Performing legitimacy in neighbourhood planning: Conflicting identities and hybrid governance

Abstract

Neighbourhood planning in the UK is a striking example of the international turn to localism and public participation, the statutory weight afforded to it setting it apart from many other initiatives. Its promoters portray it as a straightforward transfer of power from state to community. However, its legitimacy relies upon complex, hybrid forms of representative, participatory and epistemological authority. A growing literature is interrogating the relations between neighbourhood planning groups – the collectives utilising these new powers – and the neighbourhoods for which they speak. This paper brings empirical evidence forward to build on such work by exploring how the identities of neighbourhood planning groups are constituted. Three different and sometimes conflicting relational identities are characterised. Each identity is associated with particular material relations, types of knowledge and ways of representing the neighbourhood, and consequently produces different forms of legitimacy. Analysing identities in this way aids understanding of the practices through which legitimacy is achieved in experiments in democracy that rely on hybrid forms of authority. It may also open possibilities for intervention that speak to some of the concerns raised in the literature about these hybrid forms.

The Manipulation of Religion and The Legalization of Underage Marriages in Indonesia

“…25 Religion is not, however, the only source of legitimacy and identity; it is also associated with individuals' material situation, knowledge, and environment, all of which offer their own legitimacies. 26 Identity analysis, thus, can help understand how particular authorities exercise power and legitimize specific activities. 27 Akbar writes that, within the context of religious legitimacy, where something lacks a basis in religious sources or authorities, it will be viewed neutrally by different religions and congregations.…”

All the good care: Valuation and task differentiation in older person care

“…Rushforth et al (2018), for instance, show how principal investigators affiliated with universities and research institutes engage with different systems of values simultaneously, that is, one of academic excellence and another of social impact, to decide which projects to invest in for future success. Similarly, Yuille (2020) shows how neighbourhood planning groups in the UK engage with different ways of valuing their relationship with the neighbourhood (as members and representatives of the community and as experts distinct from and knowing what is best for the neighbourhood) and continuously balance these different modes in establishing their legitimacy in negotiations with local authorities. These examples reveal that professional roles are not tied to just one dominant mode of doing good and that different modes of doing good can be enacted in organisational practices to achieve different purposes.…”

The decoupling effect and shifting assemblages of English regionalism: Economic governance, politics and firm-state relations

“…Rescaling, restructuring, and reconfiguring the means and processes of sub-national economic governance has presented notable changes recently. Ongoing shifts in the scale of intervention and implementation (Brenner, 2004), devolution of responsibilities within and outside state organisations (Jones et al, 2005), and broadening of participation in the policy process (Fung, 2015;Yuille, 2020) have seen numerous spatial challenges emerge. As a result, the processes through which regions both form and function have been increasingly problematised beyond simply territorial framings, incorporating the politics of scale, formation of place, and evolution of networks (Jessop et al, 2008).…”

“…These changed tendencies are bound into the legated process of governance reform and the outcome of preceding arrangements and interventions forming successive layers of production and governance relations (Massey, 1979). For example, actor relations formed through prior assemblages can create institutional memories underpinned by long-term state personnel (Jones et al, 2004), established transactional dependencies (MacKinnon et al, 2004; Salder, 2021), and embedded stakeholder interactions (Fung, 2015; Yuille, 2020). This may lead to non-human actors exerting influence on the assemblage via the bounded rationality of institutional and industrial practice (Johnson and Hoopes, 2003) and sunk costs of organisational investments, network formation, personal interests, and public goods (Biniari, 2017; Capello et al, 2011; Clark and Wrigley, 1997).…”