2.3. COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
2.3.2. Collaborative planning dichotomy
The revolutional change of the livelihood patterns and systems in cities globally occurs as a response to increased levels of knowledge, information, technology and large scale influential events (Scoones, 2009). These events have been a vital factor in the formulation of the current planning capacity and strategic planning patterns. Collaborative planning theory emerged in the 1980s at the pinnacle of a global transitional phase, an era of globalisation, new leadership and new developmental initiatives (Watson, 2016). The author outlined that the theory emerged within the unsettled ideology concerning planning, with regards to what planning meant to different people and different sectors. Watson (2016) asked how planning was done and what planning could achieve, and this was a question that every researcher was trying to elucidate at the time.
The theory emerged as a sensory reaction, involving a cluster of scholars within planning and other fields. It entailed the characteristics of fine grained research information, planning processes and their interpretations, and the inclusion of social theorists who constructed normative perspectives on practical implementation. The construction of the collaborative theory involved various theorists who shared their ideas and reflected on different angles.
Each theorist came to the table with results from their own scholarly discussions and personal correspondence that allowed for the further building of information based on what was being shared. The theorists Habermas, Foucault and Dewey steered the theory into focusing on considerable sections of dialogue, interactions, communication, and argumentative and deliberative approaches (Yang, 2015).
Collaborative planning became relevant to the realities of the planning outlook at the time as it expanded, and it attracted attention to itself within the academy of planning, according to Innes (1995). It was discussed in the Journal of Planning Education and Research and in one of the articles it was stressed that the collaborative planning theory could dominate the planning theory paradigm. This claim challenged the rational model theorists, however, criticism came from the neo-Marxist and political economists who had been involved in planning since the 1960s. The interaction between these players stimulated confrontational proceedings and conferences, but the theory prevailed due to its lack of response towards the attacks. Innes (1995) continued that planning at the time had become a coordinated paradigm that was structurally constructed by divided discourses.
32 The nature of planning today is complicated and diverse, and involves a set of communities that contribute via different languages, beliefs and methods towards dissimilar objective towards a similar ends. The nature of the current planning approach also results in students finding it hard to grasp the concepts behind planning, resulting in their frustration and misperceptions (Watson, 2016). Nevertheless, the one challenge that faces collaborative theory as a planning subject is the criticism that formulates framed dichotomies between perceptions, resulting in them appearing mismatched.
a) Collaborative planning perspective on development
The theory of collaborative/communicative planning is a concept which is used in the UK interchangeably. Due to the complexity of the developing world in all pillars of the economy, the theory intends to address the relevant issues in different contexts but at the same time.
The essence of the two concepts of ‘collaborative and communicative planning’ relate to learning about how to collaborate with different stakeholders and participate in effective decision making. The theory is concerned with development initiatives such as policy formulation and implementation processes (Chrislip, 2002). It also involves the art of communication to deal with development issues such as poverty, unemployment, infrastructural degradation, segregation, etc. (Healey, 1999). Collaborative planning is effective within different arenas, and in the development space it is vital to utilise the essence of the theory in policy and regulation negotiations, community meetings, and public- private partnerships (PPP).
The importance of collaborative planning is related to its ability to conceptualise the development initiative by addressing the issue of advancing personal interests by stakeholders. Planning to develop a city requires an advanced shared interest or vision to effectively implement development initiatives (Bouton et al, 2013). This ideology implies the eradication of segregators amongst participants for the purpose of creating an inclusive environment that is neither segregated nor discriminatory to any group of individuals. This factor includes the right of the poor and underprivileged to access services and opportunities that the elite of the country have (including space, infrastructure, service delivery, job opportunities, education, etc.). Thus, the emphasis of collaborative planning is to reduce adversarial relationships among the rich and those in authority (such as planners and politicians) and to deal with the redressing of power and resource disparities and efficiently.
Redistributing them to various stakeholders avoids power struggles and exploitive decision- making advantages. The idea is to reach a common interest for everyone involved, including the community as a whole.
33 The collaborative theory can act as a strategic tool within the development environment regarding space in the informal markets, the planning system has the advantage of amplifying the voices of informal traders within the urban environment. The exclusion of the informal market from the policy frameworks and its spatial segregation from the urban core has created various implications for the informal economy. The initiatives taken via policy implementation alone are not enough to solve the diversity of the rising issues faced by traders. A large scale participation paradigm is necessary as various groups and various individuals struggle with the perpetuation of spatial complications and a one-directional solution developed by only a few participants is not justifiable as it will not solve the problems.
Berke (2002) attempts to focus the idea of communicative planning as a major planning strategic tool, stating that it has been widely accepted and is a dominant practice that is taught to planning scholars. It is a process of facilitating development, which is more significant at a local and regional planning level due to the wide range of social factors involved and the organisational welfare that is critical for development planning in the case of societal growth. The acceptance of collaborative planning is also a magnetic stimulus for broader stakeholder involvement which involves government officials from different departments and private sector actors for the success of development initiatives (Mandarano, 2008).
b) Collaborative planning: political influencer
Collaborative planning/communicative theory is a modern planning theory it concentrates on strategic planning that is inclusive of the significance of communication and collaboration (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2014). The theory obliges its principle standards to focus on a political platform where issues are resolved by involving all affected people in the decision making process and it has a firm normative layer shaped by its practice (Martens, 2010). This is alluded to by Habermas (1981), stating that people’s behaviour and similar actions establish relative knowledge, which when brought together will produce an appropriate action/ solution to existing and future social and economic problems. This suggests that social problems are solved via collaborative or communicative action, with spatial planning acting as a tool.
Due to the long history of cartographic imagery intended to highlight the behaviour of public and private policy actors, the theory occupied a transparent vehicle in search of a more social and economic binding approach within developmental decision-making processes. It sought an approach that had a sense of semiotic and linguistic characters to establish a verified social discourse and a clear meaning of reality (Salet and Faludi, 2015).
34 The theory recognises the benefits of constructing a collaborative society/consciousness with a stable social identity, which allows for the hidden or dormant social and economic developmental action motives of the community to come into the light and become functional and create new forms of social and spatial planning coordination and rapport (Martach, 2004). Due to the nature of the theory and as it entails numerous sub-streams, the theory also attempts to re-deduce and reconstruct existing conceptions for innovative planning conditions, while constructively endeavouring to design new discourses to establish efficient, effective, resilient and sustainable strategic planning (Salet and Faludi, 2015). The theory in this research attempts to direct the research by pointing out the ability of communicative strategic spatial planning to capture the essence of the social and economic objectives of the informal traders by instituting new references for present and future action.
Various theorists argue that the ideal attitude of the collaborative action and communicative theory is to replace, reconstruct and renew existing entrenched ways of exclusive decision- making processes through the activity of communicative ideology. This includes the transformation of current modes of governance, and the ability of stakeholders and involved actors to share their power to achieve communicative planning with a solid foundation for development. Healey (1996) argues that inclusive development as a product of communicative planning should be characterised by democratic socialism, where all stakeholders at a mutual level of power participate individually but in a collective state to develop strategies to achieve sustainable spatial planning objectives. The change of traditional practices of decision making is involved; the community will be involved and be open-minded to new and innovative ways of development. The theory deals heavily with the issue of change (Martens, 2010). Therefore, this research benefit from this theory as it constructs its argument from the perspective of effective change. It contributes to this study by looking at the emphasis of communicative planning by planners as the key actors to changing the social and economic environment. It discusses the role of municipalities in social and economic growth in spatial planning on a local level, and finally, in addition it discusses the character and ability of the community to establish transformative change within its own setting.
c) Government vs. governance meaning in urban areas
The changes in governance within the urban agenda with regards to developmental and planning practices have a significant implication on the transitional pattern from the preceding to the contemporary policies (Elwood 2002). In South Africa, this marks a key point of departure as the topic around government, its citizens and the rise and fall of democracy is a continuing debate amongst planners. This debate relates to the notion of
35 who has power in what is classified as democracy, and to what extant the community must partake in decision making compared to what is being practiced. The debate is also compounded by the limits of government involvement within democracy in relation to societal development initiatives. The major question lies with the confusion as to which democratic distinction is applicable for the efficient functionality of the community and all development projects; ‘representative democracy’ or ‘participatory democracy’? Roseland (2005) distinguishes between the terms ‘government’ and ‘governance’: government being the
‘implementation’ aspect and governance the ‘leadership’ aspect. Collaborative planning links the perspectives of citizens as partners, coordinators and educators of citizen practices within the government, thus planners and public professionals are employed as problem solvers and vehicles of implementing decisions taken (Boyte, 2005).