Creative or instrumental planners? Agency and structure in their institutional and political economy context

Abstract

The paper casts light on structural factors limiting and shaping the actions of planners. In doing so it attempts to compensate for the emphasis planning theory places on the agency dimension of planners at the expense of the structural limitations they encounter. The paper draws from Giddens’s structuration theory, which depicts how the imbrication of agency and structure within institutional contexts sets the resources and constraints environment wherein social actors function. In order to adapt structuration theory to the reality of planners, the paper explores how motivations driving their agency take form largely within their professional realm. It also highlights the role institutional dynamics and political economy play in setting the structural context in which planners operate. The empirical substance originates from two junctures in the evolution of Toronto planning. The paper paints the picture of knowledgeable and reflective planners making informed decisions within changing structural contexts they do not control.

‘We are surviving well’: Adaptive strategies applied by women in an underground South African mine

“…Not all women had access to such supportive relations, and this lack could potentially aggravate their emotional vulnerability and sense of isolation, thus highlighting the importance of a supportive workplace and external resources. Finally, the women used their resource-finding capacity to breach boundaries of the mining institution to obtain external resourcing, drawing on the support from inter-institutional relations (see Filion, 2021).…”

“…Agency in this instance refers to the women as 'active agents who constantly shape and are shaped by their environments' (Lounsbury & Mitchell, 2009, p. 215). In the reciprocal interaction between structure and people, the women employed adaptive strategies as reflexive, knowledgeable people (active agents), who exercise their ability to act (see Filion, 2021;Yuthas et al, 2004). The adaptive strategies (agency) form as part of selfregulation processes and manifest in relation to the conditions governing the social system (structuration) (Barker, 2016).…”

Bridging the Divide in Cultural Capital? A Tale of Two Capitals

“…Such a deployment would take more cognizance of the workings of actors and agencies in the structuring of creative and cultural economies. This allows a more specific consideration of the work of planners and policy makers in the construction of the creative economy (Fillion, 2020). It also allows a consideration of the play of privilege and power and capital writ large.…”

Agency and Structure in Urban and Regional Planning: An Illustrative Overview and Future Research Agenda

“…Planning researchers have acknowledged the duality of agency and structure (i.e., the mutual interdependence between individual actions and collective rules and norms) for some time. To capture the relationship between individual actions and institutional context, many planning scholars draw on Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration, or other theoretical perspectives derived from Giddens’ ideas (e.g., Filion 2021; Healey and Barrett 1990; Healey 1997; Jessop 2001). In this article, we illustrate that the duality of agency and structure is present in several theoretical perspectives on agency, not only those referring to the aforementioned theories.…”

“…What is apparent in almost all situations is that these actors have agency (i.e., the capacity to act independently and to make their own free choices to act) at many stages of the planning process. A body of academic literature depicts planners as enjoying a substantial amount of autonomy and agency in, for example, the formulation and implementation of models of urban development (Filion 2021).…”