Albrechts et al, 2003;Davoudi and Strange, 2009;Sallet and Faludi, 2000), an increasing intertwining between governance and spatial planning has been acknowledged by scholars and practitioners (Ferrão, 2014;Gualini, 2010;Healey, 2003Healey, , 2006Madanipour et al, 2001;Schmitt and Danielzyk, 2018) and an array of critical actornetwork-based explanations gradually challenged current governance practices in face of the complexity and uncertainty shaping the future of planning (Beauregard, 2021;Rydin, 2013aRydin, , 2013b.…”

Section: Governance In Soft Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond soft planning: Towards a Soft turn in planning theory and practice?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, soft planning has become an increasingly visible concept in planning literature. Since the term soft spaces was firstly coined, soft planning has been used to describe a growing number of practices that occur at the margins of statutory planning systems. However, as soft planning-related literature proliferates, so does the diversity of approaches and planning practices it encompasses. Such diversity fuels long-standing questions about what can or cannot be considered as soft planning as well as about its usefulness for today’s planning theory and practice. To shed light on this still unclear conceptual outline, this article divides the soft planning debate into five contextual components (ethos; governance; politics; policies; spaces; and scale) while paying particular attention to the relationship between soft planning and strategic spatial planning. The aim is to foreground soft planning as a concept, and add clarity and awareness on the challenges, the risks and opportunities, planning currently faces.

show abstract

Section: For a Piecemeal Interpretation Of Soft Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Governance In Soft Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond soft planning: Towards a Soft turn in planning theory and practice?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also important in this context is that private actors often follow a different logic for land use and development than political actors (network logic versus territorial logic) (Harrison and Growe 2014b). Thus, a broader governance perspective becomes necessary, especially in closely interrelated and densely urbanized metropolitan regions (Schmitt and Danielzyk 2018).…”

Section: German Planning Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legitimation of Planning Processes as a Challenge to Metropolitan Governance

Growe

Baker

Bafarasat

2020

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study identifies three types of legitimation from the literature that can be applied within metropolitan governance in the contested sphere of spatial planning: input legitimation, throughput legitimation, and output legitimation. The reason for discussing different forms of legitimation within metropolitan governance is that, globally, only a relatively few metropolitan regions are governed directly through a single elected tier of government such as a regional council. Thus, governance mechanisms in most metropolitan regions involve some form of joint working or cross border governance initiatives that have to be legitimized in the absence of a single overarching elected council covering the whole metropolitan area. The main question discussed in this paper is, therefore, whether all three types of legitimation identified are utilized to legitimize governance mechanisms at the metropolitan scale with a specific focus—as a core part of metropolitan governance—on spatial planning processes and projects. In conceptual terms, our typology structures fuzzy lines of legitimation across the three (the “how”, “who” and “what”) suggested aspects of metropolitan governance in the literature. From this point, we draw on cross-case reviews of variables involved in the design, application, and outcome of input, throughput, and output legitimation in Germany and England, chosen because neither has a formal tier of metropolitan-wide government despite their differences in terms of their highly regionalised and highly centralised national government contexts respectively. This relational methodology helps us to learn about the contextual dynamics of how the three types of legitimation might reinforce one another in different international settings, leading to the overall conclusion that they will work best in combination, although output legitimation has a distinctive capacity to work in less formal settings.

show abstract

“…These uncertainties get at the heart of the planning-governance nexus so important to the processes and practices of metropolitan governance (Schmitt and Danielzyk 2018) which can be interrogated through spatial imaginaries such as the GPOP. The GPOP is a space requiring the cooperation and collaboration of a range of governments and government silos working in partnership to deliver integrated spatial outcomes.…”

Section: Real and Imagined Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond borders: steering metropolitan growth priorities through spatial imaginaries

Pham

2020

Australian Planner

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Borders and boundaries are practical ways of organising spatial relations in metropolitan regions. They usefully define administrative divisions between local government areas, informing the constraints of land-use plans, and describe individual sites necessary for the transaction and development of property and land. However, functional divisions of space are not always clear cut. Contemporary challenges of urbanisation and globalisation often ignore administrative-political boundaries, thus statutory divisions of space are required to be woven into other functional spatial layers drawing attention to the strategic-statutory interface of planning systems and governance arrangements.Although not new, experiments with spatial imaginaries have accelerated, and have become central to metropolitan strategies. In Sydney, the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula functional economic corridor introduces both new mechanisms for implementation and statutory weight on top of strategic direction. We draw attention to the way this spatial imaginary utilises (or ignores) existing borders and boundaries in an attempt to rebalance the spatial structure of the metropolitan region. Through this case study, we highlight the challenges of rebalancing the Sydney metropolitan region, and the broader implications that emerge through the use of spatial imaginaries.

show abstract

Exploring the Planning-Governance Nexus

Cited by 10 publications

References 15 publications

Beyond soft planning: Towards a Soft turn in planning theory and practice?

Beyond soft planning: Towards a Soft turn in planning theory and practice?

The Legitimation of Planning Processes as a Challenge to Metropolitan Governance

Beyond borders: steering metropolitan growth priorities through spatial imaginaries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About