Exploring the usefulness of structural–functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems

Abstract

Please note: Changes made as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing, formatting and page numbers may not be reflected in this version. For the definitive version of this publication, please refer to the published source. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite this paper.This version is being made available in accordance with publisher policies. See http://orca.cf.ac.uk/policies.html for usage policies. Copyright and moral rights for publications made available in ORCA are retained by the copyright holders. Corresponding author: Ruth PottsThis is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted following peer review for publication in Planning Theory AbstractExisting planning theories tend to be limited in their analytical scope and often fail to account for the impact of many interactions between the multitudes of stakeholders involved in strategic planning processes. Although many theorists rejected structural-functional approaches from the 1970s, this article argues that many of structural-functional concepts remain relevant and useful to planning practitioners. In fact, structural-functional approaches are highly useful and practical when used as a foundation for systemic analysis of real-world, multi-layered, complex planning systems to support evidence-based governance reform. Such approaches provide a logical and systematic approach to the analysis of the wider governance of strategic planning systems that is grounded in systems theory and complementary to existing theories of complexity and planning. While we do not propose its use as a grand theory of planning, this article discusses how structural-functional concepts and approaches might be applied to underpin a practical analysis of the complex decision-making arrangements that drive planning practice, and to provide the evidence needed to target reform of poorly performing arrangements.

Evaluating Governance Arrangements and Decision Making for Natural Resource Management Planning: An Empirical Application of the Governance Systems Analysis Framework

“…A summary of the key interrogative questions raised by the GSA framework is shown in Table 1 (previously described and applied by Dale et al (2013b), Dale et al (2013c), and Potts et al (2014)). Also published in: (Dale et al, 2013b;Dale et al, 2013c;Potts et al, 2014) …”

“…Potts et al (2014) argue that when combined with critical systems thinking, governance and planning theories, structural-functionalism can be transformed from an abstract sociological theory to a practical evaluative lens for planning systems. Structural-functionalism is a particularly strong and logical foundation (rather than grand theory) for evaluation of governance systems because it enables decision-makers to identify which components are limiting the success of planning, and then focuses their attention on improving and reforming those areas (Potts et al, 2014).…”

“…For further information on structural-functionalism and its use in the GSA framework see Potts et al (2014). Potts et al (2014) argue that when combined with critical systems thinking, governance and planning theories, structural-functionalism can be transformed from an abstract sociological theory to a practical evaluative lens for planning systems.…”

“…As a response to these problems, the Governance Systems Analysis (GSA) framework was developed by Dale et al (2013b) and Potts et al (2014), as a way to analyse governance systems and provide direction for strategic governance reform. The GSA framework has been applied to evaluate governance arrangements for the management of the Great Barrier Reef (Dale et al, 2013c), and the Australian carbon farming initiative (Dale et al, 2013a).…”

When trends intersect: The challenge of protecting freshwater ecosystems under multiple land use and hydrological intensification scenarios

“…Consistent with a very wide policy and planning literature, GSA considers the standard structural elements of natural resource decision-making and action at different scales needed to include vision and objective setting, analysis, strategy development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and review (see also Potts et al, 2014). Importantly GSA also considers how well things operate within and across these structural elements.…”