Institutional Gaps in Agonistic and Communicative Planning Theories. Critical Implications of the ‘Systemic Turn’ in Deliberative Democracy Theory

Raine Mäntysalo; Hanna Mattila; Aino Hirvola

doi:10.14512/rur.1676

Authors

Raine Mäntysalo Aalto University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9109-4764
Hanna Mattila Aalborg University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1911-7618
Aino Hirvola Aalto University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8656-1869

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1676

Keywords:

Conflict, Consensus, Democratic institution, Hegemonic discourse, Situational deliberation

Abstract

The paper critically reviews communicative and agonistic planning theories from the viewpoint of a systemic turn in deliberative democracy theory. While the approach reveals complementarities between the theories, it also argues that each theory is vulnerable to criticism because of an ‘institutional gap’. The theories are found to complement each other in addressing planning conflicts at different dimensions. Communicative planning theory deals with conflicts between different stakeholders’ interests in planning processes. Agonistic planning theory, in turn, concentrates on conflicts from a more ontological dimension, related to the (implicit) conflict between hegemonic and marginalized discourses and related identity-forming processes of inclusion and exclusion in planning policies and governance. The institutional gap of communicative planning theory is argued to reside in its focus on situational deliberation that largely ignores the institutional dimension of rules and norms of democratic conduct. Agonistic pluralism, in turn, does engage with the dimension of democratic institutions, but in an overly critical manner, making it difficult for agonistic planning theory to address the dynamic interplay between institutional reconfiguration and policy stabilization in planning. This is argued to be the institutional gap of agonistic planning theory. The paper calls for further work in the field of planning theory to incorporate a systemic approach to deliberative democracy and thereby tap into the dialectics of institutional and situational dimensions of planning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allmendinger, P.; Haughton, G. (2013): The Evolution and Trajectories of English Spatial Governance: ‘Neoliberal’ Episodes in Planning. In: Planning Practice and Research 28, 1, 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.699223

Ansell, C.; Gash, A. (2008): Collaborative governance in theory and practice. In: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18, 4, 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Bäcklund, P.; Mäntysalo, R. (2010): Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. In: Planning Theory 9, 4, 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210373684

Bengs, C. (2005): Planning theory for the naive? In: European Journal of Spatial Development 3, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5148363

Bond, S. (2011): Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: moving beyond the agonistic-communicative divide. In: Planning Theory 10, 2, 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210383081

Booher, D.E.; Innes, J.E. (2002): Network Power in Collaborative Planning. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 21, 3, 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301

Chambers, S. (1995): Feminist discourse/practical discourse. In: Meehan, J. (ed.): Feminists Read Habermas. Gendering the Subject of Discourse. New York, 163–179.

Elstub, S. (2010): The third generation of deliberative democracy. In: Political Studies Review 8, 3, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2010.00216.x

Fainstein, N.; Fainstein, S.S. (2013): Restoring Just Outcomes to Planning Concerns. In: Carmon, N.; Fainstein, S.S. (eds.): Policy, Planning and People: Promoting Justice in Urban Development. Philadelphia, 43–64. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812207965.32

Forester, J. (1989): Planning in the face of power. Berkeley.

Forester, J. (1993): Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. Albany.

Forester, J. (1999): The deliberative practitioner. Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge.

Forester, J. (2009): Dealing with differences. Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York.

Forester, J. (2013): On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. In: Planning Theory 12, 1, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212448750

Granqvist, K.; Humer, A.; Mäntysalo, R. (2021): Tensions in city-regional spatial planning: the challenge of interpreting layered institutional rules. In: Regional Studies 55, 5, 844–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1707791

Gunder, M. (2003): Passionate planning for the others’ desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning. In: Progress in Planning 60, 3, 235–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-9006(02)00115‑0

Gunder, M. (2010): Planning as the Ideology of (Neoliberal) Space. In: Planning Theory 9, 4, 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210368878

Gutmann, A.; Thompson, D. (1996): Democracy and Disagreement. Why Moral Conflict Cannot Be Avoided in Politics, and What Should Be Done about It. Cambridge.

Habermas, J. (1984): The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston.

Habermas, J. (1987): The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and System. Cambridge.

Habermas, J. (1996): Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge.

Healey, P. (1992): Planning through debate. The communicative turn in planning theory. In: Town Planning Review 63, 2, 143–162.

Healey, P. (1997): Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London.

Healey P (1999) Institutionalist Analysis, Communicative Planning, and Shaping Places. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 19, 2, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9901900201

Healey, P. (2003): Collaborative Planning in Perspective. In: Planning Theory 2, 2, 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030022002

Healey, P. (2004): Creativity and Urban Governance. In: Policy Studies 25, 2, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144287042000262189

Healey, P. (2006): Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. In: European Planning Studies 14, 3, 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500420792

Healey, P. (2009): In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. In: Planning Theory and Practice 10, 4, 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903417191

Heinilä, A,; Pölönen, I.; Belinskij, A. (2021): Yhteistoiminnallisuus ympäristöoikeudellisissa suunnittelumenettelyissä. In: Ympäristöpolitiikan ja - oikeuden vuosikirja XIV, 49–116.

Hendriks, C.M. (2009): Deliberative governance in the context of power. In: Policy and Society 28, 3, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004

Hillier, J. (2002): Shadows of power. An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London.

Hillier, J. (2003): Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. In: Planning Theory 2, 1, 37–59. doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005

Huxley, M. (2000): The Limits to Communicative Planning. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 19, 4, 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900406

Hytönen, J. (2016): The Problematic Relationship of Communicative Planning Theory and the Finnish Legal Culture. In: Planning Theory 15, 3, 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214549618

Innes, J.E. (2004): Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics. In: Planning Theory 3, 1, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042315

Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. (1999): Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems. A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 4, 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976071

Innes, J.E.; Booher, D. (2010): Planning with complexity. An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London.

Kühn, M. (2021): Agonistic planning theory revisited: The planner’s role in dealing with conflict. In: Planning Theory 20, 2, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220953201

Mansbridge, J. (1983): Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago.

Mansbridge, J.; Bohman, J.; Chambers, S.; Estlund, D.; Føllesdal, A.; Fung, A.; Lafont, C.; Manin, B.; Martí, J.L. (2010): The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy. In: The Journal of Political Philosophy 18, 1, 64–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x

Mansbridge, J.; Bohman, J.; Chambers, S.; Christiano, T.; Fung, A.; Parkinson, J.; Thompson, D.F.; Warren, M.E. (2012): A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In: Parkinson, J.; Mansbridge, J. (eds.): Deliberative Systems. Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge, 1–26.

Mäntysalo, R. (2002): Dilemmas in critical planning theory. In: Town Planning Review 73, 4, 417–436. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.73.4.3

Mäntysalo, R.; Balducci, A.; Kangasoja, J. (2011): Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone. Re-examining Lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment. In: Planning Theory 10, 3, 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210397147

Mäntysalo, R.; Jarenko, K. (2014): Communicative Planning Theory Following Deliberative Democracy Theory: Critical Pragmatism and the Trading Zone Concept. In: International Journal of E‑Planning Research 3, 1, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2014010104

March, A. (2016): The democratic plan: Analysis and diagnosis. London.

Markell, P. (1997): Contesting consensus: Rereading Habermas on the public sphere. In: Constellations 3, 3, 377-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.1997.tb00066.x

Mattila, H. (2016): Can collaborative planning go beyond locally focused notions of the “public interest”? The potential of Habermas’ concept of “generalizable interest” in pluralist and trans-scalar planning discourses. In: Planning Theory 15, 4, 344–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216640568

Mattila, H. (2020): Habermas revisited: Resurrecting the contested roots of communicative planning theory. In: Progress in Planning 141, 100431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2019.04.001

Mattila, H.; Heinilä, A. (2022): Soft spaces, soft planning, soft law: Examining the institutionalisation of city-regional planning in Finland. In: Land Use Policy 119, 106156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106156

McGuirk, P.M. (2001): Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 33, 2, 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1068/a355

Metzger, J. (2018): Postpolitics and Planning. In: Gunder, M.; Madanipour, A.; Watson, V. (eds.): The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. London, 180–193.

Moore, A. (2017): Critical Elitism: Deliberation, Democracy, and the Problem of Expertise. Cambridge.

Moroni, S. (2010): An evolutionary theory of institutions and a dynamic approach to reform. In: Planning Theory 9, 4, 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210368778

Moroni, S. (2019): Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: Reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning. In: Planning Theory 18, 1, 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218760092

Mouat, C.; Legacy, C.; March, A. (2013): The Problem is the Solution: Testing Agonistic Theory’s Potential to Recast Intractable Planning Disputes. In: Urban Policy and Research 31, 2, 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2013.776496

Mouffe, C. (2000): The Democratic Paradox. London.

Mouffe, C. (2005): On the Political. Thinking in Action. London.

Mouffe, C. (2013): Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically. London.

Pløger, J. (2004): Strife: Urban planning and agonism. In: Planning Theory 3, 1, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042318

Pløger, J. (2018): Conflict and Agonism. In: Gunder, M.; Madanipour, A.; Watson, V. (eds.): The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. London, 264–275.

Purcell, M. (2006): Urban democracy and the local trap. In: Urban Studies 43, 11, 1921–1941. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600897826

Purcell, M. (2009): Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or Counter-Hegemonic Movements? In: Planning Theory 8, 2, 140–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209102232

Puustinen, S.; Mäntysalo, R.; Hytönen, J.; Jarenko, K. (2017): The “deliberative bureaucrat”: deliberative democracy and institutional trust in the jurisdiction of the Finnish planner. In: Planning Theory and Practice 18, 1, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1245437

Sager, T. (1994): Communicative Planning Theory. Aldershot.

Sager, T. (2013): Reviving critical planning theory. Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. London.

Salet, W. (2018a): Public Norms and Aspirations. The Turn to Institutions in Action. London.

Salet, W. (ed.) (2018b): The Routledge Handbook of Institutions and Planning in Action. London.

Salet, W. (2019): The making of the public. In: Planning Theory 18, 2, 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219840922

Schmidt, V.A. (2008): Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. In: Annual Review of Political Science 11, 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342

Shepherd, E. (2018): Continuity and change in the institution of town and country planning: Modelling the role of ideology. In: Planning Theory 17, 4, 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095217737587

Shepherd, E. (2021): Ideology and Institutional Change: The Case of the English National Planning Policy Framework. In: Planning Theory and Practice 22, 4, 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1942528

Tewdwr-Jones, M.; Allmendinger, P. (1998): Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 30, 11, 1975–1989. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301975

Warren, M.E. (1999): Democracy theory and trust. In: Warren, M.E. (ed.): Democracy and trust. Cambridge, 310–345.

White, S.K.; Farr, E.R. (2012): “No-saying” in Habermas. In: Political Theory 40, 1, 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591711426854