Search results

.

A litte story from the frontlines of day to day capitalism. Back a couple of years a Chinese lithium processing company, Ganfeng, decided to take over a London listed lithium miner, Bacanora Lithium. There was much huffing and puffing about the Heathen Chinee taking over a good and stoutly British company and so on, echoes of Yellow Peril and all that. We noted it at the time and insisted that it should be left be.The thing is the potential mine that Bacanora owned was in Mexico, the Sonora deposit.Ganfeng was left be, did take over Bacanora. Now the Mexican Government has cancelled all the mining licences at Sonora. Other than the most wonderful shrieking argument to come there's little to no value there, therefore.British shareholders, who were left be, therefore are now cashed out and paid, their money fructifying in their pockets. The Chinese have that argument to come. From the point of view of the British Government, of British politics, this is about as a good a result as it is possible to gain. This being the result of exactly the opposite of what the government was urged to do of course. The correct policy to have over stock markets is, once we've ensured the basic rule of law, leave it be. Things will sort themselves out. For markets in the ownership of assets really do work.If intervention had happened then it would be assets owned by Britons made valueless. The policy of benign intervention means it's foreigners losing their money in foreign. And really, isn't that the best possible outcome?

First published in 1990.

Mirroring the complexities of cities and neighborhoods, this volume makes a conscious departure from consensus-oriented public participation to conflict-resolving public participation. In India, planning practice generally involves citizens at different stages of plan-making with a clear purpose of securing a consensus aimed at legitimizing the policy content of a development plan. This book contests and challenges this consensus-oriented view of citizen participation in planning, arguing against the assertion that cities can be represented by a single public interest, for which consensus is sought by planners and policy makers. As such, it replaces consensus-centered rational planning models with Foucauldian and Lacanian models of planning to show that planning is riddled with a variety of spatial conflicts, most of which are resolvable. The book does not downplay differences of class and social and cultural identities of various kinds built on arbitrarily assumed public interest created erroneously by further assuming that the professionally trained planner is unbiased. It moves from theory to practice through case studies, which widens and deepens opportunities for public participation as new arenas beyond the processes of preparation of development plans are highlighted.The book also argues that spaces of public participation in planning are shrinking. For example, city development plans promoted under the erstwhile JNNUM programme and several other neoliberal policy regime initiatives have reduced the quality, as well as the extent of participatory practices in planning. The end result of this is that legally mandated participatory spaces are being used by powerful interests to pursue the neoliberal agenda.The volume is divided into three main parts. The first part deals with the theory and history of public participation and governance in