The “deliberative bureaucrat”: deliberative democracy and institutional trust in the jurisdiction of the Finnish planner

Abstract

The article seeks to elaborate on Forester's notion of planner as a 'deliberative practitioner', aiming to add sensitivity to the institutional conditions of planning, focusing especially on Finland. In terms of trust, the concept of deliberative practitioner mostly focuses on interpersonal trust as a planner's resource in mediating particular interests. Thereby, when applied to the Finnish context, institutional trust may be undermined as a key resource for the Finnish planner's jurisdiction, justifying his/her proactive role and authority in bringing broader concerns to the planning agenda. This undermining prevents the acknowledgement of important institutional resources that the Finnish planner has in coping with the tensions between communicative ideals and the neoliberal realities. A more context-sensitive and institutionally responsive theory of communicative planning is needed, to help the planning professionals and other stakeholders conceive the deliberative ideals as supportive for the planners' institutionally strong agency. Hence the notion of "deliberative bureaucrat." The article seeks to develop an outline for such a theory by drawing on studies on legal culture, sociology of professions, deliberative democracy theory and the concept of trust.

The Varying Interpretations of Public Interest: Making Sense of Finnish Urban Planners’ Conceptions

“…Being one of the Nordic (Scandinavian) welfare countries, Finland is known for the strong role of the State and strong institutional trust on public administration (Stenius, 2012;Puustinen et al, 2017). This is contrary to liberal democracies like the US, which indeed emerged from distrust in governmental authorities (Patterson, 1999: p. 1;Laurian, 2009: p. 390).…”

“…Instead it has called for a deliberative process to determine the collective public good (Bäcklund & Mänty-salo, 2010;Mäntysalo & Jarenko, 2014;Puustinen et al, 2017). The planner-facilitator's role is to use his/her professional know-how and deliberative skills to shape attention and avoid misinformation in the collaborative process (Forester, 1989;Puustinen et al, 2017). This is the answer offered to address the challenge of urban complexity: participation in the decision-making procedure would increase commitment to the decision, enhancing the overall capacity of planning in managing urban life (e.g.…”

“…Simultaneously, the spectrum of actors and stakeholders has broadened remarkably in planning processes. Identifying the public interest has become more complicated, yet planners as a profession are still expected to warrant its presence (Puustinen et al, 2013;Puustinen et al, 2017).…”

“…This is contrary to liberal democracies like the US, which indeed emerged from distrust in governmental authorities (Patterson, 1999: p. 1;Laurian, 2009: p. 390). In Finland, the jurisdiction of public planners is based not only on their statutory role as responsible authorities for regional and mu-nicipal planning but also on their role as "guarantors of public interest", as public servants who are expected to rise above the initiatives and possible conflicts between some private stakeholders (Hytönen, 2016: p. 234;Puustinen, 2006;Puustinen et al, 2017). This role, although questioned and debated repeatedly, is still relatively strong (Staffans, 2004;Leino, 2006;Puustinen, 2006;Puustinen et al, 2017).…”

“…The concept of public interest has been debated since the birth of western deHow to cite this paper: Puustinen, S., Mäntysalo, R., & Jarenko, K. (2017 mocracy. It has survived through times of criticism and enjoyed times of glory.…”