Limits of Localism

Abstract

A trend in the planning discourse tends to portray the local in a positive light. This paper critically examines localism and regionalism, from a theoretical point of view, to find out whether this positive outlook may be maintained. First the ontology of the local is examined, with its substantive, relational and experiential aspects. As a complex, multi-dimensional process, localism is then analysed at the intersection of four dimensions of power: territorial, representational, institutional, and functional. Boundaries are drawn, representations created, relations within and beyond the locality arranged, and functions allocated. The analysis shows a tendency to essentialise the local as a finished, circumscribed, commodified product, at odds with its multiplicity, diversity, inequality, porous boundaries and relational reality. There is also a gap between the definitions and functions allocated to the local in a hierarchical division of labour, relations with intra-and extra-local political and economic forces, and the mythological narratives of autonomy.

LEADER and Spatial Justice

“…At the heart of these recent writings on spatial justice, and of the LEADER approach, is localism. Localism is a form of governance, in which the distribution of power, roles and responsibilities is rearranged with a view to favouring the local (Madanipour 2017). It is a decentralisation of power to lower levels, so as to benefit from vernacular knowledge (Lowe et al 2019) of the local problems and capacities, to mobilise and draw on local assets and resources, to ensure higher levels of efficiency, and to have better democratic accountability to the local population (Madanipour et al 2017).…”

“…At the heart of these recent writings on spatial justice, and of the LEADER approach, is localism. Localism is a form of governance, in which the distribution of power, roles and responsibilities is rearranged with a view to favouring the local (Madanipour 2017). It is a decentralisation of power to lower levels, so as to benefit from vernacular knowledge (Lowe et al .…”

Five Points for Conceptualising Place-Based Approaches to African Urban Planning: An Introduction

“…This shift entailed acknowledging place as a matter of differentiation, and of both individual and collective identities (Sandercock 1998) capable of coalescing issues of history, memory, heritage and landscape, and hence of providing a physical support to the identification of communities with a specific territory (Untaru 2002). Place has thus emerged as a social construct of a bivalent nature whose values oscillate between the material and symbolic spheres (McDowell 1997) but it also incurs the risk of being essentialised as an atavistic and immovable physical setting permanently and irrevocably associated with single and univocal identities or communities (Madanipour 2017). Instead, reading place "as a result of human action and interaction" (Cheng and Daniels 2003, p. 842), by "understanding the implications of environmental change" (Kruger and Williams 2007, p. 83) and "by observing human behaviour, patterns of urban life (lived experiences) and socio-ecological relationships" (Mirti Chand 2018, p. 160), scholars in environmental management studies consider place in dynamic rather than fixed terms, associating the notion with ideals of urban resilience and sustainable management of urban ecosystems.…”