Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning
Louis Albrechts
Faculty of Architecture, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 51, Postbox 02429-ASRO, Leuven 3001, Belgium; e-mail: Louis.Albrechts@asro.kuleuven.be
Received 6 June 2013; in revised form 23 January 2014; published online 28 January 2015
Abstract. The purpose of the paper is to contribute to the debate on existing planning approaches—more specifically, strategic spatial planning—and the search for new ideas.
Therefore, after briefly dealing with the history, logic, aims of strategic planning, and some critiques the paper sketches the contours of a more radical strategic planning, introduces coproduction as a corner stone of this approach, and opts for working with conflicts and legitimacy as additional building blocks. The paper relies on a selective review of critical planning literature and the authors’ experience in practice.
Keywords: strategic spatial planning, coproduction, conflict, legitimacy Introduction: some ontological and epistemological challenges
“Everything you do for me without me, you do it against me.”
Central African proverb, cited in Van Reybrouck (2013, page 101) A lot of traditional planning is about maintaining the existing social order rather than challenging and transforming it, and it fails to capture the dynamics and tensions of relations coexisting in particular places (see Albrechts and Balducci, 2013). Its rhetorical commitment to inclusivity limits perceptions of diversity and causes deliberate exclusions (see Watson, 2007). Traditional spatial planning becomes less focused on the visionary and imagining the ‘impossible’ and more concerned with pragmatic negotiations around the ‘immediate’
in a context of the apparent inevitability of market-based forms of political rationality (see Haughton et al, 2013, page 232). The rollout of neoliberal policy privileges urban and regional competitiveness mainly through the subordination of social policy to economic policy and new, more elitist, forms of partnerships and networks (see Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009a, page 618; Jessop, 2000). City and regional governments are lured to adopt a more entrepreneurial style of planning in order to enhance city and regional competitiveness. As a result, planning faces major ontological and epistemological challenges. These may imply the scope of planning, approaches, use of skills, resources, knowledge base, and involvement of a wider range of actors. It is therefore argued (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010; Sager, 2013) that spatial planning is in desperate need of both critical debate that questions the political and economic processes of which existing planning approaches are an integral part (see Sager, 2013, page xviii) and a search for new ideas (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010, page 328). A growing literature (Albrechts, 2004; Balducci et al, 2011; Healey, 1997a;
2000; 2006; 2007; Motte, 2006) and an increasing number of practices, all over the world, seem to suggest that strategic spatial planning(1) may be looked upon as a possible approach
(1) The term strategic planning is, probably apart from Healey (1997a; 1999: 2004), more used in continental Europe (see Albrechts, 2004, Balducci et al, 2011; Motte, 2006; Salet and Faludi, 2000).
It often matches with UK literature on spatial planning (see Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009;
Brand and Gaffikin, 2007). Moreover, there is ample evidence that in many strategic plans the often more abstract discourse is turned into something more tangible and is redefined into a more familiar vocabulary of statutory planning (see also Olesen and Richardson, 2012, page 1703).
able to cope with the challenges our society is facing and embed structural changes that are needed. But at the same time, critical comments and reactions are raised on the theory and practices of strategic spatial planning. I reflect on what can be done to revive strategic planning as a critical theory and praxis. What could a more radical type of strategic planning provide that statutory planning and the more traditional strategic planning could not? The paper is organized in four main sections. Following this introduction I briefly introduce the military and corporate history of strategic planning, its logic and aims and some critiques.
I then introduce the contours of a more radical strategic planning, initiate coproduction as a cornerstone and, finally, opt for working with conflicts and legitimacy as supportive building blocks. The paper relies on a selective review of planning literature and the author’s experience in practice.
Strategic spatial planning: history, logic, aims, critique
Physical planners, dreaming to develop sustainable cities and regions for the good of society, and planning regulators, who are obsessed with avoiding potential conflicts by setting clear and enforceable rules, have dominated planning for a long time. The business community and politicians associated this type of planning with constraints on their freedom of maneuver (Healey, 2006, page 533). At some point in time strategic planning became the new hope of the community of (mainly academic) planners in Europe and beyond to overcome the shortcomings of statutory planning at local and regional tiers of planning and decision making. The word ‘strategy’ has its roots within a military context (see Sun Tzu, 1994 [500BCE]). The focus is on accurate understanding of the real situation, realistic goals, focused orientation of available strengths and persistence of the action. In the early 1980s, the state and local governments were called upon to use the strategic planning approach developed in the corporate world (Kaufman and Jacobs, 1987). Others (Bryson, 1995; Bryson and Roering, 1988) stress the need to gather the key (internal and external) stakeholders (preferably key decision makers), the importance of external trends and forces, and the active involvement of senior-level managers, in order to construct a longer term vision. Even if some of the objectives and arguments furnished by plans that develop this perspective may seem innovative, the approach, method, and working hypotheses are quite traditional (see Albrechts and Balducci, 2013). More recently some authors (see Albrechts, 2004; Balducci et al, 2011; Healey 1997a; 2000; Motte, 2006), have gradually developed a definition that is clearly different from the military and corporate stance. Strategic planning is defined as: a sociospatial process through which a range of people in diverse institutional relations and positions come together to design planmaking processes and develop contents and strategies for the management of spatial change; an opportunity for constructing new ideas and processes that can carry them forward; collective efforts to reimagine a city, urban region, or region and to translate the outcome into priorities for area investment, conservation measures, strategic infrastructure investments, and principles of land-use regulation (see Healey, 1997b; 2000). Defined in these ways strategic spatial planning is as much about process, institutional design, and mobilization as it is about the development of substantive theories. Content relates to the (strategic) issues selected in the process. The motivations for using strategic spatial planning vary in practice, but the objectives have typically been:
to construct a challenging, coherent, and coordinated vision; to frame an integrated long- term spatial logic (eg, for land-use regulation, resource protection, sustainable development, spatial quality, sustainability, and equity); to enhance action orientation beyond the idea of planning as control; and to promote a more open multilevel type of governance.
Despite a certain popularity of strategic spatial planning (see Metzger, 2012, page 781) one cannot be blind to the critique formulated on strategic planning. The critiques focus on very different registers of the strategic spatial planning approach. Some of the critiques
are related to the ontology and epistemology of strategic planning. Questions are raised on how (and to what extent) the shift from a Euclidian concept of stable entities towards a non- Euclidian concept of many space–time geographies (see Friedmann, 1993, page 482; Graham and Healey, 1999) is reflected in strategic spatial planning? How are the different types of knowledge (tacit/experiential knowledge of local communities versus traditional scientific knowledge), relevant for a relational(2) strategic planning, reflected in strategic plans and actions based on these plans? Economic–political ideological critiques draw a link between the uprise of strategic spatial planning and the strengthened neoliberal political climate (see Cerreta et al, 2010; Olesen, 2011; 2012; Olesen and Richardson, 2012;). It is feared that the ideal of strategic spatial planning could easily be used to favor the most aggressive neoliberal models of urban and regional development (Cerreta et al, 2010, page x; see also Olesen 2011; Sager, 2013) and questions are raised about whether strategic spatial planning practices are able to resist the hegemonic discourses of neoliberalism (see Olesen, 2011; 2012). Others attack the militaristic and corporate terminology (see Adonis Barbieri, 2008; Leal de Oliveira, 2000) of strategic planning. And finally, there are those who focus on the implementation of the theory in practice, asking whether existing practices of strategic spatial planning really follow its normative grounding (see Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009b; 2010; Newman, 2008).
In the next section I sketch the contours of a more radical strategic planning that opens some perspective to broaden the scope of possible futures and to organize the relationship between (all) actors in a more open and equitable way.
Contours for a more radical strategic spatial planning
Due to an increasing complexity, strategic planning processes need to be adaptive to changing circumstances and need to evolve with new information, new knowledge (scientific and local), and changing contextual conditions. As practices clearly demonstrate, strategic spatial planning is not a monolithic block of axioms set in stone. It is not a single concept, procedure, or tool. In fact, it is a set of concepts, procedures, and tools that must be tailored carefully to the situation at hand if desirable outcomes are to be achieved. The context forms the setting of the planning process but also takes form and undergoes changes in the process (see Dyrberg, 1997). For some people strategic planning needs a specific political and institutional context [see Olesen and Richardson (2012, page 1690); see also Needham (2000) for success factors]
and is sensitive to specific intellectual traditions. Therefore, the capacity of a strategic spatial planning system to deliver the desired outcomes is dependent not only on the legal–political system itself, but also on the conditions underlying it. These conditions—including political, societal, cultural, and professional attitudes towards spatial planning (in terms of planning content and process) and the political will on the part of the institutions involved in setting the process in motion (and, even more difficult, to keep it going)—affect the ability of planning systems to implement the chosen strategies.
The actual conditions are dominated by a persistent neoliberal context. Neoliberalism assumes that sociospatial problems have a market solution (see Peck and Tickel, 2002;
Purcell, 2009; Swyngedouw et al, 2002), and its aim was and is to depoliticize the economy (Friedmann, 1992, page 83) and to subordinate everything to the economic realm and sovereignty of the market (Mouffe, 2005, page 92). Indeed, one can witness neoliberal attempts to create competitive cities and regions by generating investments in major cities and urban regions (Olesen and Richardson, 2012, page 1692; Swyngedouw et al, 2002). Such investments (projects) have become a key component of a neoliberal shift from distributive policies, welfare considerations, and direct service provision towards more market-oriented
(2) A relational approach emphasizes the multiplicity of the webs of relations which transect a territory and the complex intersections and disjunctions which develop among them (Healey, 2006, page 526).
and market-dependent approaches aimed at pursuing economic promotion and competitive restructuring (see Swyngedouw et al, 2002, page 572). In many cities, urban revitalization is presented as an (the?) opportunity to change economic hierarchies and functions within the urban region, creating new jobs and strengthening the city’s position in the urban division of labor. Strategic planners and local authorities are lured to adopt a more proactive and entrepreneurial approach aimed at identifying market opportunities and assisting private investors to take advantage of them (see Harvey, 1989; Peck and Tickle, 2002; Purcell, 2009;
Swyngedouw et al, 2002). A democratic deficit emerges as a central element of the neoliberal approach (Purcell, 2009, page 144; Swyngedouw et al, 2002, page 573).
Within this context a basic purpose of a more radical strategic spatial planning is to unravel and resist the influence of international neoliberal ideologies on planning theory and planning practices in cities, city regions, and regions. Its aim is to provide direction without destination, movement without prediction, tackle problems, raise awareness, meet challenges, and broaden the scope of the possible [see Žižek (1999, page 199) about the art of the impossible; Hillier (2007)], and to avoid serving other interests than intended, encourage hopes and dreams, appeal to values (equity, social justice), provide a frame(3) for decisions, and challenge existing knowledge, conventional wisdom, and practices(4) (see also Brand and Gaffikin, 2007; Healey, 2010; Hillier, 2002, 2007; Metzger, 2012). This also implies taking on board the wishes and aspirations of the disadvantaged and the urban poor.
Strategic planning provides an arena—a space of deliberative opportunities in Forester’s (2010) terms—with an open dialogue in which a plurality of interests and demands, opinions, conflicts, different values, and power relationships(5) are addressed. In these arena’s actors reflect on who they are and what they want, and in this way articulate their identities, traditions, and values. As such, strategic spatial planning deals with values and meanings and the related judgments and choices formed with reference to the ideas of desirability (Ozbekhan, 1969), the good society (Friedmann, 1982), and betterment (see also Campbell and Marshall, 2006). The normative(6) dimension inscribed in strategic spatial planning is of an ethical nature, as it always refers to values and specific practices [see also Healey (2010) for the crucial normative foundation of strategic spatial planning]. Without the normative, we risk adopting a pernicious relativism where ‘anything goes’ (see Metzger, 2012, page 793; Ogilvy, 2002). The ethical stand taken on substan tive and procedural issues (see also Forester, 1989) depends on particular (eg, institutional, legal, political, cultural) contexts and intellectual traditions.
As strategic planning is not only instru mental it cannot be reduced to a set of neutral procedures, and the implicit responsibility of strategic planners can no longer simply be to
‘be efficient’ or to function smoothly as a neutral means for obtaining given, and presumably well-defined, ends. Strategic planners have an active but not dominant role in a planning
(3) A frame in this context embodies a sensitivity to plurality. As Healey (2008, page 35) perceptively writes “a frame embodies a sensitivity to the complexity, plurality and indeterminacy of particular urban development dynamics as they emerge, and which generate sufficient energy to inspire and direct transformative actions within those dynamics with the aim of shaping what happens in a place.”
(4) Reference could be made here to parallel discussions on communicative/collaborative planning (see Brand and Gaffikin, 2007; Huxley and Yftachel, 2000; Sager, 2013).
(5) Forester’s (2010) Habermasian idea of deliberation (and particularly his concept of power) is very different from the form of engagement described by Mitlin (2008) with a Foucauldian concept of power.
(6) A plan, policy, or approach is termed normative when it gives the force of law to its object (a prescriptive plan, policy, approach). For Campbell and Marshall (2006, page 240) planning is “an activity which is concerned with making choices about good and bad, right and wrong, with and for others, in relation to particular places.”
process (see Metzger, 2012). As active generators of conditions of collective becoming (Metzger, 2012, page 793) they must be more than navigators keeping the ship on course and they are necessarily involved with formulating that course. In this line of reasoning they are not just looking for existing articulated interests but are actively involved in broadening the scope of the possible and in articulating and bringing to the table the ‘interests that can be’ of a collectivity that may yet ‘become’ (Metzger, 2012, page 794). This implies an activist mode of planning [see Sager (2011; 2013) for an overview of activist modes of planning]. For planners working in the system (government planners) an equity type of planning (Krumholz and Forester, 1990) open to local knowledge and where citizens and the disadvantaged become an equal part of the action seems suited. For planners working outside the system (NGO’s, community organizations) only a radical type of planning [for references see Sandercock (1998, pages 97–104) makes it possible to work for structural transformation of systemic inequalities.(7) In this way strategic planning is undoubtedly a political process.
One of the most important manifestations of legal and spiritual life is the fact that whoever has true power is able to determine the content of concepts and words (Schmitt, 1988). With regard to crucial political (and by extension planning) concepts it depends on who interprets, defines, and uses them. Who concretely defines what spatial quality, equity, accountability, and legitimacy are? In this respect, to add to the debate for a more radical strategic planning I look for a cornerstone—coproduction—and additional building blocks—working with conflicts and legitimacy—with a relatively consistent logical relationship, related to not only epistemological challenges but also ontological issues.
Coproduction as a cornerstone for a more radical strategic planning
A challenge in contemporary politics—and by extension, in planning—consists in the dialectic between movements that seek democratization, collective decision making, and empowerment of citizens on the one hand and the established institutions and structures that seek to reabsorb such demands into a distributive framework on the other (see Young, 1990, page 90). It entails a political struggle between different visions of justice: justice as distribution, which presumes a consumer oriented, possessively individualist conception of persons, and justice as enablement and empowerment, which presumes a more active conception of persons (Young, 1990, pages 15–38). A crucial element in this respect is the way in which people are excluded or included in planning processes and the way the relationship between people—technologies of government, norms of self-rule (Roy, 2009)—
are organized. If concerns of some groups in society (especially the weak groups) cannot be tackled within the preconceived level of government, then new practices will have to be invented. Problematically, a wide range of these relationships is being compressed into a one-fits-all concept of ‘citizens’ participation’ which does not seem to provide the equal and reciprocal relationship between the state and (all) citizens that is so much aimed for. If we reflect upon the places in which we live our lives, we will be able to discover layers of stakes (Healey, 1997b, pages 69, 91–92; 2006, page 542) that consist of existing but perhaps unconscious interests in the fate of a specific place. Hence, a plea for “strategies that treat the territory of the urban not just as a container in which things happen, but as a complex mixture of nodes and networks, places and flows, in which multiple relations, activities and values co-exist, interact, combine, conflict, oppress and generate creative synergy” (Healey, 2007, page 1). So, for strategic planning to be successful, a key task is to explore who has a
(7) The focus on structural transformation does not imply that the day-to-day problems are not important for strategic planning. They are important! But there is evidence that, for whatever reasons, spatial planners are often left out (or leave themselves out) or else are reduced to being mere providers of space when major decisions are at stake.
stake in an issue. The question concerning who is to be considered a stakeholder in a particular context or situation is not only an epistemological challenge, but also a fundamentally ontological issue (Metzger, 2012, page 782). The more radical strategic planning therefore looks for an arena: that is, a platform that organizes the relationship between (all) actors in a more open and equitable manner and where actors can articulate their identities, traditions, and values. In different contexts and different intellectual traditions, this search led to a more likely successful coproduction approach and engagement between the state and (all) citizens(8) (see Albrechts, 2013; Bovaird, 2007; Boyle and Harris, 2009; Cahn, 2000; Corburn, 2003;
Joshi and Moore, 2004; Mitlin, 2008; Ostrom, 1996; Parks et al, 1981; Time Banks, 2011;
Watson, 2011; Whitaker, 1980). A strategic spatial planning process based on coproduction acknowledges that some forms of strategic spatial planning tend in the long term to reinforce the status quo because it seeks to resolve conflict, eliminate exclusion, and neutralize power relations rather than embracing them as the very terrain of social mobilization (see Purcell, 2009, page 155). Therefore, it needs to mobilize sufficient discursive counter-power to challenge prevailing powers and go beyond the recycling of established discourses and practices.
It must be emphasized that the concept of coproduction as described in this section is a normative (see Healey, 2010) and moral concept in its own right. This means that its content is given by certain ideals and principles, and these norms articulate certain values (justice, equity, accountability). Following Ostrom (1990), Roy (2009), Mitlin (2008), and Albrechts (2013) coproduction is conceived as a collective endeavor, with citizens as a part of action not its object (Friedmann, 2005) and as a combination of a needs-based and a rights-based approach. Coproduction is constructed as an inclusive and multivocal arena, that is grounded in a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics of urban and regional relations (see Healey, 2006, page 541) where value systems can be articulated, local and scientific knowledge can be combined on an equal base, shared strategic conviction can grow, and conflicts are reframed in a less antagonistic manner. It recognizes that knowledge is always partial and sometimes partisan, and that the search for enhanced knowledge is endless rather than exhaustive (Brand and Gaffikin, 2007, page 293). It is inclusionary (for those in and outside the system), intending to secure political influence and change the status quo with specific projects and policies. In order to expand its impact through radical (political) activism (Purcell, 2009, page 141) it needs substantial autonomy of action. It provides an interaction between the delivery of public goods (strategies, policies, projects) and building strong, resilient, mutually supportive communities: that is, coproduction as a political strategy. In a coproductive form of governance, deliberation takes place through a lot of face-to-face interaction in real time (see Friedmann, 1993, page 482). Face-to- face dialogue (see Legacy, 2010, page 2706) allows acknowledgement of the role of the emotional and the personal, expressed in the narrative that allows “the whole person to be present in negotiations and deliberations” (Sandercock, 2000, page 6). Coproduction compels citizens to be engaged in issues other than their personal ones. In this way it opposes individual selfishness that, as it were, causes society to ‘rust up’ (see de Toqueville, 1992 [1835]) and it may function to reshuffle the dividing lines and shift stale allegiances and attachments. The dialogic process is itself transformative in the relations among the participants, creating a ‘sensing together’ rather than the conventional consensus, whereby antagonism can be domesticated into agonism (Hillier, 2002, page 289). Only under such conditions can policy be designed, not for citizens but by citizens in their role as policy users (see Brand and Gaffikin, 2007, page 290).
(8) See Mazza (2009) and Holston and Appadurai (1996) in this respect
Using coproduction in a strategic planning process offers alternatives, stimulates critical reflection, is noncoercive, and is capable of reflecting particular experiences with more universal principles (equity, social justice) and issues (sustainable development, spatial quality) (see Brand and Gaffikin, 2007, page 294). Coproduction as a central concept embodies a social science perspective (see also Cahn, 2000, page 29) and strengthens the sociospatial character of the strategic planning process. It is looked upon as a process of becoming with outcomes which must be well informed, just, and fair. In this way coproduction is part of a much broader shift that is emerging across all sectors, and most obviously in those fractures that exist between public and private and in public and private. It blurs the boundary between producers and consumers, emphasizes repeated informal interactions (Boyle and Harris 2009, page 22), and derives from a strong ethical sense (see also Moulaert, 2011).
As an alternative to institutionalized and taken-for-granted practices and routines, the added value of incorporating coproduction—conceived as a political strategy—for the selection of problems, discussing of evidence, strategies, justice, or fairness, and the nature and scope of desired outcomes, is that it is conceived as a learning process that permits a plurality of problem definitions, ambitions, and ways to achieve it for those inside and outside the system. Coproduction introduces into the neighborhood, city, or region new identities and practices that disturb established histories. In this way coproduction may strengthen the local organization base of citizens—more specifically the urban poor—and increase their capacity to negotiate successfully with the state (see Mitlin, 2008, page 340) and other powerful actors. In its own politicization it may have the capacity to hold a mirror to the process of neoliberalization revealing its real character, scope, and consequences (see Peck and Tickel, 2002, page 400).
Opening up to the discourses and practices of coproduction, emerging in very different contexts (urban poor in developing countries versus citizens in the West), intellectual traditions (needs based approach versus rights based approach), and practices (provision of services versus securing political influence), forces planning experts to engage with the realities of the urban poor (in the global south as well as in the west) and to include their experiences in planning theory and practice. Coproduction is focused on developing sociospatial imaginations that reinvent modernism’s activist commitments to the construction of places and to the construction of an inclusionary governance system. In this way it “includes not only the views of the most articulate or powerful, but also the views of those who have been systematically excluded by structural inequalities of class, gender and religion” (Sandercock, 1998, page 65) and, as a learning process, it has an emancipatory potential. This implies that strategic planning may not be locked within the interstices of the state and the powerful actors in society(9) (Friedmann, 2011). In a world where actors are interdependent and have an (implicit) reason to engage with each other, coproduction is considered in this paper to be an engine of change that may make a difference between systems working or failing. This assumes that transformative potential lies in the very multiplicity of tensions and stresses of the relational complexity of coproduction processes, creating all kinds of fissures and cracks which can be opened up to create and enlarge moments of opportunity for new ideas (Healey, 1997b; 2006, page 540).
Coproduction, as a normative and ethical concept, is seen as an ideal to be aimed at rather than something that can be perfectly achieved. It requires a change of the status quo.
Coproduction is conceived as a creative task of generating collective becomings underwritten by a democratizing ethos (see Metzger, 2012, page 794) and there are no technical rules and norms according to which coproduction processes are to be conducted (see Mitlin, 2008;
(9) Friedmann (2011, page 71) calls these “leftover, marginal areas where social practice is inconsequential because it poses no threat to the basic configurations of power.”
Roy, 2003; 2009; Watson, 2011). With coproduction, people are being asked to construct their own governance institutions (see Healey, 1997b, page 209). While taking part in these processes participants (may) develop institutional rules, or norms of behavior. Demands for openness and accountability arise from the perception that some (the more articulate, the powerful) may have undue influence behind the scenes (Healey, 1997b, page 209). Intelligent accountability requires more attention to good governance and fewer fantasies about total control. Good governance is possible only if institutions are allowed some margin for self- governance in a form that is appropriate to their particular tasks, and within a framework of financial and other reporting (O’Neill, 2002, page 58). Coproduction advocates greater accountability of the disregarded interests of traditionally marginalized groups. As classical institutions are still endowed with substantial powers, it is clear that redistributive policies also need to be framed in more general redistribution and regulatory policies at higher-scale levels (see also Swyngedouw et al, 2002).
As the values, interests, views, ideas, and policies from actors in a coproduction process are different, strategic spatial planning involves choices and hence inevitably works in a context of conflicts, or clashes between the different actors. As most strategic planning processes are nonstatutory processes, questions are raised about the legitimacy of such processes.
Working with conflict and legitimacy as additional building blocks Working with conflict
Content and process are given by certain ideals, the principles which articulate certain values (justice, equity, accountability). These values may be different from the perspective of (even different levels of) the state,(10) the community, and NGO’s. In the spatial planning field it requires a need to recognize the deeply pluralistic character of our neighborhoods, cities, city regions, and regions and the irreducible conflicts of values and interests, with all the conflicts that pluralism entails. Conflicts for which no rational solution could ever exist (Mouffe, 2005, page 10). Hence the necessity to open up strategic spatial planning—as a field of contested planning rationalities and spatial logics (see Olesen and Richardson, 2012, page 1691)—for a plurality of understandings. What is at stake is the recognition of social division and the legitimization of conflict. It brings to the fore the existence in a democratic society of a plurality of interests and demands which, although they conflict and can never be finally reconciled, should nevertheless be considered as legitimate (Mouffe, 2005, pages 119–120; see also Hillier, 2002; 2003; Brand and Gaffikin, 2007).
It is not in the power of strategic spatial planning to eliminate conflicts but it is in its power to create the practices, discourses, and institutions that would allow those conflicts to take an agonistic(11) form (see Mouffe, 2005, page 130). It, therefore, aims for a fundamental shift in the balance of power not only between governments and citizens but also between different private actors (see Boyle and Harris, 2009). Planners must raise awareness that strategic spatial planning is a field shaped by power relations where a hegemonic struggle takes place and that it risks becoming an instrument in the imposition of a neoliberal policy and a Western intellectual (political) hegemony. Hence, the necessity of making room for pluralizing strategic spatial planning. As these processes may have a deep impact, concerns
(10) In any context the state (and actors who promote their interests through the state) comprises actors who have agency and power, operate within different rationalities, and take positions (individually or in coalition) even within the disciplining effects of laws, rules, and regulations (Watson, 2011, page 14).In fact I suggest combining a rights-based and a needs-based approach.
(11) Agonism is looked upon as a we–they relation where the conflicting parties, although acknowledging that there is no rational solution to their conflict, nevertheless recognize the legitimacy of their opponents (Mouffe, 2005, page 20).
are expressed (see Mäntysalo, 2013; Mazza, 2013)(12) about the legitimacy of strategic planning processes and consequently about the role of planners in these processes.
Legitimacy
Legitimacy is not only a procedural problem (who decides) but also a substantive problem (the link between strategic planning and statutory planning). For Mazza (2013)(13) and Mäntysalo (2013) the possible detachment of strategic spatial planning from the statutory planning system into a parallel informal system would pose a serious legitimacy problem. So, instead of detaching strategic planning from statutory planning Mäntysalo (2013, page 51) identifies strategic planning not only as planning distinct from statutory planning but also as planning framing the statutory–strategic planning relationship itself. In line with Friedmann (2004, page 56), he argues that, as a consequence, the objective of strategic planning should not be the production of plans themselves (not even strategic ones) but the production of insights of prospective change and encouraging public debates on them. It is a way of probing the future in order to make more intelligent and informed decisions in the present (Friedmann 2004, page 56). The strategic probing of future uncertainties frames the fixing of certainties in the present.
The voluntary character of most European strategic planning experiences seems, for some, to act as a structural antidote against marked standardization (see Balducci, 2008; Sartorio, 2005)(14). As long as strategic planning is not defined as a legally defined instrument—
and for many it would not be a wise move to strengthen or legalize the approach—then strategic planning is a tool which can convey innovation and creative action into processes of urban and regional development (Kunzmann, 2013). For some (see Balducci et al, 2011;
(12) L Mazza, personal communication by e-mail, 24 August 2011.
(13) L Mazza, personal communication by e-mail, 24 August 2011.
(14) To my knowledge there are two remarkable exceptions: plans in Flanders contain an informative part describing the existing spatial structure, the trends, and prognoses; an indicative part: the vision on the spatial development of the area concerned, the spatial principles, and the wished-for spatial structure; a binding part: the tasks and guidelines for the realization of the desired spatial structure in provisions which are binding for the government. Second, what is represented as ‘strategic’ planning in Australia at a metropolitan scale, often tends to be a set of long-range blueprints for investment (Searle and Bunker, 2010), promising certainty in an increasingly uncertain world (Bunker and Searle, 2007; Searle and Bunker, 2010), whilst lacking the legal, budgetary and/or administrative bases necessary for coordinated implementation (Bunker, 2011; Bunker and Searle, 2007; Engels, 2012;
Hillier, 2013; Huxley, 2000; McLoughlin, 1992). Whilst there is a multiplicity of actors with vested interests in strategic spatial planning, each seemingly demanding their own certainty, in Victoria and Western Australia (WA) ‘certainty’ for landowners, investors and developers has tended to take precedence, becoming an, if not the, authorised planning discourse. As Freestone (1981, page 16) states, “planning promised certainty for investment decisions” from the early 20th century onwards, not only for Australian investors, but increasingly those from Britain” (Engels, 2012; Grant and Searle, 1978). Planned residential subdivisions gave land and property owners certainty of investment returns.
Strict controls on subdivision have been opposed by property interests from the 1920s onwards. Land- use planning and economic growth are intrinsically connected. ‘Progress’ is equated with order, buildings, and economic development. The spatial rationalities comprising the plane of composition of metropolitan planning in Victoria and WA have included ‘progress’ and ‘certainty’, with concomitant requirements of possession, and thereby dispossession, of land. Perth’s Metroplan (DPUD, 1990) was primarily a predictive blueprint, as was Network City (WAPC/DPI, 2004) despite its claims to the contrary, while its successor, Directions 2031 (WAPC/DOP, 2010), is claimed as ‘a planning framework that seeks to create planning certainty’ (Committee for Perth in 2009) all cited by Hillier, (2013). From its origins, planning has been reactive rather than proactive. Its powers are negative: to control development by either granting or refusing permission to applications made by other agents.
Until the late 1970s the planning system in WA was mainly implemented by building surveyors who operated a mechanistic, tick-box system of controls derived from building by-laws (Hedgcock and Yiftachel, 1994, page 309).
Kunzmann, 2013), any effort to standardize and legalize strategic planning would be extremely counterproductive.(15) Indeed, by doing this, the flexible instrument would soon become as procrustean and inflexible as traditional overregulated land-use planning (Kunzmann, 2013, page 31). For others the end product may consist of a critical analysis of the main processes and structural constraints shaping our places, which amounts to realistic, dynamic, integrated, and indicative long-term visions (frames), plans for short-term and long-term actions, a budget, and flexible strategies for implementation. It constitutes a commitment or (partial) (dis)agreement between the key actors. As (mainly) nonstatutory processes, questions are raised on the kind of legitimacy in strategic planning processes (see Mazza, 2013, page 40).
Coproduction (can be/has been/is) looked upon as an attack on the legitimacy of political institutions as it reverses and upsets the relationship between the state and its citizens. The normative idea of coproduction does not sit easily within an increasingly neoliberal political climate. It is clear that the representative government articulates merely political and not all values. If we accept that representative democracy is not a single completed thing but that it is capable of ‘becoming’(16) in a new context and in relation to new issues at hand then we may conclude that a more radical strategic planning based on coproduction does not reject representative democracy but complements it. It adds to the fullness of concrete human content, and to the genuineness of community links [see Žižek (1992, page 163) about the very notion of democracy]. With coproduction the aim is to stimulate counterhegemonic projects and to challenge power relations through a process of change. It needs a disarticulation of existing practices and the creation of new discourses and (informal) institutions (Mouffe, 2005, page 33). The narrative of coproduction is a narrative of emancipation: it fulfills a legitimating function: that is, it legitimates social and political institutions and practices, forms of legislation, ethics, and modes of thought and symbolism. It grounds this legitimacy not in an original founding act but in a future to be brought about: that is, an idea to realize.
This idea (of equity, fairness, social justice) has legitimating value because it is universal (see Lyotard, 1992, page 50). So, apart from legitimacy stemming from a representative mandate, in strategic planning—looked upon as a quest, a collective process, a social construction fighting for a new (even impossible) future [see also Healey (2008) and Monno (2010) who argues that strategic planning has too limited a scope in that it does not include envisioning the impossible] and a specific output—legitimacy may come from its performance as a creative and innovative force and its capacity to deliver positive outcomes and actually gain benefits. As such, strategic planning is ‘in’ politics (it is about making choices) and it cannot escape politics (it must make values and ethics transparent), but it is ‘not’ politics (it does not make the ultimate decisions).
(15) Experience across Germany (see Kunzmann, 2001) shows that institutionalizing strategic planning by creating new public or public supported agencies does not necessarily stabilize planning efforts. The Ruhr is a pertinent example. The established intercommunal regional authority, the Regionalverband Ruhr, did not succeed in launching any regional development perspective. Subsequently, many large cities such as Berlin, Dortmund, and Frankfurt established new urban development units, acting as think tanks for strategic urban development, while traditional routine land-use planning was left to the established urban planning department. Though a few years later, with the declining trust in the role of the public sector, most such units were scaled down or even sacrificed to demonstrate the willingness to reduce ‘unnecessary’ staff in the public sector. In recent years, however, a renaissance of strategic urban development can be observed. Cities, such as Stuttgart, Leipzig, Bonn, and Dresden, or Vienna in Austria have successfully initiated the development of strategic urban development perspectives.
Addressing the regional tier, the German Academy of Spatial Research and Planning has recently launched a position paper to promote regional strategic planning (ARL, 2011).
(16) Strategic spatial planning, as presented here, shifts from an ontology of ‘being’, which privileges outcome and end-state, towards an ontology of ‘becoming’, in which actions, movement, relationships, conflicts, process, and emergence are emphasized (see Chia, 1995, page 601; 1999, page 215).
Concluding note
To take part in the debate on existing planning approaches and the search for new ideas (see Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010, page 328) I have provided in this paper the contours of a more radical strategic planning with coproduction as a cornerstone and working with conflicts and legitimacy as additional building blocks. A basic purpose of this radical strategic spatial planning is to position cities and regions as both the text and context of new debates about fundamental sociospatial relations, and it is about thinking without frontiers, by providing new kinds of practices and narratives about belonging to and being involved in the construction of a place and in society at large.
It is argued that if dominant modes of knowledge (causal, statistical), are incapable of envisioning the impossible [as the absolutely new (see Grosz, 1999, page 21)], they have to be questioned (see Roy, 2010) and complemented with other modes of knowing and other forms of thinking. Coproduction, as conceived in this paper, is introduced to open up for other modes of knowing, and to avoid shaping an urban future in a way that is just in line with the aspirations of the most powerful segment among the actors. It therefore combines the usual concept of coproduction in the provision of public goods and services needed and coproduction as a political strategy preparing citizens and grassroots organizations for a more substantive engagement with the political. In this way it is instrumental in the building of strong, resilient, and mutually supportive communities that could assure its members that their needs would be met. This makes coproduction different from standard ‘participation’
(see also Mitlin, 2008). Underlying this is the conscious or unconscious maintenance of citizens as passive recipients is not just a waste of their skills and time; it is also the reason why systemic change does not happen.
The normative viewpoint of a more radical strategic spatial planning produces quite a different picture from traditional planning in terms of strategies (strategies versus master plans or land-use plans), type of planning (providing a framework versus technical or legal regulation), and type of governance (a more pivotal role for civil society through coproduction). In this way it aims to enable a transformative shift, where necessary, to develop openness to new ideas, and to understand and accept the need and opportunity for change.
Radical strategic planning needs to mobilize the power of citizens to engage in counter- hegemonic struggles to establish other policies and to play a central role in decision making by insisting that other policies are possible (see Lambert-Pennington et al, 2011; Purcell, 2009, pages 151–152; Saija, 2011) or, in Monno’s (2010) terms working the impossible as emancipatory imagination. It counters hegemonic politics by challenging neoliberalization, in which some groups are systematically advantaged by decision-making practices (Purcell, 2009, page 154). In this way the results of strategic spatial planning processes cannot be judged solely by the implementation of a plan or strategy. Broadening the scope of possible futures and giving voice to certain groups must be considered as important and valuable outcomes of a strategic planning process. Strategic planning gets its legitimacy through a combination of its performance as a creative and innovative force, its potential to deliver positive outcomes, and a formal acceptance by the relevant government level.
The more radical strategic spatial planning is not presented here as the ultimate model which would be chosen, in idealized conditions, by every planner, government, or NGO as a panacea for all challenges and all problems; it is not meant as a substitute but as a complement for other planning tools (statutory planning). It is clear that strategic spatial planning and especially the more radical version presented in this paper needs a context and an intellectual tradition in which success factors (see Needham, 2000) are available or can be made available. The capacity of a strategic spatial planning system to deliver the desired outcomes is dependent not only on the system itself, but also on the conditions underlying it
(see also Mintzberg, 1994). The surrounding political regime enhances or inhibits the institutional change needed for the more radical strategic planning to be adopted. These conditions clearly affect the ability of planning systems to implement the chosen strategies.
This is linked to moments of opportunity when strategic ambitions seem to engage with political structures. The structure element of political opportunity helps us to focus on path dependence in institutional development (Newman, 2008, page 1379) and to acknowledge that the past puts constraints on future development.
The more radical strategic planning described in this paper may take place beyond the boundaries(17) of the (traditional) planning profession and planning laws and regulations. As it aims to check government and corporate power, guarantee the use of local knowledge and ensure that planning processes are responsive and democratic (see Friedmann, 1992) and as it aims at securing political influence it is certainly confrontational and conflicting. It is directed at change by means of specific outputs (strategies, plans, policies, projects) framed through spaces of deliberative opportunities. These outcomes must be well informed, just, and fair. As mentioned before, the fact that whoever has true power is able to determine the content of these concepts and words places this conceptualization at the heart of any strategic planning process.
If we want a culture of public service, professionals and public servants must in the end be free to serve the public rather than their paymasters (O’Neill, 2002, page 59; see also Healey, 2010). As a more radical strategic planning requires a change to the status quo the world of planning and planners inevitably becomes more complicated and messy. However, it is in making planning issues and approaches messy that transformative practices can take place (see also Campbell, 2002, page 351).
Acknowledgment. I would like to thank three referees for their insightful comments.
References
Adonis Barbieri R, 2008, “From global to local: Erechim 100 plan and city marketing in the periphery, paper presented at 44th Isocarp congress, http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1272.pdf Albrechts L, 2004, “Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined” Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design 31 743–758
Albrechts L, 2013, “Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective”
Planning Theory and Practice 12 46–63
Albrechts L, Balducci A, 2013, “Practicing strategic planning: in search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plans” disP-The Planning Review 49(3) 16–27
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2009a, “Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway” Environment and Planning A 41 617–633
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2009b, “Commentary. Critical reflections on spatial planning”
Environment and Planning A 41 2544–2549
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2010, “The future of spatial planning: why less may be more” Town and Country Planning July, 326–328
ARL, 2011, “Strategische Regionalplanung”, Ein Positionspapier 84, Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung, Hanover, http://shop.arl-net.de/media/direct/pdf/pospaper_84.pdf
Balducci A, 2008, “Constructing (spatial) strategies in complex environments”, in Empowering the Planning Fields: Ethics, Creativity and Action Eds J Van den Broeck, F Moulaert, S Oosterlynck (Acco, Leuven) pp 79–99
Balducci A, Fedeli V, Pasqui G (Eds), 2011 Strategic Planning for Contemporary Urban Regions (Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey)
Bovaird T, 2007, “Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services” Public Administration Review 67 846–860
(17) Hajer (2009, chapter 1) refers to a legitimacy deficit as the complications that arise now the most pressing policy problems no longer respect the territorial scales along which constituencies are traditionally organized.
Boyle D, Harris M, 2009, “The challenge of coproduction: how equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services”, discussion paper, Nesta, London, http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_challenge_of_co-production.pdf
Brand R, Gaffikin F, 2007, “Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world” Planning Theory and Practice 6 282–313
Bryson J M, 1995 Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA)
Bryson J M, Roering W D, 1988, “Initiation of strategic planning by governments” Public Administration Review 48 995–1004
Bunker R, 2011, “Paradigm lost or paradigm renamed? Current Australian metropolitan strategies”, paper presented at SOAC, Melbourne University, 29 November–2 December
Bunker R, Searle G, 2007, “Seeking certainty: recent planning for Sydney and Melbourne” Town Planning Review 78 619–642
Cahn E, 2000 No More Throw-away People: The Co-production Imperative (Essential Books, Washington, DC)
Campbell H, 2002, “Thinking about discourses: theory is practical?” Planning Theory and Practice 3 351–352
Campbell H, Marshall R, 2006, “Towards justice in planning: a re-appraisal” European Planning Studies 14 239–252
Cerreta M, Concilio G, Monno V (Eds), 2010 Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Values (Springer, Dordrecht)
Chia R, 1995, “From modern to postmodern organizational analysis” Organization Studies 16 579–604
Chia R, 1999, “A ‘rhizomic’ model of organizational change and transformation: perspective from a metaphysics of change” British Journal of Management 10 209–227
Corburn J, 2003, “Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: improving urban planning for communities at risk” Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 420–433 de Toqueville A, 1992[1835] De la démocratie en Amérique (Les Éditions Gallimard, Paris) DPUD, 1990 Metroplan: A Planning Strategy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Department of
Planning and Urban Development (Government of WA, Perth) Dyrberg T B, 1997 The Circular Structure of Power (Verso, London)
Engels B, 2012, “From parks to social infrastructure: the historical evolution of public facility provision standards in the metropolitan planning of Melbourne”, paper presented at 26th AESOP Annual Congress, Ankara, 11–15 July
Forester J, 1989 Planning in the Face of Power (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA) Forester J, 2010, “Foreword” Making Strategies in Spatial Planning Eds M Cerreta, G Concilio,
V Monno (Springer, Dordrecht) pp v–vii
Freestone R, 1981, “Planning for profit in urban Australia 1900–1930: a descriptive prolegomenon”
Antipode 13(1) 15–26
Friedmann J, 1982 The Good Society (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Friedmann J, 1992 Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development (Blackwell, Oxford) Friedmann J, 1993, “Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning” Journal of the American Planning
Association 59 482–485
Friedmann J, 2004, “Strategic spatial planning and the longer range” Planning Theory and Practice 5 49–67
Friedmann J, 2005, “Globalization and the emerging culture of planning” Progress in Planning 64 183–234
Friedmann J, 2011 Insurgencies: Essays in Planning Theory (Routledge, London)
Graham S, Healey P, 1999, “Relational concepts of space and place: issues for planning theory and practice” European Planning Studies 7 623–646
Grant J, Searle G, 1978 The Melbourne Scene 1803–1956 (Hale and Ironmonger, Sydney)
Grosz E, 1999, “Thinking the new: of futures yet unthought”, in Becomings: Explorations in Time, Memory, and Futures Ed. E Grosz (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY) pp 15–28
Hajer M, 2009 Authoritative Governance: Policy-making in the Age of Mediatization (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Harvey D, 1989, “From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism” Geografiska Annaler Series B 71 3–17
Haughton G, Allmendinger P, Oosterlynck S, 2013, “Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality” Environment and Planning A 45 217–234 Healey P, 1997a, “The revival of strategic spatial planning in Europe”, in Making Strategic Spatial
Plans Eds P Healey, A Khakee, A Motte, B Needham (UCL Press, London) pp 3–19 Healey P, 1997b Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (Palgrave
Macmillan , Basingstoke, Hants)
Healey P, 1999, “Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places” Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 111–121
Healey P, 2000, “Planning in relational time and space: responding to new urban realities”, in A Companion to the City Eds G Bridge, H Watson (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 517–530
Healey P, 2004, “The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28 45–67
Healey P, 2006, “Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning”
European Planning Studies 14 525–546
Healey P, 2007 Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for our Times (Routledge, London)
Healey P, 2008, “Making choices that matter: the practical art of situated strategic judgement in spatial strategy-making”, in Empowering the Planning Fields: Ethics, Creativity and Action Eds J Van den Broeck, F Moulaert, S Oosterlynck (Acco, Leuven) pp 23–41
Healey P, 2010 Making Better Places: The Planning Project for the Twenty-first Century (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
Hedgcock D, Yiftachel O, 1994, “Planning the West: one hundred years of planning in Western Australia” Planning Perspectives 9 297–319
Hillier J, 2002 Shadows of Power (Routledge, London)
Hillier J, 2003, “Agonising over consessus—why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’ ” Planning Theory and Practice 2 37–59
Hillier J, 2007 Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
Hillier J, 2013, “On relationality and uncertainty” disP-The Planning Review 49(3) 32–39 Holston J, Appadurai A, 1996, “Cities and citizenship” Public Culture 8 187–204
Huxley M, 2000, “Administrative coordination, urban management and strategic planning in the 1970s”, in The Australian Metropolis Eds S Hamnett, R Freestone (Spon, London) pp 119–134 Huxley M, Yftachel O, 2000, “New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in
planning theory” Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 331–342
Jessop B, 2000, “The crisis of national spatio-temporal fix and the ecological dominance of globalizing” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24 323–360
Joshi A, Moore M, 2004, “Institutionalized coproduction: unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments” The Journal of Development Studies 40(4) 31–49
Kaufman J L, Jacobs H M, 1987, “A public planning perspective on strategic planning” Journal of the American Planning Association 53 21–31
Krumholz N, Forester J, 1990 Making Equity Planning Work (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Kunzmann K, 2000, “Strategic spatial development through information and communication”, in PA)
The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning Eds W Salet, A Faludi (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam) pp 259–265
Kunzmann K, 2001, “The Ruhr in Germany: a laboratory for regional governance”, in The Changing Institutional Landscape Eds L Albrechts, J Alden, A da Rosa Pires (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 133–158
Kunzmann K, 2013, “Strategic planning; a chance for spatial innovation and creativity” disP-The Planning Review 49(3) 28–31
Lambert-Pennington K, Westendorff D, Reardon, K, 2011, “Planning under the lion’s paw: a Bluff City tale”, paper presented at ACSP Congress, Salt Lake City, 13–16 October
Leal de Oliveira F, 2000, “Strategic planning and urban competition” Planners Network: The Agenda of Multinational Agencies in Brazil number 143 11–13
Legacy C, 2010, “Investigating the knowledge interface between stakeholder engagement and plan- making” Environment and Planning A 42 2705–2720
Lyotard J F, 1992 The Postmodern Explained (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) McLoughlin J B, 1992 Shaping Melbourne’s Future? (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Mäntysalo R, 2013, “Coping with the paradox of strategic spatial planning” disP-The Planning
Review 49(3) 51–52
Mazza L, 2009, “Strategic planning and republicanism”, paper presented at IAUS Conference, Belgrade, 7–8 December,
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-569X/2010/1450-569X1022001M.pdf
Mazza L, 2013, “If strategic ‘planning is everything maybe it’s nothing’ ” disP-The Planning Review 49(3) 40–42
Metzger J, 2012, “Placing the stakes: the enactment of territorial stakeholders in planning processes”
Environment and Planning A 45 781–796
Mintzberg H, 1994 The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (The Free Press, New York)
Mitlin D, 2008, “With and beyond the state: coproduction as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations” Environment and Urbanization 20 339–360
Monno V, 2010, “When strategy meets democracy: exploring the limits of the ‘possible’ and the value of the ‘impossible’ ”, in Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Values Eds M Cerreta, G Concilio, V Monno (Springer, Dordrecht) pp 161–183
Motte A, 2006 La Notion de Planification Stratégique Spatialisée en Europe (1995–2005) (Puca, Paris)
Mouffe Ch, 2005 On the Political (Routledge London)
Moulaert F, 2011, “When solidarity boosts strategic planning”, in Strategic Spatial Projects: Catalysts for Change Eds S Oosterlynck, J Van den Broeck, L Albrechts, F Moulaert, A Verhetsel (Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon) pp 79–84
Needham B, 2000, “Making strategic spatial plans: a situational methodology!” Revival of Strategic Planning Eds Salet W, A Faludi (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam) pp 79–90
Newman P, 2008, “Strategic spatial planning: collective action and moments of opportunity”
European Planning Studies 16 1371–1383
Ogilvy J, 2002 Creating Better Futures (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Olesen K, 2011 Strategic Spatial Planning in Transition: Case Study of Denmark PhD thesis, Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University,
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/56082656/strategic_spatial_planning_in_transition_olesen_2011.pdf Olesen K, 2012, “The neoliberalisation of strategic planning” Planning Theory and Practice 13
288–303
Olesen K, Richardson T, 2012, “Strategic spatial planning in transition: contested rationalities and spatial logics in 21st century Danish spatial planning” European Planning Studies 20 1689–1706 O’Neill O, 2002 A Question of Trust (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Ostrom E, 1990 Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Ostrom E, 1996, “Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development” World Development 24 1073–1087
Ozbekhan H, 1969, “Towards a general theory of planning”, in Perspectives of Planning Ed. E Jantsch (OECD, Paris) pp 45–155
Parks R, Baker P, Kiser L, Oakerson R, Ostrom E, Ostrom V, Percy L, Vandivort M, Whitaker G, Wilson R, 1981, “Consumers as coproducers of public services: some eco nomic and institutional considerations” Policy Studies Journal 9 1001–1011
Peck J, Tickel A, 2002, “Neoliberalizing space” Antipode 34 380–404
Purcell M, 2009, “Resisting neoliberalization: communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements?” Planning Theory 8 140–165
Roy A, 2003 City Requiem, Calcutta; Gender and the Politics of Poverty (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
Roy A, 2009, “Civic governmentality: the politics of inclusion in Beirut and Mumbai” Antipode 41 159–179
Roy A, 2010 Poverty Capital (Routledge, New York)
Sager T, 2011, “Activist modes of planning: a systematic overview”, paper presented at WPSC Perth 4–8 July
Sager T, 2013 Reviving Critical Planning Theory (Routledge New York)
Saija L, 2011, “The US empowerment planning approach meets Sicilian community planning. The community mapping initiative in the Simeto Valley (Sicily, Italy)”, paper presented at ACSP Congress, Salt Lake City 13–16 October
Salet W, Faludi A (Eds), 2000 Revival of Strategic Planning (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam)
Sandercock L, 1998 Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, Sussex)
Sandercock L, 2000, “When strangers become neighbours: managing cities of difference” Planning Theory and Practice 1 13–30
Sartorio F, 2005, “Strategic spatial planning: a historical review of approaches, its recent revival, and an overview of the state of the art in Italy” disP-The Planning Review 41(162) 26–40
Schmitt C, 1988, “Völkerrechtliche Formen des modernen Imperialismus”, in Positionen und Begriffe Ed. C Schmitt (Duncker and Humbolt, Berlin) pp 162–180
Searle G, Bunker R, 2010, “Metropolitan strategic planning: an Australian paradigm?” Planning Theory 9 163–180
Sun Tzu, 500BCE/1994 Art of War translated by R Sawyer (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) Swyngedouw E, Moulaert F, Rodriguez A, 2002, “Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large-scale
urban development projects and the New Urban Policy” Antipode 34 542–577 Time Banks, 2011, “History of coproduction: coproduction the emerging imperative,
http://sbtimebank.org/pages/…/historyOfCoProduction
Van Reybrouck D, 2013 Tegen Verkiezingen (De Bezige Bij, Amsterdam)
WAPC/DOP, 2010 Directions 2031: Draft Spatial Framework for Perth and Peel West Australian Planning Commission/Department of Planning (WAPC, Perth)
WAPC/DPI, 2004 Network City: Community Planning Strategy for Perth and Peel West Australian Planning Commission/Department of Planning and Infrastructure (WAPC, Perth)
Watson V, 2007, “Revisiting the role of urban planning. Concept Paper for the 2009 Global Report on Human Settlements, Cape Town
Watson V, 2011, “ Planning and conflict—moving on”, paper presented at WPSC Perth, 4–8 July Whitaker G, 1980, “Coproduction: citizen participation in service delivery” Public Administration
Review 40 240–246
Young I, 1990 Justice and the Politics of Difference. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Žižek S, 1992 Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan Through Popular Culture (MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA)
Žižek S, 1999 The Ticklish Subject (Verso, London)