Shifting Agendas: Private Consultants and Public Planning Policy

Abstract

Despite concerns about the privatization of urban planning practices, there is little known about the professional actors involved in this restructuring. Private-sector consultants, though beholden to the same professional standards as public-sector employees, face competing pressures of an entrepreneurial fee-for-service business model. This article examines the role of planning consultants in shaping public policy agendas, by analyzing the redevelopment of Downsview Park in Toronto, Ontario. Drawing from interview and archival data, I find that private-sector planning consultants had influence in prioritizing policy agendas by propagating the need for sped-up processes and allowing landowners to “pay for priority.” The fluidity of professionals between firms, sectors, and projects reinforced the perceived value and neutrality of consultant expertise. These strategies worked to erode the differences between public- and private-sector planning processes, resulting in a high degree of influence for development interests.

Public-private entanglements: consultant use by local planning authorities in England

“…The increasing influence of the consultocracy represents a crucial mechanism by which private business has reached into the state in ways that tie together the interests of the former with the latter (Linovski, 2018). Existing literature in the UK has has established that austerity, successive rounds of re-form, and the fragmentation of planning into discrete, deliverable tasks is opening market opportunities for consultants and driving diverse outcomes in English planning policy (Parker et al, 2018;Raco, 2018).…”

“…Concentrating on the creation of planning policy is paramount as private actors now co-construct the regulations they are later subject to, as has been recognized in other national contexts (e.g. Linovski, 2018). Moreover as Newman (2014) points out the UK has tended to be typified as a symbolic marker of neoliberalization and local government has an integral role in 'mediating' such processes, underscoring the importance of understanding consultants and their interaction with public planning authorities in the English context.…”

Embedding futurity in urban governance: Redevelopment schemes and the time value of money

“…The world of TIF finance is small and guild-like; I observed the same handful of consultants operating in the Midwest, and they often worked both sides of the deal (although perhaps not in the same city). These experts sell their skills to divine the future, generating technical reports that help governments observe how market actors think and that aid in the dissemination of market devices from the private to public sectors (Linovski, 2018;Weber and O'Neill-Kohl, 2013;Miller and O'Leary, 2007). In their analysis of the King's Cross redevelopment project in London, Robin (2018) found the mobilization of certain calculative techniques encouraged the adoption of financially narrow definitions of risk and suppressed community opposition.…”

“…Even the lifespan of a TIF district is a nod to the financial sector, as the 20-year duration was developed to accommodate bond maturities and the turnover times of capital (Johnson, 1999). The hegemony of financial time horizons and metrics of feasibility may reflect the hiring of business school graduates, convergence in education for finance and public policy careers, contributions of the financial sector to political campaigns, and the proliferation of privatized expertise (available in lengthy reports commissioned from consultants to support redevelopment projects) (Fainstein, 1994; Linovski, 2018; Robin, 2018). Although contextual factors influence their positionality, government planners’ frequent acquiescence is also due to their weaker bargaining position in redevelopment transactions.…”

A commentary on local authority commercialisation strategies

“…Wright (), for example, argued that new skills would be required to enable planners “to manage the planning process to facilitate economic growth, in preference to social and environmental outcomes and in preference to a common public interest.” Turning this coin on its head, Linovski () suggested that little was known about the “private‐sector planning consultants” who “though beholden to the same professional standards as public‐sector employees, face competing pressures of an entrepreneurial fee‐for‐service business model.” Following a study of urban redevelopment in Toronto, Linovski suggested that “private‐sector planning consultants had influence in prioritizing policy agendas by propagating the need for sped‐up processes and allowing landowners to pay for priority” and that this resulted in “a high degree of influence for development interests.”…”