Post‐political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus?

Abstract

This paper argues that spatial planning in England needs to be analysed as a form of neoliberal spatial governance, underpinned by a variety of post‐politics that has sought to replace antagonism and agonism with consensus. Conflict has not been removed from planning, but it is instead more carefully choreographed and in some cases displaced or otherwise residualised. This has been achieved through a variety of mechanisms including partnership‐led governance arrangements and inclusive though vague objectives and nomenclature around sustainable growth. Other consequences include the emergence of soft space scales of planning often deploying fuzzy boundaries that blur more concrete policy implications and objectives. Opposition to this post‐political form of planning has led to new avenues for dissent that challenge spatial planning and its consensual underpinnings, ironically paving the way for the radical ‘rollback’ planning reforms of the Coalition government.

Geographies and politics of localism: The localism of the United Kingdom's coalition government

“…revolts, rebellions, and insurgencies in Athens, London, Tunis, Cairo etc. (Swyngedouw 2011); or protest movements in Taipei (Raco and Lin 2012); or judicial reviews of planning decisions in England (Allmendinger and Haughton 2012). Instead, if anything, the term 'anti-politics' implies an active strategy more than a passive condition, mobilised at specific and various historical conjunctures, that is anti-political in one respect (by abolishing or colonising Aristotelian politics), yet determinedly political in another, serving to advance the interests of certain groups by means other than crude violence.…”

“…those prepared to start from shared assumptions like neoliberal capitalism, parliamentary democracy, humanitarianism, and cosmopolitanism -Swyngedouw 2009). Examples include governance for sustainability in Brussels (Oosterlynk and Swyngedouw 2010) and Taipei (Raco and Lin 2012), international discussions about climate change (Kythreotis 2012;Swyngedouw 2009Swyngedouw , 2010, and spatial planning in England (Allmendinger and Haughton 2012). Exclusions of participants or topics for discussion mean that little ever changes through such processes of governance and consensus.…”

The Relationship between Spatial Planning and Economic Competitiveness: The ‘Path to Economic Nirvana’ or a ‘Dangerous Obsession’?

“…As a 'feel good' concept that important stakeholders subscribe to there is no dissent or disagreement only 'consensus-based politics' around a 'universal theme' (after Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010). Connecting to theory, we can therefore argue that neoliberal competitiveness reflects a 'post-political condition' in Northern Ireland and Belfast as it delimits any serious consideration of alternative economic and spatial policies beyond this 'hegemonic strategy' (after Allmendinger and Haughton, 2012). Contrary to the respondent's view there are alternatives to competitiveness in the social economy (Amin et al, 2002), alternative economic spaces (Leyshon et al, 2003), sustainable development (Jackson, 2009), sustainable de-growth (Martínez-Alier et al, 2010 and resilient economics (Bristow, 2010b).…”

Bringing Democracy Back Home: Community Localism and the Domestication of Political Space

“…In this model being 'answerable' means to be within calling distance, and implies being subject to face to face challenge. Here the norms of domestic space are applied in critique of the 'stage-managed' participation that has been a feature of the community partnerships familiar to devolved governance (Allmendinger & Haughton 2012). In Jane's words, there is no suggestion that communities are unitary entities or that neighbourhood consensus is easily achieved.…”