Do matters of concern matter? Bringing issues back to participation

Abstract

The objective of our article is twofold. First, we claim that the theoretical planning discussion dealing with public participation has forgotten one basic principle, namely that the people are taking part in the planning process because they are interested in a particular issue. There is a need for new conceptual approaches in participatory research which carry the discussion first towards the issues, then to the structures of participation. For this reason, we have combined practiceoriented policy analysis with the recent discussion of issue politics. Second, we implement the key propositions of the theoretical debate in an empirical case. The aim is to indicate how the trajectory of the issue, as well as its continuities and discontinuities, develop in diverse ways in different civic forums. We claim that this perspective provides more information for researchers, civil servants and citizens about the logic of participatory practice.

Residents, customers or citizens? Tracing the idea of youthful participation in the context of administrative reforms in Finnish public administration

“…Similar overwhelming inclusiveness and lack of precision can be found in the participatory dictates of the Land Use and Building and Municipal Act (27 §), which also risks turning participation into an empty notion (e.g. Leino & Laine, 2012;Nyman, 2000).…”

“…12 concerning the degree to which they can be seen to define significant places and important issues for inhabitants in general (e.g. Bäcklund, 2007;Hajer, 2003;Kallio et al, forthcoming;Lawless & Pearson, 2012;Leino & Laine, 2012). Since normative steering highlights the role of elected representatives in bringing out the inhabitants' point of view and demands depoliticized -expert-based -planning knowledge, there is no specific demand for residents' direct participation within planning practices.…”

“…In political steering mode we define inhabitants as citizens. This stresses the possibility of people themselves defining both the objects and the methods of participation (Hajer, 2003;Kallio, 2012a;Lawless & Pearson, 2012;Leino & Laine, 2012;Rosanvallon, 2008;Sager, 2009 There are two specific reasons for concentrating on the interpretations and experiences of civil servants instead of elected representatives. First, a strong legal framework in Finland specifically obligates civil servants to arrange participation and "hear" inhabitants in general.…”

A Polyphonic Story of Urban Densification

“…However, Tampere's planning officials underestimated the power of local stories and housing companies. From 2012 onwards, the city officials continued the business-as-usual kind of participatory planning practice with conventional public hearings (Leino & Laine, 2012;Leino, Santaoja, & Laine, 2017) and assumed housing companies would eventually sell building rights to the construction companies. However, the planners' story of the future Tammela remained abstract, without recognising the local stories and respecting the neighbourhood's symbolic elements (Ameel, 2016;Sandercock, 2010).…”

“…(Consulting architect) Finnish urban planners experience interaction with the local dwellers as difficult (Leino & Laine, 2012). Even though participatory planning methods have developed in Finland, the planners usually continue to follow the same routine; they abstract the place into a plan and simultaneously lose something essential about the lived space: its symbolic meanings, history and culture.…”