Planning by (mis)rule of laws: The idiom and dilemma of planning within Ghana’s dual legal land systems

Abstract

This paper contributes to our understanding of urban planning challenges within dual legal land systems in sub-Sahara Africa. It draws ideas from Ananya Roy’s “idioms of urbanization and planning” to make two arguments regarding the prevailing idiom of planning urban and peri-urban areas in Ghana. First, there is (mis)rule of statutory planning and land laws: the state places itself both within and outside statutory planning laws to enforce eminent domain powers, lease publicly acquired land to private developers, (un)map people, places, and informal economic activities, and pay or refuse to pay compensation for publicly acquired land. Second, this (mis)rule co-exists with (mis)rule of customary land laws: customary authorities place themselves within and outside customary laws to negotiate with state and prospective land buyers, (re)lease publicly acquired lands to private developers, and engage in double dipping within Ghana’s deregulated land market (i.e. leasing the same land parcel to multiple developers). Thus, both state and customary authorities, as sovereign keepers of statutory and customary land and planning laws, are able to place themselves within and outside Ghana’s dual legal land rules to declare property ownership, enclaves of value, and zones of exception. Herein lies the idiom and dilemma of planning within Ghana’s dual legal land systems: (mis)rule of statutory and customary planning and land laws.

Planning as polycentric: Institutionalist lessons for communicative and collaborative planning in Global South contexts

“…Some CCP proponents (e.g., Innes, 1992) suggest trading ineffective and often adversarial top-down institutional regimes for a table of stakeholders who convene around win-win solutions (Fischler, 2000). In most global South contexts, colonially-inherited laws and practices around planning and urban development result in top-down, hierarchical, or command-and-control institutional regimes (Frimpong Boamah and Amoako, 2020; Moser, 2015; Njoh, 2009; Yiftachel, 2009). In such contexts, CCP à la Healey and Forester must confront the challenges of designing horizontal, dialogic discussion arenas that are often seen to oppose the state’s vertical planning logic, which is more about presenting state-sanctioned planning and urban development initiatives to communities (see Mitlin, 2008; Watson, 2014).…”

Land Tenure Security and Health Nexus: A Conceptual Framework for Navigating the Connections between Land Tenure Security and Health

“…Planning and land tenure have land use in common, and while planning organizes space according to uses, tenure connects people to these organized spaces. Therefore focusing on planning alone leads to "urban planning dilemma", where those with legitimate rights to land are different from those deciding how and what to use the land for [45]-a situation which has implications for urban environmental outcomes and health.…”