Is Regional Planning Dead or Just Coping? The Transformation of a State Sociospatial Project into Growth-Oriented Strategies

Abstract

How is regional planning transformed in increasingly changing socioeconomic and political contexts? How are regional planning policies and practices ultimately shaped and why? With this paper, the author proposes and applies an analytical model based on notions of state theory, state spatial selectivity, new planning spaces, and policy discourses to examine how regional planning has evolved in the course of the past four or so decades. On the basis of an analysis concerned with the history and evolution of Danish regional planning, he argues that regional planning has shifted away from being a sociospatial and welfarist state project towards being a domain characterised by growthoriented strategies that stand for neoliberal political agendas. In examining this process the author suggests that hierarchical forms of governance and the statutory mechanisms embedded within them have been largely substituted by emerging soft spaces of governance and fl exible policies intended to destabilise formal planning arenas. Finally, he discusses the fact that the 'classical-modernist' steering role of regional planning that once sought to tackle socioeconomic disparities has been replaced by a facilitating role that promotes competitiveness through growth-oriented policy instruments.

Re-thinking non-core regions: planning strategies and practices beyond growth

“…The emerging pattern of spatially uneven development and coexisting convergence and divergence processes across European regions (Martin, 1998;Puga, 2002) is also represented in the contemporary planning policies and practices at various levels (Galland, 2012). Yet, policy approaches do not account for the needs and idiosyncrasies of noncore regions, partly because 'role models' prevail (Lagendijk, 2000), which favour central, non-peripheral or core locations (Danson, 2009), and partly because many of these regions are 'locked in' their configuration of being outside the core, i.e.…”

The regional level as boundary organization? An analysis of climate change adaptation governance in Norway

“…for carrying out risk assessments and environmental impact assessments. It is still expected that such scientific assessments can deliver the correct answer on conflict ridden policy issues or reduce uncertainty associated with policy choices (Galland, 2012). Also, as part of the reduced power of the regional level, ''softer'' means of coordination, such as guidance and knowledge provision, are replacing ''harder'' means of coordination, such as regulations (Hanssen et al, 2013).…”

“…Governance is a theoretical concept that emphasizes the changing role of the state in coordination and steering, which involves both state and non-state actors at different levels (Kooiman, 2003;Pierre, 2000). There are several definitions of governance, but they all agree on the blurred boundaries between public and private actors role in the process of governing (Stoker, 1998) The role of regional government institutions in spatial planning has changed over the last decades, and the move from hierarchical policy implementation to multi-level governance means that spatial development is increasingly shaped by a mixture of actors for the purpose of economic growth and development (Friedmann, 1963;Galland, 2012). As a consequence, the regional level no longer exercises control over the local level (Galland, 2012;Glasson and Marshall, 2007).…”

“…There are several definitions of governance, but they all agree on the blurred boundaries between public and private actors role in the process of governing (Stoker, 1998) The role of regional government institutions in spatial planning has changed over the last decades, and the move from hierarchical policy implementation to multi-level governance means that spatial development is increasingly shaped by a mixture of actors for the purpose of economic growth and development (Friedmann, 1963;Galland, 2012). As a consequence, the regional level no longer exercises control over the local level (Galland, 2012;Glasson and Marshall, 2007). Experiences with environmental governance has displayed that this is not a one directional process from the national scale through to the regional to the local-scale, but that agendas can emerge at the local scale and end up as national policies (Aall et al, 2007).…”

Responsibility, polity, value: The (un)changing norms of planning practices

“…Processes of public/private negotiated development appear to be increasingly 'decontextualised' from the local social processes of urban living, with planning projects being often considered as ecosystems isolated from local contexts (Savini and Aalbers, 2015). On a higher scale, the production of regional polities today appears to follow norms of effective and specialised growth that, while allowing for localised processes of development, do fragment rather than integrate the regional space into different investment areas (Galland, 2012). Building on ideas of pragmatic communing and polycentrism, numerous contemporary practices of urban socio-environmental activism appear to organise themselves as hyper-local and communitarian initiatives, with processes of self-organisation being highly concerned with the here and now (often hidden behind a big 'how').…”