Suchergebnisse

This book offers a unique perspective on cosmopolitanism, examining the ways it is constructed and reconstructed on the small scale in an ongoing process of matching the local with the global, a process entailing mutual transformation. Based on a wide range of literatures and a series of case studies, it analyzes the different versions and functions of cosmopolitanism and points to the need to critically re-examine current conceptions of globalization. The book first illustrates the interplay between networks and narratives in the construction of cosmopolitan communities in three specific cities: Trieste, Odessa and Tbilisi. Each has a past more cosmopolitan than the present and each uses that cosmopolitan past to guide them towards the future. Next, the book focuses on narrative dynamics by isolating several discourses on the cosmopolitan place and figure in European cultural history. It then goes on to detail the internal representations and local functions of larger wholes in smaller communities, shedding a new light on issues of inter- disciplinary interest: self- governance, participation, local knowledge, social memory, scale, planning and development. Of interest to political scientists, anthropologists, economists, geographers and philosophers, this book offers an insightful contribution to theories of globalization and global/ local interaction, bringing the local discursive mechanics into sharper focus and also emphasizing the semi- autonomous character of narrative constructions of self and community in a larger world

Steering has negative connotations nowadays in many discussions on governance, policy, politics and planning. The associations with the modernist state project linger on. At the same time, a rethinking of what is possible by means of policy and planning, what is possible through governance, which forms of change and which pursuits of common goods still make sense, in an era of cynicism about steering yet also high steering expectations, seems eminently useful. Between laissez faire and blue-print planning are many paths which can be walked. In this thematic issue, we highlight the value of evolutionary understandings of governance and of governance in society, in order to grasp which self-transformations of governance systems are more likely than others and which governance tools and ideas stand a better chance than others in a particular context. We pay particular attention to Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT) as a perspective on governance which delineates steering options as stemming from a set of co-evolutions in governance. Understanding steering options requires, for EGT, path mapping of unique governance paths, as well as context mapping, the external contexts relevant for the mode of reproduction of the governance system in case. A rethinking of steering in governance, through the lens of EGT, can shed a light on governance for innovation, sustainability transitions, new forms of participation and self-organization. For EGT, co-evolutions and dependencies, not only limit but also shape possibilities of steering, per path and per domain of governance and policy.

Steering has negative connotations nowadays in many discussions on governance, policy, politics and planning. The associations with the modernist state project linger on. At the same time, a rethinking of what is possible by means of policy and planning, what is possible through governance, which forms of change and which pursuits of common goods still make sense, in an era of cynicism about steering yet also high steering expectations, seems eminently useful. Between laissez faire and blue-print planning are many paths which can be walked. In this thematic issue, we highlight the value of evolutionary understandings of governance and of governance in society, in order to grasp which self-transformations of governance systems are more likely than others and which governance tools and ideas stand a better chance than others in a particular context. We pay particular attention to Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT) as a perspective on governance which delineates steering options as stemming from a set of co-evolutions in governance. Understanding steering options requires, for EGT, path mapping of unique governance paths, as well as context mapping, the external contexts relevant for the mode of reproduction of the governance system in case. A rethinking of steering in governance, through the lens of EGT, can shed a light on governance for innovation, sustainability transitions, new forms of participation and self-organization. For EGT, co-evolutions and dependencies, not only limit but also shape possibilities of steering, per path and per domain of governance and policy.

In this paper we reflect on the relationship between planning and law. We analyse the Dutch interpretation and implementation of the European Union Habitats and Birds Directives by investigating the practices of delineation of protected areas. These directives provide a legislative framework for the designation of protected sites as well as for decision making about social and economic activities that might have negative effects on the conservation objectives. The formal boundaries of the protected area can have legal, political, and economic consequences and are therefore the subject of much debate. Using Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory, we analyse the debates concerning delineation and the potential for planning to reduce tensions and balance interests. It is argued that the irreducible differences between the economic, political, and legal perspectives, in combination with the Dutch path of a legalistic interpretation of EU directives, have produced a situation in which the role of planning is reduced and new forms of planning are hard to implement.

In this paper, we explore the importance of silence in planning, an endeavor we deem relevant in an era where communication and planning are seen as nearly equivalent. We investigate the meanings and functions of silence in the interpretation of plans, planned space and the planning process. We distinguish silence in the literal sense, as absence of sound, and metaphorical silence, representing other forms of absence: of other voices, of oppressed discourse, of intentionality. The paradoxical nature of silence, as potential fullness and emptiness of meaning, increases complexity and unpredictability in the interpretation of space, plans and the planning process. It is argued that a process of participatory planning, including many actors, documents and interpretations of space, necessarily multiplies the ambiguities introduced by silence. This creates steering problems for planners, but it also introduces openness and flexibility. Silence can have the positive function of stretching up the interpretations of space, plans and the process.

In this article, we argue that Niklas Luhmann has a lot to offer present-day planning theory. Until now, planning theory has been engaged with Luhmann's work only minimally. Convinced of its potential, we want to show how Luhmann's systems theory offers fresh insight into both limits and possibilities of planning in contemporary society. We argue that Luhmann's understanding of society as functionally differentiated into self-referentially closed subsystems (politics, economy, law, science, etc.) creates space for a complex and subtle analysis of planning practice. In particular, we look at the role of planning within an autopoietic account of society, and its ability to steer other social subsystems. Planning is seen as the form of steering aiming to coordinate processes of spatial organization, therefore an activity dealing with steering problems. We illustrate key concepts of the systems theory in brief analyses of planning situations and interpret these situations using the systems theoretical framework. The analyses center around the questions of planning's steering capacity and the role of the planner, thus creating linkages with mainstream discussions in planning theory.

We analyze the hidden mobilities, in physio-spatial, epistemic and social terms that are part and parcel of livelihood strategies in places dominated by informal institutions and authoritarian governance regimes. Soviet and post-Soviet Uzbekistan and Tajikistan serve as empirical references to develop the theoretical perspective. We link this analysis with an analysis of the roles of boundaries, scales and mobilities in general, with special emphasis on the role of formal and informal institutions and on networks of mobility. We thus link a Deleuzian-inspired frame with a new institutionalist perspective on development and discuss the potential of development interventions to alter rules, roles and routes of people and the influence of mobilities, hidden and visible, to alter the effects of development (intervention).