Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to contribute to the understanding of how spatial entities in general — and those spatial entities that are defined as 'regions' in particular — form, evolve and sometimes stabilize. Inspired by the scholarship of NoortjeMarres, the article explores how regions‐in‐becoming may be gainfully conceptualized as publics‐in‐stabilization. In the article it is argued that some of the mechanisms involved in such processes pertain to how territorially framed issues sometimes become formulated as loosely articulated propositions for regionalization. These can, with time, generate emergent stakeholder communities, which in turn may become stabilized and delegated to more durable forms and materials which can eventually become naturalized as recognized regions. A suggested conceptual model is utilized to perform an analysis of empirical material from three contemporary processes of regionalization inNorthernEurope with the purpose of examining and discussing some of the potential merits and shortcomings of the conceptual model. It is concluded that adopting the proposed perspective can enable scholars to highlight some of the mechanisms whereby vague and non‐coherent propositions for regionalization within time may be singularized and stabilized to such a degree that they become taken for granted as naturalized spatialities.

This paper is an investigation into processes of becoming-stakeholder. It focuses specifically on strategic spatial planning where the stakeholder concept has become one of the linchpins of much contemporary theory and practice. Through drawing upon the sociology of attachments and scholarship on subjectification, it is argued that the enactment of stakeholders in strategic planning processes can be gainfully understood as the production of stakeholder subjectivities by way of practices of ontological choreography which can generate territorial attachments and rearticulate existing attachments into a specifically territorial format. From this perspective, stakeholderness is never an ontologically pregiven property to be uncovered by diligent analysis. Rather, we might come to see that stakeholder subjectification is a process through which actors learn to be affected, and where these affections further come to be articulated as territorial attachments engendering, or at least prompting, a 'caring for place'. Still, as relational effects, subjectivities are always potentially precarious achievements and it is important not to take for granted that the subjectivities enacted in a specific situation or setting will be easily transposable to other contexts.

The purpose of this article is to offer a rationale for bringing art and artists into the planning process. Although there appears to exist a nascent interest in planner–artist collaborations in contemporary planning practice and research, accounts of such collaborations in planning literature are generally patchy and often under-theorized. In this article I argue that art and artist-led activities can function as a powerful vehicle of communication in the planning process. The unique potential of planner–artist collaborations is based on the artistic licence that grants the artist a mandate to set the stage for an estrangement of that which is familiar and taken-for-granted, thus shifting frames of references and creating a radical potential for planning in a way that can be very difficult for planners to achieve on their own.

Jonathan Metzger, 2011. The definitive, peer-reviewed and edited version of this article is published in Environment and Planning. C, Government and Policy, 29, 2, 191-196, 2011, doi:10.1068/c10210. QC 20110714

The paper examines the novel governance approach underpinning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). The EUSBSR was launched in the summer of 2009 and is the first, but perhaps not the last, macro-regional strategy developed by the EU. The strategy does not supply any new instruments, legislation or funding. Instead it collects and highlights diverse and often already existing initiatives and instruments within a Baltic Sea Region framing, adding a macro-regional perspective. In the paper, concepts borrowed from Actor-Network Theory (ANT) are utilized to help us better understand the governance approach behind the strategy. It is argued that the practice of constructing the EUSBSR can be understood as an example of heterogeneous engineering, a performative attempt to assemble a macro-regional collective through translations of interests in processes of problematization, engagement/interessement, enrolment and mobilization. By formulating common matters of concern the idea of common interests is introduced and established. Moreover, the collective that is being assembled in the strategy is clearly hybrid in nature as the strategy attempts to speak for and represent not only the interests of EU member states, but also of entities as diverse as plankton, small businesses and tourists. The paper further discusses the relationship between the governance approach of the EUSBSR and collaborative planning methodology. It is argued that although some aspects of the EUSBSR governance approach are reminiscent of a collaborative approach, the divergences are fundamental.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of Figures and Tables -- List of Contributors -- Acknowledgements -- Part I Introduction -- Connections: An Introduction -- Part II Normative Perspectives -- Introduction to Part II -- 1 Professional Ideals and Planning Practice: A Report on Research into Planners' Ideas in Practice in London Borough Planning Departments -- 2 Towards a People-Sensitive Planning -- 3 Re-enchanting Democracy as a Mode of Governance -- 4 Neither Cordelia nor Polonius: Ethical Implications for Planning in the Face of Blatant and Hidden Imbalances of Power, Status and Rights -- 5 Throwing Dice: Between Contingency and Necessity in Spatial Planning -- 6 Planning in Hong Kong, an Undemocratic, Post-colonial Chinese Capitalist Society: Negotiating the Roles of Technocrats, Traditional Public Intellectuals and Reflective Practitioners -- Part III Places and Practice -- Part III.1 The Planning Development Nexus: How Places are Produced and Changed -- Introduction to Part III.1 -- 7 Structure and Agency in Land and Property Development Processes: Some Ideas for Research -- 8 Development Plans and Markets -- 9 Re-thinking the Relations between Planning, State and Market in Unstable Times -- 10 Planning Wild Cities -- 11 The Changing Nature of Property Investment: Implications for Urban Planning -- 12 Re-thinking the Relations between Capitalism, Urban Development and Historic Shifts in Planning Practice -- Part III.2 Doing Planning Work -- Introduction to Part III.2 -- 13 Networking as a Normative Principle with Particular Reference to Local Government and Land Use Planning -- 14 Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory -- 15 City Fathers, Mandarins and Neighbours: Crossing Old Divides in New Partnerships

In recent years public-centered understandings of democracy have become important inspirations for scholarly debates concerning the democratization of planning processes. In this article we caution that an exclusively public-centered understanding of planning democracy risks obscuring how public engagements in planning processes always unfold within the context of longer trajectories and broader landscapes of the evolution of democracy. In the article we counterpoint a particularly sophisticated public-centered conceptualization of democracy developed by philosopher Noortje Marres to the more historical-institutional understanding of Pierre Rosanvallon. By applying both analytical frameworks to an empirical case, we show that although Marres' public-centered approach can productively advance understandings of key dynamics in how public action in planning processes unfolds, its narrow focus on the 'heat of the action' in such episodes produces analytical blind spots with regards to the wider prerequisites and ramifications of these events. Therefore we conclude by suggesting that public-centered analyses of democracy in planning processes are at their most helpful when complemented with a more institutional understanding of the contexts within which public engagements in planning unfold. ; QC 20180802