Pathways to legitimacy

Abstract

Planners are centrally concerned with the legitimacy of planning institutions and practices. In a democratic society, governments depend on the voluntary compliance of external actors for the implementation of their policies. Planning theorists have largely focused on the inclusiveness and quality of deliberation in goal-setting. This article expands this focus using Scharpf’s and Schmidt’s distinction between three domains of legitimation—input, throughput, and output—each of which affords a distinct pathway to legitimacy. These legitimation processes are examined through a comparison of the postwar development of American regional planning institutions in Minneapolis–St Paul, Minnesota, and Portland, Oregon. The input-throughput-output distinction can be used to interpret the operation and impacts of historical planning activities, or prospectively to evaluate the potential impacts of institutional reforms.

The scale of the century? – the new city regionalism in England and some experiences from Liverpool

“…Regionalization was undermined, however, by difficulties in complementing the technocratic 'output' problem solving legitimacy of regional planning with the 'input' legitimacy of the governed (Taylor 2019). A referendum in 2004 saw the establishment of an elected regional assembly in the north east of England attacked by the populist press and decisively rejected by voters (Shaw and Robinson 2007).…”

“…raising competitiveness; addressing challenges of sustainable development etc.) which is often cited by states, local actors, and professionals as a justification for their creation (Taylor 2019).…”

Defining Public Interest in Planning: A Review

“…Planning theorists generally see legitimacy as a structure composed of planning norms and values. The public interest is a set of values that justify public action (McAuslan 1980; Campbell and Marshall 2002; Alexander 2002a; Häikiö 2007; Bozeman 2007; Flathman 1966; Z. Taylor 2019; Cuthbert 1991) and express the ability of the public sector to gain public support for public policy (Caulfield and Minnery 1994).…”

“…For communicative planners, institutionalization facilitates the realization of public interests or the generalization of interests by facilitating communication between planners and stakeholders (Healey 1997; Taylor 2019). Thus, communicative planners suggest that governmental and nongovernmental actors involved in the democratic planning process can, through institutionalization and communication with stakeholders, reach a consensus that reflects the public interest.…”

The democratic legitimacy of public participation in planning: Contrasting optimistic, critical, and agnostic understandings

“…Legitimacy is a concept of central concern for scholars in planning and environmental governance, addressing not only the justification or securement of the individual plan or policy decision but also the democratic nature of the political-administrative system from which planning derives its authority (Mäntysalo et al, 2015). Yet, despite how participation and collaborative-type planning have long been seen as critical vehicles for "re-enchanting democracy" (Healey, 2012), there is considerable disagreement on the democratic merits of participatory planning (Day, 1997), all the while the actual mechanisms behind its legitimacy-enhancing capacities have long been left implicit in the debates (Taylor, 2019). In this section, I outline a typology of the participation-focused literature in planning and environmental governance (see Table 1).…”