Medvirkning i byplanlegging i Norge

Falleth, Eva Irene; Hanssen, Gro Sandkjær; Saglie, Inger-Lise

doi:10.7577/nibr/rapport/2008/37

Cited by 12 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also adjacent property rights are secured including special rights to be informed, rights to be heard in the handling of the proposal and, in the later stages, rights to complain. Increasingly, these formalized rights have been used by neighbouring landowners, local interest groups and NGOs extending the planning processes into the courtrooms (Cars & von Sydow, 2001;Falleth et al, 2008;Fimreite et al, 2005;Netland & Windju, 2009;Wähä, 2008).…”

Section: Public Sphere Versus Landowner's Rightsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In Norway, the majority of the larger urban municipalities have institutionalized the early pre-public phase through internal routines that ensure exclusive access of private developers to local authorities (Falleth et al, 2008;Nordahl et al, 2008). Through both formal and informal instruments, the property rights have been strengthened during the last decades.…”

Section: Public Sphere Versus Landowner's Rightsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…However, this does not indicate that the public would win. The plans may be changed due to opposition, but most often only marginally, as shown in a Norwegian document study of 100 randomly chosen plans (Falleth et al, 2008).…”

Section: Formal Participatory Planning Procedures Versus Public -Privmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Formal decision-making on the detailed plan is in the hands of the locally elected politicians, but the early and informal phases of the planning process and the preliminary public -private development agreements reached determine the outcome (Cars & von Sydow, 2001;Falleth et al, 2008;Mäntysalo & Saglie, 2010;Netland & Windju, 2009). Typically, the municipality is approached by a private developer interested in pursuing a specific project.…”

Section: Formal Participatory Planning Procedures Versus Public -Privmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This situation, private responsibility for public deliberative democracy, shows the neat paradoxes that occur when accommodating the conflicting aims of planning. This responsibility is obviously bestowed to an unwilling party: only one-fourth of developers find that public participation is valuable for the development of the project or an enhancement of deliberative democracy (Falleth et al, 2008).…”

Section: Formal Participatory Planning Procedures Versus Public -Privmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Between Input Legitimacy and Output Efficiency: Defensive Routines and Agonistic Reflectivity in Nordic Land-Use Planning

Mäntysalo

Saglie

Cars

2011

European Planning Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article describes tensions generated in land-use planning practices in Norway, Finland and Sweden, due to the shift towards New Public Management in actual governance practices, while the ideals of deliberative democracy in planning discourses and legislation have been retained. These tensions are studied empirically by making comparative observations of planning systems and practices in each country. The theoretical approach is developed by combining democracy and legitimacy theories with double bind theory and organizational learning theory. Based on this theoretical work, the article offers insights for reflectivity on the tensions. The Nordic ideal of deliberative democracy, expressed in the primary aims of our planning laws, may prohibit open acknowledgement of the uneasiness which follows from the fact that liberal democratic values (rights of landownership, free enterprise, etc.) are also secured. Thereby planners act and speak in terms of mixed messages, potentially habituated into defensive routines that may prohibit metacommunication on the basic tensions. The idea of agonistic reflectivity is offered as an approach to planning, which would acknowledge the tension between input legitimacy and output efficiency as a legitimate condition in itself, requiring ongoing political debate where the tension has to be continually discussed without actually ever being resolved.

show abstract

Section: Public Sphere Versus Landowner's Rightsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Public Sphere Versus Landowner's Rightsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Formal Participatory Planning Procedures Versus Public -Privmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Formal Participatory Planning Procedures Versus Public -Privmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Formal Participatory Planning Procedures Versus Public -Privmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations