Urban Studies
‘Opening for business’? Neoliberalism and the cul tural politics of modernising planning in Scotland
Journal: Urban Studies
Manuscript ID CUS-032-16-01.R1
Manuscript Type: Article
Discipline: Please select a keyword from the following list Planning that best describes the discipline used in your paper.:
World Region: Please select the region(s) that best reflect the focus of your paper. Names of individual countries, Europe cities & economic groupings should appear in the title where appropriate.:
Major Topic: Please identify up to two topics that best identify Governance, Built environment the subject of your article.:
Please supply a further 5 relevant keywords in the fields planning cultures, neoliberalism, planning reform, politics, Scotland below::
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] Page 1 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 ‘Opening for business’? Neoliberalism and the cultural politics of modernising 4 5 planning in Scotland 6 7 8 Abstract 9 10 11 In this paper I explore how the culture of land-use planning in Scotland has been 12 13 targeted as an object of modernising reform, exploring how ‘culture change’ 14 15 16 initiatives played a prominent role in stabilizing a new settlement around ‘open for 17 18 business’ planning between 2006-12, containing potential tensions between diverse 19 20 goals to make planning more efficient, inclusive and integrative. This highlights the 21 22 potentially significant role of governance cultures in containing tensions and securing 23 24 25 consent to processes of state restructuring. I therefore argue that greater empirical 26 27 attentiveness to the cultural micro-politics of state restructuring can improve 28 29 understanding of complex, contemporary dynamics of change, and the contested role 30 31 of the neoliberal hegemonic project in reshaping urban governance. I conclude by 32 33 arguing that the continued power of neoliberal critiques of the inefficiency of land-use 34 35 36 planning indicate a need to acknowledge and engage contemporary cultural battles 37 38 over the purposes of planning and urban governance. 39 40 41 Keywords : planning cultures , neoliberalism , planning reform , politics , Scotland 42 43 44 45 Introduction: ‘planning cultures’ in neoliberal times? 46 47 48 Attempts to reform urban planning systems and processes have become commonplace 49 50 across many states, attesting to a pervasive view of planning as out of step with the 51 52 53 requirements of ‘modern’ forms of government. The increasing frequency of such 54 55 initiatives, and the negative rhetoric that often accompanies them, suggest a 56 57 widespread loss of faith in the ability of state planning agencies to steer urban 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 1 Urban Studies Page 2 of 35
1 2 3 development in the public interest. Explanations of such reforms often suggest that 4 5 planning ideas and practices have been under sustained ideological attack, subject to 6 7 hostile processes of neoliberalisation (e.g. Lord and Tewdwr-Jones, 2014; 8 9 10 Allmendinger and Haughton, 2013). 11 12 13 The last forty years have undoubtedly seen a series of distinctive shifts in urban 14 15 governance that have affected states and cities globally, albeit in highly differentiated 16 17 ways: commitments to market mechanisms, the fostering of entrepreneurial values 18 19 and inter-urban competition have become familiar planks of a new common-sense 20 21 22 that has been widely if unevenly installed across diverse settings and sectors. In the 23 24 global north this has been accompanied by sustained critique of images of the planned 25 26 economy and ‘failed’ post-war state settlements that needed to be dismantled, 27 28 justifying extended processes of regulatory restructuring, including planning reform. 29 30 Yet, neoliberalism remains a contested keyword within contemporary urban 31 32 33 scholarship where debate continues about its value as a meta-narrative of urban 34 35 political transformation and its capacity to explain (and enable intervention in) 36 37 complex processes of change (e.g. Blanco et al, 2014; Peck, 2013; Brenner et al, 2010; 38 39 Barnett, 2010; Collier, 2012). 40 41 42 Particular concerns have been raised about the tendency for promiscuous use to 43 44 45 present neoliberalism as a universal and monolithic force, inflating claims about its 46 47 power, efficacy and coherence (Brenner et al, 2010; Peck, 2013). For critics, political 48 49 economy interpretations subsume too much under the rubric ‘neoliberal’, thereby 50 51 obscuring other significant vectors of social and political transformation (Barnett, 52 53 54 2009; Collier, 2012). Scholars committed to the necessity of neoliberalism as a 55 56 descriptor for both broad historical tendencies and specific local transformations, 57 58 stress its uneven and variegated nature, arguing for empirical analyses sensitive to 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 2 Page 3 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 contingent, contested and geographically diverse trajectories of neoliberalisation (e.g. 4 5 Brenner et al, 2010; Peck, 2013). Notwithstanding certain conceptual tensions, such 6 7 work has sought points of overlap between various distinct theoretical and 8 9 10 methodological approaches to the study of neoliberalism, e.g. as hegemonic ideology, 11 12 governmental rationality or policy regime (Larner, 2000; Peck, 2013; Newman, 2014). 13 14 15 An increasingly common stress has been placed on exploring neoliberalisation as a 16 17 process rather than an accomplished project, requiring forms of analysis sensitive to 18 19 the ways in which dominant discourses and rationalities interact with older residual, 20 21 22 or newer emergent ideas and practices, unevenly provoking contestation, 23 24 accommodation and evolving hybrid formations in different times and places (Clarke, 25 26 2008; Newman, 2014). This has led to calls for scholarship better attuned to the 27 28 distinctive and complex ways in which various pressures for change, including 29 30 neoliberal logics, come to be articulated together (Peck, 2013), moving beyond: “the 31 32 33 failure of neoliberal narratives to grapple with the politics of how and why particular 34 35 regimes emerge and become embedded across localities; and point[ing] to the 36 37 possibility of alternative explanations that infuse accounts of neoliberalism with 38 39 agency, politics, meaning and affect” (Blanco et al, 2014: 3130) 40 41 42 There are significant overlaps here, with recent interest in exploring ‘planning 43 44 45 cultures’ (Sanyal, 2005). Indeed, the concept of planning culture has been framed in 46 47 response to concerns that neoliberalism and globalisation are promoting 48 49 homogenizing changes, prompting questions about the extent to which locally 50 51 embedded cultures –bundles of planning ideas and practices- might variously enable 52 53 54 local resistance or accommodation to global pressures for change (Sanyal, 2005). 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 3 Urban Studies Page 4 of 35
1 2 3 Questions about contemporary processes of planning reform, neoliberalization, and 4 5 their impacts on planning cultures are given further significance in the context of the 6 7 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) from 2007 onwards. Lovering (2010) points to the 8 9 10 complicity of mainstream planning ideas and practices in the production of a crisis 11 12 that developed from speculative bubbles in land and property, highlighting the 13 14 importance of understanding of the status of planning cultures and the complex ways 15 16 in which they are shaped and reshaped within contemporary regimes of spatial 17 18 19 governance. That what looked like a profound crisis of neoliberalism came to be 20 21 widely stabilised around a politics of public austerity heightens the need for such 22 23 analysis. As yet, however, there has been little attempt to explicitly consider the 24 25 effects of the GFC and the politics of putatively neoliberal reforms on planning 26 27 cultures (though see Grange, 2014). 28 29 30 This paper seeks to address this gap by exploring the cultural politics of planning 31 32 33 reform in Scotland, examining how two key discourses, ‘modernisation’ and ‘culture 34 35 change’, targeted particular ideas and practices in order to shape a new settlement 36 37 around the role and purpose of land-use planning in Scotland. Overall, I argue that 38 39 this new settlement has been strongly disciplined by neoliberal and managerial logics, 40 41 42 producing a particular, narrow definition of ‘open for business’ planning whose 43 44 dominance was reinforced rather than undermined by the effects of crisis and 45 46 austerity. 47 48 49 The paper therefore makes three key contributions: Firstly, it provides an empirical 50 51 case study of the normalisation of neoliberal and managerial disciplines and their 52 53 54 impact on cultures of urban planning and governance in post-GFC Scotland. Secondly, 55 56 the paper highlights important limitations in existing research on i) planning cultures, 57 58 that has not yet paid sufficient attention to the political (re)construction of planning 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 4 Page 5 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 ideas and practices, and ii) the neoliberalisation of planning ideas and practices, 4 5 which has not yet paid sufficient attention to the cultural dimensions of political- 6 7 ideological change. Thirdly, this leads me to argue more generally for greater 8 9 10 attentiveness to cultural dimensions of state restructuring at micro-political levels 11 12 where the state operates as a ‘peopled process’ (Peck, 2001); providing a means of 13 14 understanding often overlooked dimensions of change, and generating insights into 15 16 how broader hegemonic projects like neoliberalism reshape urban governance. In 17 18 19 particular I suggest this focus illuminates how consent and resistance to such projects 20 21 are actively produced and managed as part of the process of reshaping local regimes 22 23 or settlements. Whilst this case highlights the significant role governance cultures can 24 25 play in containing what Newman (2014) describes as the ‘landscapes of antagonism’ 26 27 that characterise local governance, I end by also considering some possible resources 28 29 30 from which resistance to further neoliberalizing reforms might be imagined. 31 32 33 Politicising planning cultures, ‘culturing’ of the politics of planning 34 35 36 Sanyal (2005) describes planning cultures as complex, emergent formations, 37 38 constantly in flux they are shaped by a wide range of influences, including global and 39 40 local politics. However, interest in planning cultures has tended to focus on the value 41 42 and conceptual clarity of the concept for international comparative research and 43 44 45 explaining planning practices in different national contexts (e.g. Othengrafen and 46 47 Reimer, 2013; Taylor, 2014). Whilst usefully acknowledging the dynamics through 48 49 which planning regimes are related to broader socio-political processes, this work has 50 51 not been centrally concerned with understanding the cultural-political transformation 52 53 54 of planning ideas and practices in recent decades. As a result it has tended to develop 55 56 separately from accounts of the neoliberalisation of planning and urban governance. 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 5 Urban Studies Page 6 of 35
1 2 3 Drawing on wider debates from geography and urban studies, analyses of the 4 5 neoliberalization of planning often posit the clear influence of neoliberal ideology, 6 7 rationalities and policies but continue to debate the extent to which they have 8 9 10 transformed planning ideas and practices (e.g. Lord and Tewdwr-Jones, 2014; 11 12 Allmendinger and Haughton, 2013). Sager (2014) for example highlights the ways in 13 14 which different ideological influences (neoliberalism, participatory democracy, 15 16 environmentalism) may be coarticulated in urban plans, problematising any 17 18 19 straightforward reading of neoliberal hegemony in planning practice. Whilst 20 21 recognising that ideas of planning and neoliberalism are not mutually exclusive, 22 23 Baeten (2012) highlights continued points of tension between neoliberal ideology and 24 25 contemporary ideas of planning, suggesting the importance of remaining attentive to 26 27 the complexity of ongoing processes of ideological change (and perhaps explaining 28 29 30 the recent ubiquity of attempts to reform planning systems). As yet, however, studies 31 32 of the neoliberalisation of planning have not foregrounded the cultural dimensions of 33 34 such changes, i.e. whether and how neoliberal ideas have been accepted as a new 35 36 ruling common-sense. For example, Sager’s (2011) comprehensive review of 37 38 39 neoliberalism and planning does not explicitly consider the political-cultural 40 41 transformation of planning ideas and practices as a dimension of neoliberalisation. 42 43 44 The overlooking of cultural dimensions of state restructuring arguably reflects wider 45 46 tendencies in accounts of neoliberalisation that often either present a largely 47 48 ‘unpeopled process’ of systemic change or imply a pervasive power to produce 49 50 compliant neoliberal subjects (Barnet, 2010). This has generated calls to explore the 51 52 53 complex and uneven ways in which governance cultures are challenged and changed 54 55 as various actors exercise agency within the ‘fields of antagonism’ generated by 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 6 Page 7 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 interactions between various governmental and political projects (Newman, 2014; 4 5 Blanco et al, 2014). 6 7 8 In this section of the paper I have established that: 1. there is a need to (re)politicise 9 10 research on planning cultures and 2. to fully understand the extent and nature of 11 12 13 neoliberal hegemony there is a need to bring a cultural dimension to analysis of both 14 15 planning reform and wider processes of state restructuring. In the section below I 16 17 outline a set of conceptual tools to analyse the cultural politics of planning reform in 18 19 Scotland. 20 21 22 Approaching the cultural politics of planning in neoliberal times 23 24 25 If neoliberalism remains a problematic concept, for present purposes I follow Hall 26 27 28 (2011) in treating it as provisional if rather unsatisfactory shorthand for both a broad 29 30 historical era (from the 1970s onwards), and the uneven roll-out in particular domains 31 32 of a “political-cultural project that aims at transnational hegemony” (Clarke, 2008, 33 34 137, emphasis added); foregrounding the ways in which neoliberal discourses and 35 36 37 rationalities interact with planning (or other) ideas and practices, unevenly provoking 38 39 contestation, accommodation and new hybrid formations across different times and 40 41 places. 42 43 44 If hegemony is understood as the tendency towards dominance of a bundle of ideas, 45 46 producing consent to a ruling common-sense, it is also a process that must be actively 47 48 constructed and reconstructed (Hall, 1988). Hegemonic projects seek to establish new 49 50 51 settlements in which certain aspects of cultural formations (bundles of ideas, social 52 53 relations, identities and material practices) are problematized whilst others are linked 54 55 together, naturalised and depoliticised. Working to reshape a previously established 56 57 settlement is always an uneven process, creating scope for various forms of co- 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 7 Urban Studies Page 8 of 35
1 2 3 optation and resistance (ibid). Hegemony is therefore also always an incomplete 4 5 process, as a result, it is important to develop modes of critical analysis that are 6 7 sensitive to challenges, tensions and fractures: the politics of neoliberalization (Clarke, 8 9 10 2008). It is also therefore important to pay attention to specific local practices, the 11 12 sites where those politics are enacted; not assuming the presence of a stable pattern of 13 14 domination but instead a series of locations where global strategies are being actively 15 16 forged and potentially re-worked. 17 18 19 Since the field of government is typically contested, a space where various agendas 20 21 22 struggle for influence, Newman (2014) and Clarke (2008) argue that analysis must 23 24 remain attentive to the ways in which various governmental projects are assembled 25 26 together. Thus whilst, dominant conceptions of state modernisation have been 27 28 strongly shaped by neoliberal logics that promote, for example, the superiority of the 29 30 private over the public, they have also been influenced by other more or less 31 32 33 compatible logics. It is therefore crucial to develop modes of analysis that can trace 34 35 the complex ways in which such logics are stitched together as part of processes of 36 37 state restructuring. 38 39 40 Prevailing definitions of planning are always political-ideological constructs. The role 41 42 and purpose of an activity like planning has historically been strongly influenced but 43 44 45 not necessarily determined by powerful ideas about the nature and appropriate role of 46 47 state intervention in society. These ideas shape particular rationalities about the best 48 49 ways to govern, imposing particular forms of discipline that define what is considered 50 51 acceptable and unacceptable. Some discourses, may attain particular power, what Peet 52 53 hegemonic depth extent 54 (2002) terms and through their wide circulation and 55 56 regulatory force, becoming important determinants of a prevailing common-sense. 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 8 Page 9 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 Planning systems are typically charged with mediating society’s contradictory desires 4 5 for land-use, reconciling potential tensions between diverse goals, for example, to 6 7 enable free-markets in land and property whilst ensuring that spatial development is 8 9 10 subject to democratic control, does not damage valued environments, or can be 11 12 steered to ensure positive social outcomes (Gunder, 2015). As a result they can be 13 14 understood as potential ‘fields of antagonism’ (Newman, 2014) where different 15 16 governmental projects may co-exist, promoting competing conceptions of state 17 18 19 intervention in spatial development. 20 21 22 In the rest of the paper I draw on these conceptual guidelines to analyse the reform of 23 24 land-use planning in Scotland which has been presented as a necessary process of 25 26 ‘modernisation’ for a system that was no longer ‘fit for purpose’. In the sections that 27 28 follow, I draw on a two-stage research project conducted in 2011-2012 that 29 30 investigated how the ‘culture’ of planning in Scotland became a particular object of 31 32 33 governmental attention as reforms were implemented from 2006 onwards. 34 35 36 The first stage involved interviews and documentary analysis conducted at the 37 38 national level to understand how the ‘modernisation’ and ‘culture change’ agendas 39 40 were framed, the key influences shaping them, and how key stakeholders understood 41 42 the changes required. In total, twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted at 43 44 45 this stage with representatives of the Scottish Government and its key agencies, 46 47 planning professional and development industry bodies and environmental and 48 49 community organisations. 50 51 52 Following this, a case study was conducted at local government level, examining the 53 54 effects of modernisation and culture change on planning practices in the City of 55 56 57 Edinburgh Council (CEC), chosen as an example of a local authority that positively 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 9 Urban Studies Page 10 of 35
1 2 3 embraced a ‘culture change’ in its approach to planning and development (CEC, 4 5 2008a)i. At this stage a further fifteen interviews were conducted with: local authority 6 7 planners working in both plan-making and development management; development 8 9 10 professionals working in the city; elected officials; community organisations; and 11 12 officers working in other council services (housing, regeneration, economic 13 14 development). In addition documentary analysis of key council publications and local 15 16 and national press reports were used as a means of further verifying and deepening 17 18 19 the findings. 20 21 22 Examining the discourses of modernisation and culture change 23 24 25 Use of the discourse of ‘modernisation’ positions the planning reform agenda in 26 27 Scotland as part of the wider reform of public administration that has characterised 28 29 state restructuring in many locations in recent years. As Finlayson (2003, 67) argues, 30 31 however, modernisation is a purely performative term that has no fixed real-world 32 33 34 referent and only becomes meaningful through its articulation in particular concrete 35 36 contexts. It packages change as a positive necessity, validating certain images of what 37 38 modern government looks like. However, in doing so it also acts as a strategy of 39 40 problematisation, contrasting a desirable future state with a status quo that needs to be 41 42 43 reformed since it is somehow old-fashioned or out of step with the requirements of 44 45 the modern world. Modernisation can therefore be understood as a key discursive 46 47 stake in the reform of ideas of planning in Scotland, where the power to determine 48 49 what constitutes ‘modern planning’ determines necessary change. 50 51 52 The importance of locally situated governance cultures to processes of state 53 54 restructuring has been increasingly recognised by those who manage change 55 56 57 programmes within the public sector through ‘culture change’ initiatives (Du Gay, 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 10 Page 11 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 2000; Hall, 2011). Mirroring developments in other places, it was widely claimed that 4 5 a ‘culture change’ was required to achieve the goals of planning reform in Scotland, 6 7 particularly amongst professional planners in the public sector (e.g. Scottish 8 9 10 Government, 2005). 11 12 13 The discourse of culture change is drawn from theories of organisational change, part 14 15 of the translation of private sector managerial practices into the public sector in recent 16 17 decades. It is premised on the idea that successful organisations secure commitment to 18 19 their goals by shaping a shared sense of purpose. In this regard the culture change that 20 21 22 accompanied reform of the planning system in Scotland can be interpreted as an 23 24 attempt to shape consent to the common-sense of a modernized planning system. 25 26 Culture change therefore entails the definition of ‘culture’ as an object of 27 28 governmental attention. As with the logic of modernisation, this involves the 29 30 construction of a particular set of problems (the old planning culture), images of a 31 32 33 desirable end state (the modern planning culture) and a series of mechanisms to 34 35 generate the changes required. Whilst presented as a politically neutral managerial 36 37 technology, culture change is perhaps better viewed as an extension of the politics of 38 39 modernisation - a means of bringing the ideas, practices and identities of planners, 40 41 42 particularly the public sector workforce, into line with the rationalities of ‘modern 43 44 planning’. 45 46 47 If the discourses of modernisation and culture change operate to redefine how 48 49 different planning ideas and practices are constructed and understood, a key task 50 51 for critical analysis is to explore how these stakes have been shaped and the 52 53 54 extent to which they have succeeded in forging a new common-sense, securing 55 56 commitment to new ways of thinking and acting. In the sections below I therefore 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 11 Urban Studies Page 12 of 35
1 2 3 go on to examine how modernisation and culture change came to be defined 4 5 through the planning reform process in Scotland. 6 7 8 Devolution, neoliberalisation and governance cultures in Scotland 9 10 11 A failed independence referendum in September 2014, devolution and the 12 13 reopening of a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood in 1999 have generated 14 15 16 considerable debate about the extent to which patterns of governance change in 17 18 Scotland have converged or diverged from a set of shared historical roots as part 19 20 of the United Kingdom (UK) (e.g. Keating, 2005). It has been widely asserted 21 22 that Scotland has a distinctive governance culture, relatively more corporatist, 23 24 25 interventionist and politically pluralistic than the rest of the UK (Lloyd and Peel, 26 27 2009). However, this broad characterisation is contested, with critics arguing that 28 29 a myth has grown up about Scotland’s continued commitment to an 30 31 interventionist public sector and welfare state. 32 33 34 Miller (2010), for example, argues that assertions of national distinctiveness have 35 36 37 prevented effective analysis of the neoliberalisation of government and society in 38 39 Scotland; drawing attention away from how successive ‘modernising 40 41 governments’ in both Westminster and Holyrood have emphasised economic 42 43 competitiveness as an overriding goal. This approach has continued under 44 45 Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) governments since 2007, where despite social 46 47 48 democratic rhetoric, government policy has arguably deepened neoliberal 49 50 commitments in key ways (e.g. through the pursuit of economic competitiveness 51 52 and commitment to low corporation tax rates) (Davidson et al, 2016). 53 54 55 These debates highlight that the disarticulation of a previous social democratic 56 57 settlement and its replacement by any putative neoliberal settlement remains a 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 12 Page 13 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 politically significant question in a devolved Scotland and provide some broad 4 5 context within which to consider the cultural politics of planning reform. 6 7 8 Landscapes of antagonism and the definition of a ‘modern’ planning culture 9 10 11 In Scotland, planning reform began to be discussed before devolution and continues 12 13 to the present, encompassing the first primary planning legislation passed by the 14 15 16 Scottish parliament in 2006 (Lloyd and Peel, 2009, 110 contains a useful summary 17 18 table of key events). 19 20 21 By comparison with successive waves of planning reform in England which have 22 23 been marked by strong, negative rhetoric and repeated attempts to deal with a 24 25 “broken system” (e.g. Inch, 2012), language in Scotland has generally been less 26 27 28 strident, perhaps indicating a broader acceptance of the value of the planning 29 30 system as a part of the governance landscape. However, the need for reform was 31 32 also widely accepted: 33 34 35 The commitment to modernisation stemmed from a common perception…that 36 37 38 the planning system is not serving Scotland well. (Scottish Government, 2005) 39 40 41 If reform reflected a view amongst a wide range of stakeholders that the system 42 43 required change, how to interpret that change was nonetheless contested. 44 45 46 In the build up to the passing of new legislation three key justifications were 47 48 presented for ‘modernisation’, each corresponding to key principles of wider public 49 50 51 service and planning reform – efficiency, integration and inclusion - and responding 52 53 to distinctive political pressures: 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 13 Urban Studies Page 14 of 35
1 2 3 1. Drawing on the hegemonic depth and weight of powerful neoliberal critiques 4 5 of state planning, right-wing think tanks and the development industry had 6 7 lobbied strongly that the key problem with the existing system was its 8 9 10 inefficiency , lack of responsiveness to market pressures and overly-restrictive 11 12 regulatory approach (e.g. McKay, 2004). 13 14 2. From within the public sector, including elements of the planning profession 15 16 meanwhile, others argued that the planning system had become too inward- 17 18 19 looking and insufficiently responsive to the spatial needs of other government 20 21 services. In response it needed to become a proactive force for strategic 22 23 integration of the spatial impacts of public and private decision-makers. 24 25 3. Finally, community groups and environmental lobbies argued that the system 26 27 was remote and unresponsive to wider democratic pressures. They therefore 28 29 30 argued for a heightened commitment to the inclusion of wider publics in 31 32 decision-making. 33 34 35 Efficiency, integration and inclusion therefore provided distinctive problematisations 36 37 of the existing planning system and concrete images of what a modernised planning 38 39 system and culture might look like. Each of these keywords, also however, potentially 40 41 42 pointed towards different interpretations of modern planning, entailing the 43 44 development of distinctive and potentially incompatible planning cultures, depending 45 46 on how they were interpreted and combined together. 47 48 49 For example, neoliberal commitments to enabling free-markets are not necessarily 50 51 incompatible with limited forms of tokenistic public participation to legitimate 52 53 54 decisions with a veneer of inclusion. However, the aim of speeding up decision- 55 56 making in the interests of economic efficiency is likely to work against more 57 58 substantive commitments to participatory (and representative) democratic processes, 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 14 Page 15 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 potentially generating political tensions. The interpretation of these terms would 4 5 therefore prove crucial to the shaping of a new settlement to govern planning’s field 6 7 of potential antagonisms. 8 9 10 ‘Open for business’ planning: towards a settlement around efficiency? 11 12 13 Many of those interviewed recognised efficiency concerns as the primary driver of 14 15 16 modernisation: 17 18 19 When we started the planning reform journey, our perception was that 20 21 planning was seen as a barrier to development – full stop (National Civil 22 23 Servant) 24 25 26 Driven by a strong critique of the cost and inefficiency of public-sector bureaucracies, 27 28 29 the discourse of efficiency has been a key driver of reforms to public services and 30 ii 31 planning systems across the world . Though the pursuit of efficiency is not 32 33 necessarily neoliberal, it has been a key strategy of neoliberal problematisation that 34 35 has arguably attained both hegemonic depth and extent (c.f. Gunder, 2015). Its logic 36 37 suggests that making planning processes more efficient by reducing unnecessary ‘red- 38 39 40 tape’ will free the market to deliver the development on which sustainable economic 41 42 growth relies (though, despite being consistently asserted, evidence that inefficiency 43 44 is a major issue or that this strategy has led to more or better development is limited, 45 46 see Adams and Watkins, 2014). 47 48 49 Scottish Governments have consistently sought to present themselves as “ open for 50 51 52 business” and have therefore been concerned to address perceived barriers to 53 54 economic competitiveness. Increasingly well-organised development industry lobbies 55 56 were therefore well-placed to raise concerns about the planning system: 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 15 Urban Studies Page 16 of 35
1 2 3 In the last few years we’ve established direct communication with… the 4 5 Ministers who in the SNP understand how important planning is, also 6 7 understand how important construction and house building is as a part of the 8 9 10 economy… So we’ve gone from a position 10 or 15 years ago of being the 11 12 outsider… seen as the enemy of the system, to being part of the fabric of how 13 14 the system’s run. (Development Industry Representative) 15 16 17 The efficiency of the planning system was given particular priority following the 18 19 election of the first SNP minority administration in 2007 and the onset of the GFC. 20 21 22 First Minister Alex Salmond’s newly appointed Scottish Council of Economic 23 24 Advisors devoted their first session to investigating planning as a potential blockage 25 26 to the government’s key priority of fostering “ sustainable economic growth ”. 27 28 29 The long-standing equation of public sector practices with inefficiency and waste 30 31 meant there were a range of managerial technologies available through which the 32 33 problem of inefficiency could be addressed (arguably contrasting with a lack of tools 34 35 36 for addressing the challenges of inclusion and integration). For example, planners and 37 38 local authority managers were familiar with the idea that their work was a ‘service’ 39 40 that needed to be responsive to the needs of its ‘customers’ and whose ‘performance’ 41 42 could (and even should) be measured and rendered subject to disciplinary pressures 43 44 45 for ‘continuous improvement’ in various ways, including, through attentiveness to 46 47 performance targets that principally measured the speed of decision-making: 48 49 50 What it does do is, it puts pressure on us to perform. Again, personally I don’t 51 52 have a big problem with that. I think as with any kind of profession, we need 53 54 to continue to improve our performance – as simple as that. Some of the 55 56 57 figures we’ve got are pretty bad... I personally think we’ve got a five-year 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 16 Page 17 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 window to try and show that we actually can make that progress. (Planning 4 5 Profession Representative) 6 7 8 As the quotation suggests, the discourse of efficiency assumed a powerful disciplinary 9 10 role, intensified by a perception that the political status of planning in Scotland was 11 12 13 fragile, under threat if not under attack. 14 15 16 A key symbol of the dominance of efficiency concerns as a means of proving that 17 18 planning was ‘open for business’ was its effect on ideas of inclusion and integration. 19 20 This was evident before the passing of legislation in 2006 when the then Labour- 21 22 Liberal Democrat coalition government chose not to introduce a third party right of 23 24 25 appeal against the grant of planning permission as a means of strengthening the 26 27 inclusion of affected publics in planning decision-making. The measure was strongly 28 29 promoted by environmental lobbies (and backed by the SNP in opposition). The main 30 31 reason cited for this decision was that extending appeal rights from developers to 32 33 communities would be inefficient, empowering NIMBY opposition, slowing 34 35 36 development and deterring private investment (a decision the SNP has backed in 37 38 Government). This disciplinary effect was also evident in a tendency to view 39 40 integration through the lens of efficiency, as a means of producing more proportionate 41 42 and cost-effective regulation rather than as a potentially more ambitious commitment 43 44 45 to integrate the spatial impacts of a wide-range of public and private service providers. 46 47 In the next section below I go on to explore how the culture change agenda became a 48 49 key mechanism for consolidating this settlement and containing potential tensions 50 51 between divergent understandings of efficiency, integration and inclusion. 52 53 54 ‘Culture change’ and the making of ‘open for business’ planning 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 17 Urban Studies Page 18 of 35
1 2 3 Culture change became a prominent goal for the modernisation agenda once 4 5 minds turned towards implementing the 2006 Act (e.g. Scottish Government, 6 7 2005), and was a particular emphasis as new regulations were being introduced: 8 9 10 [culture change] was very much a buzzword in 2006/2007, I think it’s not 11 12 13 quite as bad as it was, but yeah, it was…bandied around for all sorts of 14 15 new bits and pieces (CEC Planning Policy Officer) 16 17 18 The dominance of efficiency concerns was apparent in the ways the culture 19 20 change agenda was developed by the government. Of 34 action points identified 21 22 in a ‘Progress Report’ on Delivering Planning Reform in March, 2010, thirty-two 23 24 25 related to public sector practices (the other two were addressed to the private 26 27 sector; no points were addressed to communities or non-governmental bodies). 28 29 Around half related directly to identifiable efficiency goals like streamlining of 30 31 process and speeding up of plans and decisions. The document therefore 32 33 reinforced a view of culture change as being primarily concerned with the 34 35 36 efficiency of public sector practices and particularly with those directly related to 37 38 the speed of the development management process through which planning 39 40 consents are granted: 41 42 43 So although there were other objectives…you look at the government’s 44 45 culture change page on their website…there are lots of touchy feely soft 46 47 48 objectives in there… but it became quite a process driven operation… 49 50 (Development industry representative) 51 52 53 However, ‘open for business’ planning was not a straightforward translation of 54 55 development industry concerns for efficiency. This was evident in professional and 56 57 governmental attempts to develop alternative ways of measuring the performance of 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 18 Page 19 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 planning, moving beyond a straightforward focus on speed to also consider quality of 4 5 decision-making (HOPS, 2012). Notwithstanding a broad acceptance of managerial 6 7 discipline, this suggested a continued level of resistance to the idea that planning was 8 9 10 only a regulatory burden. 11 12 13 Following extensive discussion about the need for culture change, ‘open for business’ 14 15 planning was interpreted and enacted within the public sector through a particular 16 17 emphasis on developing improved collaborative relations with all stakeholders, but 18 19 with a particular emphasis on the development industry. This was understood as an 20 21 22 extension of the Scottish Government’s approach to engaging stakeholders in the 23 24 planning reform process (and arguably reflected longer-standing corporatist relations 25 26 within the small and highly professionalised planning community in Scotland). 27 28 29 In practice, ‘open for business’ planning therefore meant a strong emphasis on 30 31 improving communication to proactively facilitate development: 32 33 34 Do [planners] do things differently – yes I would say. On the whole I think 35 36 37 people have embraced that and I think they do understand they need to deal 38 39 with people in a different way, particularly to get out a message about being 40 41 responsive to development, that we’re not seen to be presenting a negative 42 43 image. (CEC Planning manager) 44 45 46 Fostering a pro-development culture was understood by interviewees in both the local 47 48 49 authority and private sector as a particular challenge in Edinburgh which, perhaps as a 50 51 result of its strong economy and historic built environment, had a reputation as a 52 53 difficult place to invest and develop: 54 55 56 Yeah I think the perception that, you know “Edinburgh’s not open for 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 19 Urban Studies Page 20 of 35
1 2 3 business”, that’s one that we’re always fighting and, you know, I think it’s 4 5 wrong...we would really like to change that but that’s a real uphill struggle. 6 7 (CEC Development Management Officer) 8 9 10 11 The local authority’s commitment to challenging this perception was symbolized by 12 13 two key developments: First, the setting up of the Edinburgh Development Forum , a 14 15 regular meeting of industry stakeholders to discuss issues of common concern, and; 16 17 secondly, the Edinburgh Planning Concordat , a protocol for processing major 18 19 iii 20 development applications : 21 22 23 I would argue that the job has fundamentally changed, and certainly from my 24 25 perspective there is far more outward engagement than we ever had before. So 26 27 things like the Edinburgh Development Forum didn’t exist before. We’re 28 29 engaging with the stakeholders and the development industry (CEC Planning 30 31 32 Manager) 33 34 35 The development forum’s done a bit of work on how Edinburgh’s perceived 36 37 by the development community in comparison to other cities, so they are 38 39 aware of the need to present themselves as, you know “…we are up for 40 41 business, we want you to come here and invest” (Planning Consultant) 42 43 44 45 The attempt to transform relations with the development industry through dialogue 46 47 was therefore presented as a means of responding to concerns that planning was 48 49 negative and reactive whilst also shaping a more positive role for public sector 50 51 planners as enablers of development, retaining some commitment to inclusion of 52 53 54 other stakeholders and better integrated development. 55 56 57 ‘Open for business’ planning as a new common-sense 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 20 Page 21 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 The commitment to ‘facilitating development’ was commonly contrasted with the 4 5 problematic old culture it was replacing: 6 7 8 ...some people saw themselves as what used to be called development control 9 10 11 and there was I think a negative attitude. You were there to stop things 12 13 happening if they weren’t acceptable. You weren’t necessarily able to say to 14 15 people “Well look effectually if you’d come in and talked beforehand we 16 17 could have worked out the best way through this” and you could in fact have 18 19 20 taken a much more positive and enabling role… (CEC Development 21 22 Management Officer) 23 24 25 Some planners felt that they had been working in this new way as “ relationship 26 27 managers ” for some time. As a result one suggested that the culture change agenda, 28 29 whilst welcome, was “ a little bit insulting ”. 30 31 32 33 Others also expressed scepticism about the culture change agenda, however, the 34 35 majority described new ways of working in positive terms, with many of those 36 37 interviewed actively identifying with the principle of facilitating development in the 38 39 name of sustainable economic growth: 40 41 42 And I think the notion of development has been a bit of a dirty word. That’s 43 44 45 actually what we’re all here to do, is to manage the environment in which 46 47 we’re working. (National Agency Manager) 48 49 50 In this way, a broadly shared understanding of the aims of culture change seemed to 51 52 have developed, a new common-sense, equated with the negotiated model of ‘open 53 54 55 for business’ planning and entailing particular changes in the forms of knowledge, 56 57 practices, relations and subject positions involved in professional planning (see table 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 21 Urban Studies Page 22 of 35
1 2 3 1). This was particularly strong in the public sector but was also acknowledged by the 4 5 development industry. It was, however, accepted that progress towards the new 6 7 culture remained uneven, with public sector managers admitting to pockets of 8 9 10 resistance: 11 12 13 We’ve got a few dinosaurs…you know people who find it difficult to change 14 15 and leave their old working practices behind (CEC Planning manager) 16 17 18 Development industry representatives, meanwhile, cautiously welcomed the direction 19 20 of change but were clear that there remained “ ailments of trust ” between the public 21 22 23 and private sectors. They argued that the public sector needed to go further in 24 25 accepting market-defined “ realities ” and ensuring certainty of decision-making. The 26 27 latter concern was sometimes related to political interference by obstructive, self- 28 29 interested publics or elected officials who needed to be trained to see planning 30 31 decisions as ‘quasi-judicial’ rather than political choices. 32 33 34 35 Economic crisis and ‘open for business’ planning 36 37 38 It was widely accepted that the effects of the GFC had played an important role in 39 40 shaping acceptance of the new ‘open for business’ planning culture, strengthening the 41 42 equation of development activity with the public interest and creating opportunities to 43 44 reshape relations between public authorities and the development industry. This was 45 46 47 particularly true in Edinburgh, where the crisis had initially been interpreted as a 48 49 serious threat to a city with a large concentration of financial services, leading to the 50 51 production of an Economic Resilience Action Plan (ERAP) in 2008 (CEC, 2008b): 52 53 54 …we’ve linked with city development who have the [ERAP], really sort of 55 56 57 Edinburgh’s approach to the credit crunch [GFC], to say we want to be pro- 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 22 Page 23 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 delivery, we want jobs, we want economic activity… that [ERAP] that created 4 5 a culture change almost. (Housing/Planning Project Officer) 6 7 8 The GFC had been interpreted as intensifying disciplinary pressures on the planning 9 10 11 system to prove it could deliver on broader corporate commitments to growth (the 12 13 five-year window of opportunity referred to above). However, it was also seen to have 14 15 enabled new, more flexible practices. For example through the ERAP, CEC 16 17 committed to negotiate with developers on sites stalled by the crisis to ensure the 18 19 20 construction of affordable housing, using various national subsidies and other 21 22 incentives to ensure construction of affordable units. By 2010/11 this approach had 23 24 led to the construction of affordable housing exceeding private supply for the first 25 26 time (CEC, 2011). 27 28 29 Both public and private sector actors agreed that the downturn in development 30 31 32 activity had led to greater willingness amongst developers to accept a negotiated 33 34 mode of “consensus planning ”. No-one was sure whether this would last if (or when) 35 36 the market ‘returned’. There were also concerns that this approach would prove 37 38 difficult to resource in the event of an upturn in development. Perhaps ironically the 39 40 negotiated model of ‘open for business’ planning, shaped as a response to concerns 41 42 43 about the inefficiency and unresponsiveness of public sector planning, was not 44 45 necessarily cost efficient for local planning authorities facing serious resource 46 47 shortages as public sector austerity took hold: 48 49 50 The issue is…how…the delivery of that service is resourced and if you’re 51 52 53 going to engage with all the people… It’s all very well changing your attitude 54 55 and your culture and all the rest of it but it will only work if there is an 56 57 adequate resourcing (CEC Development Management Offier) 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 23 Urban Studies Page 24 of 35
1 2 3 Analysis: culture governance as a peaceful path to neoliberalisation? 4 5 6 The modernisation of the land-use planning system in Scotland was framed as an 7 8 attempt to address concerns related to efficiency, inclusion and integration. This 9 10 highlights the extent to which the purpose and role of planning activity remains 11 12 13 complex and contested, forming a potential ‘landscape of antagonism’ between 14 15 alternative aspirations for planning (Newman, 2014). 16 17 18 Driven by the hegemonic depth and weight of neoliberal concerns that planning 19 20 was acting as a barrier to economic growth, efficiency concerns assumed 21 22 particular power in Scotland, both as a problematisation of existing planning 23 24 25 practices and an articulation of the form that a modern planning culture should 26 27 assume. This was reinforced by the ready availability of managerial techniques 28 29 designed to discipline public sector practices. It was also notably strengthened by 30 31 the ways the GFC had been interpreted, intensifying pressure to support 32 33 development activity. The dominance of efficiency concerns also shaped the 34 35 36 definition of goals associated with inclusion and integration. 37 38 39 The need for improved efficiency was partly recognised as an external threat, 40 41 introducing pressures to perform. However, it was widely accepted within the 42 43 planning professional community. Prevailing definitions of efficiency were 44 45 subject to some subtle reworking as they were translated into ‘open for business’ 46 47 48 planning, premised on enhancing collaboration between planning authorities and 49 50 developers. This enabled public sector planners to claim a positive role as 51 52 facilitators of development, a subject position many of those interviewed 53 54 identified with. 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 24 Page 25 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 Extended discussion about the need for a new planning culture and explicit 4 5 culture change mechanisms were important in securing acceptance of this new 6 7 approach, which targeted and was more positively embraced in the public sector. 8 9 10 Working on the grounds of preexisting corporatist governance relations, a 11 12 dominant planning and governance culture therefore emerged that played a 13 14 significant role in stabilising the meaning of modernisation, securing active 15 16 consent to this new common-sense. This change was symbolised by the 17 18 19 description of those planners who did not accept its terms as “dinosaurs” whose 20 21 commitments and practices were problematically wedded to outmoded ways of 22 23 working. 24 25 26 Modernisation therefore generated wide-spread acceptance of central tenets of a 27 28 broadly neoliberal conception of market-supportive planning, with culture change 29 30 helping secure a relatively peaceful path towards this new settlement around 31 32 33 ‘open for business’ planning for sustainable economic growth. The story of 34 35 modernisation and culture change in the land-use planning system in Scotland 36 37 therefore suggests the importance of paying attention to the cultural dimensions 38 39 of state restructuring processes, particularly when ‘culture’ itself becomes an 40 41 42 object of governmental attention, mobilized to secure consent to ‘peopled’ 43 44 processes of change. 45 46 47 The study also suggests the significant role locally situated (planning) cultures 48 49 can play in managing potential antagonisms between different aspirations within 50 51 the contested fields of local governance (cf. Newman, 2014). In this case potential 52 53 54 tensions between different interpretations of efficiency, integration and inclusion 55 56 were minimized, as dominant meanings were established and consolidated. 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 25 Urban Studies Page 26 of 35
1 2 3 It would, however, be misleading to argue that reform represented the wholesale 4 5 neoliberalisation of planning in Scotland. Whilst there was broad acceptance that 6 7 the public interest was now defined in terms of sustainable economic growth and 8 9 10 that this was best achieved through better public sector understanding of the needs 11 12 of the development industry, the ways in which ‘open for business’ planning was 13 14 interpreted suggest some level of continued cultural resistance to any narrow 15 16 interpretation of efficiency concerns. Albeit often in limited ways, goals of 17 18 19 inclusion and integration also continued to be pursued. Light-touch, pro-growth 20 21 planning had therefore become normalized, narrowing planners’ ‘acting space’ 22 23 (Grange, 2014) but not entirely displacing other concerns from the field, 24 25 providing further evidence of the particular hybrid, trajectories that 26 27 neoliberalisation takes in different places at different times (pace Brenner et al, 28 29 30 2010; Peck, 2013; Newman, 2014 etc). 31 32 33 The existence of “dinosaurs” within the planning profession also suggests the 34 35 presence of residualised sub-cultures, potentially resistant to the new planning 36 37 culture. One significant limitation of the work presented here is that it has focused 38 39 more on dominant representations of the culture of planning, rather than 40 41 42 examining how street-level actors may have resisted change in various ways. The 43 44 presence of sub-cultures of resistance and, albeit limited, debate over the proper 45 46 interpretation of efficiency, integration and inclusion potentially point towards 47 48 alternative understandings of the role and purpose of planning in a modern 49 50 Scotland, and therefore provide resources from which political challenges could 51 52 53 be raised in the future. Any such challenges are unlikely to take the form of 54 55 wholesale challenges to neoliberalism, but could instead coalesce around 56 57 particular challenges to aspects of the post-2006 settlement and the ways in which 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 26 Page 27 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 it has framed Scotland’s planning culture. Perhaps, for example, contesting claims 4 5 that planning processes are inefficient by questioning the inefficient outcomes of 6 7 market-led planning (Adams and Watkins, 2014). Or asserting the potential 8 9 10 contribution of the planning system to governmental priorities other than the 11 12 efficient pursuit of market-led growth, in Scotland this might include agendas 13 14 around land reform, shaping healthy and sustainable places or community 15 16 empowerment. These possibilities further highlight the value of thinking about 17 18 19 change at micro-political levels as a means of challenging any tendency towards 20 21 disempowering accounts of neoliberalism, restoring albeit modest possibilities for 22 23 agency (Blanco et al, 2014). 24 25 26 In the meantime, however, the settlement around ‘open for business’ planning in 27 28 Scotland seems itself to be under strain. The context created by the GFC arguably 29 30 created the material conditions within which the negotiated model of development 31 32 33 could become broadly accepted. However, subsequent cuts to local authority 34 35 budgets and an upturn in development activity have destabilised this settlement. 36 37 In a move that was widely interpreted as a response to the continued concerns of 38 39 the housebuilding industry about the efficiency of decision-making, Alex Neill 40 41 42 the government minister responsible announced a further “gamechanging” review 43 44 of the planning system in Scotland in September 2015. It remains to be seen what 45 46 the outcome of the review will be, however it seems likely the respondent who 47 48 described a “5-year window” to prove planning could deliver may be proved 49 50 prescient. The hegemonic depth and weight of the discourse of efficiency 51 52 53 therefore continues to function as a powerful problematisation of planning ideas 54 55 and practices, not just disciplining prevailing practices but also generating 56 57 pressure for further cycles of neoliberalising reform. 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 27 Urban Studies Page 28 of 35
1 2 3 Conclusions 4 5 6 In this paper I have explored how the culture of land-use planning in Scotland 7 8 was targeted as an object of governmental attention, shaping an unstable 9 10 settlement around the idea of ‘open for business’ planning. In doing so I have 11 12 13 suggested that planning and governance cultures can play a significant role in 14 15 stabilising the ‘fields of antagonism’ that characterise contemporary local 16 17 governance, potentially securing consent to neoliberalising change. The paper 18 19 therefore highlights the importance of paying more detailed empirical attention to 20 21 22 cultural dimensions of state restructuring at micro-political levels where the state 23 24 operates as a ‘peopled process’ (Peck, 2001); providing a means of improving 25 26 understanding of complex, contemporary dynamics of change and the contested 27 28 role of various political projects, including neoliberalism, in reshaping urban 29 30 governance. In particular I have suggested this illuminates how consent (and 31 32 33 resistance) to such projects are actively produced and managed as part of the 34 35 process of reshaping local regimes or settlements, highlighting the potential value 36 37 of further research on the political-ideological reconstruction of planning and 38 39 governance cultures as a means of deepening understanding of the depth and 40 41 42 extent of neoliberal hegemony. 43 44 45 With planning ideas and practices continuing to be questioned across many states, 46 47 this is a political as much as an academic imperative. Ultimately, if more positive 48 49 ideas of planning and urban governance are to be shaped, even in neoliberal times, 50 51 an essential starting point is to acknowledge that cultural battles are being waged 52 53 54 and need to be actively engaged. 55 56 57 Funding 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 28 Page 29 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 RICS Research Trust 433 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 29 Urban Studies Page 30 of 35
1 2 3 References 4 5 6 Adams, D. and Watkins, C. (2014) The Value of Planning , RTPI, London. 7 8 9 Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2013) The Evolution and Trajectories of English 10 11 Spatial Governance: ‘Neoliberal’ Episodes in Planning, Planning Practice & 12 13 Research , 28(1), 6-26 14 15 16 Author (forthcoming) XXXXXXXXXXXXXX – author will provide details 17 18 19 Baeten G (2012a) Neoliberal planning: Does it really exist? In: Ta şan-Kok T and 20 21 Baeten G (eds) Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning . Berlin, Springer, 205–211. 22 23 Publics and Markets: What’s Wrong with Neoliberalism 24 Barnett, C. (2010) , In: Smith, 25 26 S., Marston, S., Pain, R., Jones III , J. (eds) (2010) The Handbook of Social 27 28 Geography, London, Sage, 269-296 29 30 31 Blanco, Griggs, S. Sullivan, H. (2014) Situating the Local in the Neoliberalization and 32 33 Transformation of Urban Governance, Urban Studies , 51(15), 3129-3146 34 35 36 Brenner, N., Peck, J., Theodore, N. (2010) After Neoliberalization?, Globalizations , 7 37 38 3, 327-345 39 40 41 City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) (2008a) Culture Change in Planning , Planning 42 43 Committee, 28 February, 2008. 44 45 CEC (2008b) Economic Resilience Action Plan , CEC, The City of Edinburgh Council, 46 47 48 16 October 2008 49 50 CEC (2011) City Housing Strategy 2012-2017 , Health, Social Care and Housing 51 52 53 Committee, 13 December 2011 54 55 Clarke, J. (2008). Living with/in and without neo-liberalism. Focaal , 51, 135–147. 56 57 58 Collier, S. J., 2012, Neoliberalism as big Leviathan, or...? A response to Wacquant 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 30 Page 31 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 and Hilgers. Social Anthropology , 20, 186–195. 4 5 6 du Gay, P. (2000) In Praise of Bureaucracy , London, Sage. 7 8 Davidson, N., Virdee, S, Morrison, J, Mooney, G. (2016) Scotland and Alternatives to 9 10 11 Neoliberalism, Soundings , 63,55-72 12 13 Finlayson, A. (2003) Making Sense of New Labour , London, Lawrence and Wishart. 14 15 16 Grange, K. (2014) In search of radical democracy: The ideological character of 17 18 current political advocacies for culture change in planning, Environment and 19 20 Planning A , 46, 2670-2685 21 22 23 Gunder, M. (2015) Planning's “Failure” to Ensure Efficient Market Delivery: A 24 25 Lacanian Deconstruction of this Neoliberal Scapegoating Fantasy, European 26 27 28 Planning Studies, 1-18 DOI :10.1080/09654313.2015.1067291. 29 30 Hall, S. (1988) The toad in the garden: Thatcherism among the theorists, in: C. 31 32 33 Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture , Chicago, 34 35 University of Illinois Press, 58–74 36 37 Hall, S. (2011) The Neoliberal Revolution, Cultural Studies , 25(6), 705-28 38 39 40 Heads of Planning Scotland (2012) Planning Performance Framework: 41 42 http://www.hopscotland.org.uk/images/stories/Reports/hops%20planning%20perform 43 44 45 ance%20framework.pdf accessed 1/10/12 46 47 Inch, A. (2012b) Creating 'a generation of NIMBYs'? Interpreting the role of the state 48 49 50 in managing the politics of urban development, Environment and Planning C: 51 52 Government and Policy 30(3) 520 – 535 53 54 55 Keating, M. (2005) Policy Divergance and Convergance in Scotland under 56 57 Devolution, Regional Studies, 39(4), 453-463. 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 31 Urban Studies Page 32 of 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 Lord, A. and Tewdwr-Jones,M. (2014) Is Planning ‘under Attack’? Chronicling the 7 8 deregulation of urban and Environmental Planning in England, European Planning 9 10 11 Studies , 22 (2), 345-361 12 13 14 Lovering, J. (2009) The recession and the end of planning as we have known it, 15 16 17 International Planning Studies , 14(1), 1–6 18 19 Lloyd, G and Peel, D. (2009) New Labour and the Planning System in Scotland: 20 21 An Overview of a Decade, Planning Practice and Research , 24 (1), 103-118 22 23 24 Lloyd, M.G. and Peel, D. (2012) Soft contractualism? Facilitating institutional 25 26 change in planning and development relations in Scotland, Urban Research & 27 28 29 Practice , 5(2), 239-255. 30 31 MacKay, D. (2004) The Planning Famine: Reforming Land Use Planning in Scotland , 32 33 34 The Policy Institute, Series: Economy No. 8 November, Edinburgh. 35 36 Miller, D. (2010) Who Rules Scotland? Neoliberalism, the Scottish Ruling Class 37 38 and its Intellectuals, In: Davidson,N., McCafferty, P. and Miller, D. (eds.) 39 40 41 Neoliberal Scotland: class and society in a stateless nation , Cambridge, 42 43 Cambridge Scholars, 93-136. 44 45 46 Newman, J. (2014) Landscapes of Antagonism: Local Governance, Neoliberalism and 47 48 Austerity, Urban Studies , 51(15), 3290-3305 49 50 51 Othengrafen, F. and Reimer, S. (2013) The embeddedness of planning in cultural 52 53 contexts: theoretical foundations for the analysis of dynamics planning cultures, 54 55 Environment and Planning A , 45, 1269-1284. 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 32 Page 33 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 Peck, J. (2001) Neoliberalizing States: Thin Policies/Hard Outcomes, Progress in 4 5 Human Geography , 25(3), 445-455 6 7 8 Peck, J. (2013) Explaining (with) Neoliberalism, Territory, Politics, Governance 9 10 1(2),132-157 11 12 13 Peet, R. (2002) Ideology, Discourse and the Geography of Hegemony: From socialist 14 15 to neoliberal development in post-apartheid South Africa, Antipode, 34(1), 54-84 16 17 18 Sager, T. (2011) Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. 19 20 Progress in Planning 76(4): 147–199. 21 22 23 Sager, T. (2014) Ideological Traces in Plans for Compact Cities: Is Neoliberalism 24 25 Hegemonic? Planning Theory, DOI:10.1177/1473095214527279, 1-28 26 27 28 Sanyal, B. (2005) Hybrid Planning Cultures: the search for the global planning 29 30 commons. In: Sanyal, B. (ed) Comparative Planning Cultures , Abingdon, Taylor and 31 32 Francis, 3-25 33 34 35 Scottish Government (2005) Modernising the Planning System: A White Paper , 36 37 Edinburgh, Scottish Government. 38 39 40 Scottish Government (2010) Delivering Planning Reform: Progress Report , 41 42 Edinburgh, Scottish Government. 43 44 45 Taylor, Z. (2013) Rethinking Planning Culture: A New Institutionalist Approach, 46 47 Town Planning Review , 84(6), 683-702. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 33 Urban Studies Page 34 of 35
1 2 3 Notes 4 5 i CEC is the local authority responsible for Scotland’s capital city. The total population of Edinburgh 6 was 486,120 in 2010, with growth rates outstripping the rest of the country over the previous three 7 decades. Growth was premised on a strong economy, with concentrations in financial services, higher 8 education, and public services (including the Scottish Government) as well as tourism drawn to the 9 city’s historic built environment. At the time the research was conducted in 2012 the Council was led 10 by a Labour – SNP coalition. Despite changes in political control, and the politicisation of certain 11 issues, there remained a reasonably stable settlement over key priorities, particularly the need to pursue 12 a strategy of economic growth. 13 14 ii This section of the paper draws on Author, forthcoming 15 iii 16 The Forum was set up to improve relations between CEC and key stakeholders, particularly the 17 development industry. Meeting quarterly, it led to efforts to develop a shared evidence base about 18 development needs in the city The concordat emerged from the Forum as an agreed process for 19 managing major development proposals, particularly through processing agreements intended to 20 give developers certainty about decision-making timescales (see Lloyd and Peel, 2012). 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected] 34 Page 35 of 35 Urban Studies
1 2 3 Element of Old system culture ‘Modern’ system 4 5 planning culture (pre-2006) culture (post-2006) 6 7 8 Knowledges and Knowledge of Knowledge of how to 9 10 11 practices statutory system. use statutory system to 12 13 Bureaucratic processes make facilitate 14 15 and practices. Limited development. 16 17 engagement with other Emphasis on improved 18 19 stakeholders project management/ 20 21 22 knowledge of 23 24 development 25 26 economics 27 28 29 Relations of practice Formal and Outward looking, 30 31 bureaucratic, remote, engagement with all 32 33 34 quasi-legal stakeholders, willing 35 36 to negotiate 37 38 39 Roles and identities for Bureaucratic, Dynamic facilitator of 40 41 public sector planners regulator, inhibitor of development; 42 43 development, guardian proactive seeking 44 45 46 of public interest by solutions; guardian of 47 48 regulating private public interest defined 49 50 sector by collaboration with 51 52 private sector 53 54 55 Table 1: Representations of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ planning culture pre and post-2006 56 57 58 59 60 1 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cus [email protected]