Planning, Networks and Power Relations: is Democratic Planning Under Capitalism Possible?

Abstract

This article examines the relevance of leading social science network theories for the analysis of social relations in particular fields and as a guideline for democratic planning practice. The first section explains the risks of using the network metaphor in social science analysis: the confusion of normative and real features of networks may lead to an abstract representation of institutional structures and power relations and naïve expectancies regarding democratic planning opportunities. The second section reviews institutional network theories in social science. The survey focuses on: the ‘raison d’Ítre’ of the network, the typical behaviour of its agents, the types of communication, interaction with the environment and creation of its own institutions. Section 3 examines how these network theories deal or do not deal with power and suggests improving the theorizing of the role of power in networks by providing a more solid reading of power relations in institutional structures and personal relationships in networks. This solidity could be offered by a combination of Regulation Theory and Bourdieu's theory of practice. The final section provides some guidelines on how a better reading of institutional structures and power relations may improve the impact of democratic planning.

Scolarisation et développement régional au Québec, 1838-1971, une étude critique du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean /

“…Certaines des contributions des auteurs associés à ce courant ou qui ont puisé dans ce courant, tels Moulaert et Cabaret (2006), seront toutefois pertinentes pour notre sujet. S'ajoutera à la notion de régulation celle de «région apprenante» qui nous permettra de tenir compte de phénomènes comme « l'apprentissage coopératif par l'action » et le rôle social des acteurs (innovations-leadership), des institutions et de la société civile, [la contribution des] autorités réglementaires compétentes, entreprises et organisations non gouvernementales» (Nyhan, 2001: 3).…”

On the History and Potentials of Evolutionary Metaphors in Urban Planning

“…In planning theory, the past two decades have particularly seen a wave of philosophical thought wherein the role of social networks, interaction and power relations is receiving wider attention (Hillier, 1993;Watson, 2002;Moulaert and Cabaret, 2006). Relational theories have also opened doors to invigorate the role that vitalism -as a philosophy for relationships between communities -could play in spatial planning.…”

Building a Meta-Framework to ‘Address’ Spatial Quality

“…3. The relational approach takes on board modernist insights on the role of power structures and relations as significant drivers of the use of space (Moulaert and Cabaret 2006). It therefore also focuses on countervailing and alternative social forces that feed new insights and opportunities in the use of space while connecting them to the historical and geographical contexts in which they were developed (Hillier 2008).…”

“…The definition of social space in strategic spatial planning is almost the same as its second definition in the social innovation and territorial development approach. Promising contributions from the use of the social space concept in territorial development to design-based research concern legibility and meaning within territories as well as the various dimensions of social capital within spatialized social relations (Moulaert and Cabaret 2006). However, this approach, although potentially powerful, is mortgaged by the confusion within the social capital literature itself which puts too much stress on social capital as an instrument of community building instead of considering it as the very nature of community life and development in all its diversity.…”