Community planning 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Community planning 2010

on

  • 257 views

guest lecture on community planning

guest lecture on community planning

Statistics

Views

Total Views
257
Views on SlideShare
257
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Community planning 2010 Community planning 2010 Presentation Transcript

  • Community Planning Philosophy to Policy 2010 Nicola Headlam 8 th March 2010
  •  
  • Lecture Structure
    • Philosophy
    • Planning Theory
    • The Policy Process
    • Some stories about policy…
    • Policy 1: Open Source Planning
    • Policy 2: CLG and the Community Empowerment White Paper
    • Policy 3 : The Sustainable Communities Act
    • A Case Study : East Oxford Action
  • Handouts/references
    • Chapter 10 of Smith, Lepine & Taylor (2007)
    • Chapter 7 of IPPR Public Services at the Crossroads
    • Open Source Planning Conservative Green Paper Feb 2010
    • References : Allmendinger and Brownill
  • Nicola
    • 4th year PhD student
    • Research interests; governability of the Greater Manchester city region, policy transfer and innovation in regeneration and economic development, LAAs, MAAs
    • Previously worked in Social Inclusion in Oxford
    • Doctorate sponsored by CLES
  • Philosophy 101
    • Ontology = what exists
    • Epistemology = how you can make claims about it
    • Empirical = what you argue you demonstrated about what exists
    • Action (including policy making) contains implicit ontological, epistemological and empirical assumptions
    • Unpacking and challenging these can keep you busy for a lifetime
  •  
  • Changed Perspectives… Reality as a social construct
  • A Changed Perspective (b) “state” as a social system
    • Dynamic systems
    • in a spatial dimension
    The state as part of an overall system
  • Governability (Kooiman)
  • Roots
    • Jurgen Habermas Theory of Communicative Action
    • Jan Kooiman Governability
    • Michel Foucault Genealogies, Fragments
    • These oppositions recur throughout philosophy and are differences primarily in ontology.
  • Governmentality
    • The semantic linking of governing ("gouverner") and modes of thought ("mentalité") indicates that it is not possible to study the technologies of power without an analysis of the political rationality underpinning them. But there is a second aspect of equal importance. Foucault uses the notion of government in a comprehensive sense geared strongly to the older meaning of the term and adumbrating the close link between forms of power and processes of subjectification. While the word government today possesses solely a political meaning, Foucault is able to show that up until well into the 18th century the problem of government was placed in a more general context. (Lemke, 1992)
  • POWER
    • “ Power may become the acid test of planning theory”
    • Flyvberg and Richardson, 2002, in Planning Futures, New Directions for Planning Theory, pg. 44
  •  
  • Habermas, Healey and Forester
  • Foucault and after
  • Understanding of knowledge generation based on Communicative theory Governmentality theory Views on relationships between different ways of seeing the world Powerful stakeholders are under moral duty to empower all stakeholders and find consensus Powerful stakeholders attempt to frame that ways in which “ neighbourhood renewal” is understood and to dominate other ways of seeing the world Who is learning/changing Everyone Those who see the world differently Typical abstract system views Constructionist/realist Positivist/realist What are typical knowledge-generation strategies? Deliberative and participative evaluation methods Performance management and audit, centrally controlled evaluation
  • Question 1 – 5 min discussion
    • Which of the two approaches;
    • 1) Governability – communciative action
    • 2) Governmentality Do you think rings most true of your experience with power and authority and why?
    • Feed back with examples please…
  • So what?
    • These very different ontological positions regarding what exists
    • Belief that reality is socially constructed and therefore subject to influence
    • By whom?
    • Leads inevitably into different strategies for production of (valid) knowledge
    • Leads to different behaviour (on the part of the planner)
  • The Policy Process
  • Social Learning…
    • Who is learning? / changing?
    • What is the most appropriate juncture for community involvement?
    • What do you want to change? Why?
    • “ Do you think that the treasury is a learning organisation?”
  • Planning Policy
    • Connects with LGMA, localism, public sector,
    • Important as defined relationship where market and state meet one another
    • And who else is involved…
    • “ Stakeholders”
  • Question 2 – 5 mins discussion
    • Who are the stakeholders in the planning system?
    • Whose “versions” are best or least supported and resourced?
  • Localism?
    • “ We are all localists now”
    • NuLabour LGMA as centralising process
    • IPC, etc
    • Subservience of UK local govt.
    • Structural problems
    • “ Postcode lotteries”
    • Equity and local discretion
  • Communities in Control
    • Hazel Blears : personal mission
    • Participatory budgeting etc.
    • Widely dismissed as gimmicky
    • Short tenure as Secretary of State
  • Open Source Planning
    • Page 8 section on
    • “ a new system of collaborative planning”
    • “ A truly local plan”
    • “ Mandating collaborative democratic methods”
  • Sustainable Communities Act
    • Special
    • Case
  •  
  • Sustainable Communities Amendment Act
    • The Sustainable Communities Act Amendment Bill will do the following things:
    • 1. Create a rolling programme for proposals so that more councils and citizens can be involved in the Act’s process. There is great public interest in this.
    • 2. Involve Parish and Town Councils by formally including them in the process when their Local Authorities choose to use the Act and by also allowing them to
    • put forward suggestions for government action via their County Associations. Very many Parish and Town Councils were involved in the campaign for the Act but
    • are now becoming disillusioned that they have been omitted from the process. The new Bill will prevent that.
    • 3. Involve citizens further by empowering them to petition their Local Authorities to use the Act . Many citizens have been unhappy about the fact that they
    • can only be involved in the Act if their Local Authority chooses to be. The Bill will give them the power to petition their Local Authorities to get involved, so that
    • residents in their areas can too. Petitioning is already government policy.
    • 4. Proper publishing of the Local Spending Reports (LSRs) . The former Minister (Phil Woolas) said the LSRs would require government to publish a local
    • breakdown of spending and proposed spending by all public bodies, so people can see how their money is spent. But the LSRs currently contain information
    • mostly about local government bodies. The new Bill would put this right.
  • So What? #2
    • Decision -making
    • How are decisions taken?
    • How are views sought?
    • What are the mechanisms in play?
    • What are the interests?
  • (Bit of a) Case Study
    • East Oxford Action SRB scheme
    • Read Sue Brownill paper Brownill, S. (2007). "New labour's evolving regeneration policy: The transition from the single regeneration budget to the single pot in Oxford." Local Economy 22(3): 261-278.
    • “ Official version” http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/G02149.pdf
  •