European experiences as guidelines for public, private and civil sector role redefinition in spatial policy formulation process in Serbia

Abstract

The period of post-socialist transition in Serbia brings more complex actors environment compared to socialistic period, while institutional arrangements are not enough developed to actively involve different groups of actors in spatial policy formulation process. In order to gather certain knowledge as guidelines for redefining institutional practices in Serbia, institutional framework of Serbia was compared in this paper with institutional framework of three developed European countries, especially in relation to the roles of public, private and civil sector in spatial policy formulation process. The European countries selected for the analysis are United Kingdom, Netherlands and Germany because of diverse national administrative traditions, so different institutional arrangements could be researched. By comparing institutional framework in Serbia with the ones in developed European countries following questions are researched: which actors are missing in Serbia, what are the ways institutional arrangements for different groups inclusion into spatial policy formulation process are formed, what are the differences between the roles of certain groups of actors in decision-making process. Current roles of actors in spatial policy formulation process in Serbia are reviewed and possible directions for public, private and civil sector role redefinition in Serbia are discussed in accordance with experiences of developed European countries

Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views

“…The re-centralisation of political activities, dismantling local planning enterprises, weak institutions and planning professionals distracted between public and private interests in the years to follow, did not particularly encourage proliferation of the ideas of communicative planning, which came to the forefront of the international planning debate. A bottom-up reflection of plural interests in formal planning processes remained primarily a function of participants' legal security and the legitimisation of planning decisions (Maksi� c, 2012). Although the ideology of free markets became influential after the first democratic elections in Serbia (2000), the pathdependency of rational planning was present in the processes, in the cognitive habits of some practitioners, and in physical form ( � Coli� c and D� zelebd� zi� c, 2018).…”

Web-based support of spatial planning in Serbia

“…A lot of scholars' papers discuss the adopted SPRS and create a comprehensive overview of the following: the present conditions in postsocialist Serbia; context, laws and practice of planning in Serbia; the transformation of 'planmaking' as a dominant mode of planning; vertical hierarchical integration and horizontal coordination in spatial planning; the way to renew the collapsed strategic thinking; the comparison of the existing comprehensive 'rational' and the new 'collaborative' model of planning; as well as the comparison of institutional framework in Serbia with experiences of developed European countries (Lazarević-Bajec, 2009, Nedović-Budić et al, 2011, Dželebdžić et al, 2011, Vujošević, 2011, Maksić, 2012. The dominant problems, from our point of view, can be found in (i) a lack of knowledge and readiness to reflect numerous new challenges in the planning process (Lazarević-Bajec, 2011); and (ii) the collapse and recentralization of former institutions by weakening the constitutional role of municipalities and introducing the 'top-down' principle of government (Nedović-Budić et al, 2011).…”