An Inquiry Into Power and Institutional Culture Change in Portugal

Europeanisation and Territorial Governance: An Inquiry Into Power and Institutional Culture Change in Portugal. by João Morais L Mourato Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Town Planning Bartlett School of Planning University College London July 2011 Declaration I, João Morais L Mourato, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. i Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious. George Orwell 1984 ii Abstract From within the European Union integration project, a shared spatial development agenda has emerged. From the beginning of the European Spatial Development Perspective process in 1989, to the post-enlargement Territorial Agenda of 2007, in a non-binding policy context of inexistent formal competencies, member-states agreed on a shared vision, spatial development objectives and planning principles for the EU territory. This catalysed the institutionalisation of European Spatial Planning. Fuelled by processes of socialisation framed within a platform for common policy learning the latter produced an undeniable cultural footprint. Growing attention has been given to the impact that this process has had on domestic planning systems and institutions among member-states. This impact is widely referred to as the Europeanisation of planning. This thesis examines the Portuguese National Spatial Planning Policy Programme (PNPOT) under the light of the hypothetical causal relationship between the Europeanisation of planning and institutional culture change in Portugal. As evidence mounts of innovation in policy discourse, conceptual paradigms, legal framework and practices, the research focus shifts to the domestic drivers, mechanisms, key actors and their motivations, enabling factors and obstacles to culture change. The outcome is a portrait of the contemporary challenges faced by planning in Portugal. The latter highlights the fragilities of the planning-related policy learning dynamics, capacity-building processes, inter-institutional coordination deficit and structural shortcomings in terms of the communicational capacity and the adaptational ability of institutions and practitioners in an evolving public policy context. Finally, although a policy- steered process, planning culture change in Portugal, if to prevail, depends on the mobilisation of the community of planners. Through a communicative power framework they must work alongside central and local government and citizens in an inclusive spirit of mutual learning and partnership. For a culture change in planning to have any effect in shaping places, it must first shape minds. iii Table of Contents PAGE Declaration i Abstract iii Table of Contents iv Acknowledgements vii List of Tables ix List of Figures x List of Abbreviations and Acronyms xi Additional Notes xv Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Contextual Settings 1 1.2 Research Lines and Main Hypothesis 4 1.3 Aims and Objectives 6 1.4 Research Focus 7 1.5 Key Definitions 9 1.6 Research Context 10 1.7 Thesis Structure 11 Chapter 2 Planning Culture Change 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Planning Culture as a Research Agenda 16 2.2.1 Defining Planning Culture 16 2.2.2 The Culturised Planning Model 19 2.2.3 Planning Artefacts and the Planning Environment 20 2.2.4 The Societal Environment 24 2.3 Culture Change 25 2.3.1 Typologies of Culture Change 26 2.3.2 Culture Change as a Learning Process 28 2.3.3 Culture Change as Power 33 2.4 Institutional Culture Change 37 2.5 Final Remarks 42 iv Chapter 3 Europeanisation as Culture Change 3.1 Introduction 44 3.2 Europeanisation as a Research Agenda 45 3.2.1 Europeanisation or European Integration? 46 3.2.2 Defining Europeanisation 47 3.2.3 Themes of Europeanisation 50 3.3 The Europeanisation of Planning 54 3.3.1 Which Europeanisation of Planning? 54 3.3.2 Mechanisms of the Europeanisation of Planning 56 3.3.3 The Dynamics of the Europeanisation of Planning 57 3.3.4 The ESDP as a Catalyst of Europeanisation of Planning 59 3.3.5 The Emergence of a European Planning Culture? 66 3.4 Final Remarks 66 Chapter 4 Tracking Down Institutional Culture Change 4.1 Introduction 69 4.2 Planning Research against the Backdrop of a ‘Science Wars’ 69 4.3 Phronesis as a Research Philosophy 72 4.4 Phronesis as a Research Agenda 75 4.4.1 Context-Dependency and the Single Case Study 76 4.4.2 Research Design Guidelines 79 4.5 Phronetic Research in Practice: Issues and Limitations 82 4.5.1 The Case Study 82 4.5.2 The Research Timeline 86 4.5.3 The Data Collection Process 87 4.5.4 The Researcher 98 4.6 Final Remarks 99 Chapter 5 Planning Culture in Portugal 5.1 Introduction 100 5.2 The Evolution of Planning in Portugal 101 5.2.1 Key Contextual Influences 102 5.2.2 The Setup Process (1974-1984) 105 5.2.3 The Emancipation Process (1985-1999) 107 5.2.4 The Coming of Age (2000+) 113 5.3 Portugal and the Europeanisation of Planning 116 5.3.1 The Hidden Agenda (1986-1999) 116 v 5.3.2 Uncertainty (1999-2005) 120 5.3.3 Voluntary Action (2005+) 122 5.4 Final Remarks 124 Chapter 6 PNPOT - The National Spatial Planning Policy Programme 6.1 Introduction 126 6.2 The PNPOT as Institutional Culture Change 127 6.2.1 Policy Predecessors 128 6.2.2 Legal Framework 130 6.2.3 The Making of the Draft PNPOT 142 6.2.4 Policy Harmonisation Process 150 6.2.5 Public Discussion Process 151 6.2.6 Political Debate and Approval 154 6.3 The PNPOT as Evidence of Europeanisation of Planning 159 6.4 The PNPOT as Planning Culture Change 161 6.5 Final Remarks 163 Chapter 7 Conclusions 7.1 Europeanisation and Institutional Culture Change in Portugal 164 7.2 Future Research Agenda 167 Chapter 8 Epilogue 170 List of Legislative References 179 List of References 180 Appendix A PNPOT: The Making Of - Key Dates and Events 196 Appendix B PNPOT: The 24 Problems of Territorial Planning 198 Appendix C PNPOT: Portugal 2025 - Territorial Model 200 Appendix D PNPOT: The Strategic Objective 6 201 vi Acknowledgements I was very fortunate with my supervisory panel at UCL. Mark Tewdwr-Jones provided a series of opportunities for both my professional and intellectual development that I deeply appreciated. He was a crucial influence throughout. Earlier on, by patiently helping me structure my work and later on by giving me enough leeway to develop this research and in particular its write up at my own pace, which is something I cannot thank him enough for. Michael Edwards is a guarantee of brilliant discussions, and after a brief spell of teaching together, someone I came to appreciate very much. Although with less direct contact with the research itself it would be unfair not to mention the influence he had on me, as a researcher. In Lisbon, João Ferrão has proven instrumental in this endeavour. Having himself undertaken a new and demanding task in his professional career shortly after having agreed to help with this project he never faltered in providing all necessary support and encouragement. In common, all three contributed to mature my understanding of the potential social relevance of planning as a public policy, its limitations and ethical conflicts amidst its practice. In sum, I felt privileged to have them on board. Financially, I am deeply grateful to my sponsor, the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT- Programa POCI 2010), Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia e Ensino Superior da República Portuguesa, without whom this research would not have been possible. FCT funds are a mix of Portuguese governmental budget and the European Social Fund (ESF). This thesis investigates whether an identified process of institutional change in Portugal is a consequence of the ongoing EU integration process. Ironically, by being partially funded by the EU, this dissertation embodies itself a consequence of the very process of integration it researches. At the Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, colleagues played a huge role. Fruitful academic discussions are usually the words associated with colleagues. They are significant, by all means. But I found far more by looking at my fellow colleagues and understanding that the troubles and insecurities I experienced were not exclusively mine. Or, in other words, that we can learn from others to deal with the issues we think are solely ours. That is the greater lesson, I find. In this sense, I wish to leave a special word of affection to Marta, Moshe and Richard. A very special thanks to Sonia who is the best friend one could ask for: supportive, and the perfect discussant, honestly critical and trustable. To Suzanne for having pushed me forward and for all the affection and companionship I was granted. To Jonathan, for being such a trustworthy and supportive friend, and an excellent running partner. The PhD extends far beyond the limits of one’s school or department, both in time and space. May it be the fault of the ‘network society’, the ‘skype-society’ or the 2.0 world we live in or just the twists and turns of life itself but people we randomly come across, add up, little by vii little, to be significant contributors to both the contents of the thesis and the personal and professional development of the researcher. In this sense, and in no special order, I am deeply thankful to Ana, Ângela, Fernando, Rita, Rossana, Sérgio (all in Lisbon), Sónia (in Oporto), Bas (in Delft), Bruno (in New York), Elisabete (in Cambridge), Ryan (in Belize), João, Juliana, Isabel, Lenka and Susanna (all in London) and last but not least Don (at the Bartlett).

Load more