The problematic relationship of communicative planning theory and the Finnish legal culture

Abstract

Among theorists, there are rather strong differences in opinion whether communicative planning theory helps to fight or advances neo-liberalism. This article takes some distance to the debate concerning the role of communication in planning and analyses it from the point of view of different legal cultures in different European countries. It is argued in the article that the sources of legitimacy of public planning might be fundamentally different outside the Anglo-American context, in which communicative planning theory has largely been developed. Planning works in different ways in different national contexts; this is why it is not obvious that communicative planning theory would help to fight neo-liberalism in planning. The article explores the topic from the Finnish perspective, and draws on writings about legal mentality and comparative law.

The “deliberative bureaucrat”: deliberative democracy and institutional trust in the jurisdiction of the Finnish planner

“…A need for a balancing structural element in such cases has been recognized (see e.g. Hytönen, 2016;Mäntysalo & Mattila, 2016). As said, however, the current government coalition heads to an opposite direction by decreasing the regulatory tools of state authorities to operate at the local level.…”

The Influence of Administrative Traditions and Governance on Private Involvement in Urban Climate Change Adaptation

“…This tradition is also marked by a dominating role of public authorities and equality and universalism (Greve, ), representing a statism approach to governance (Thynne & Peters, ). The separation between politics and administration is stronger than in the United States (Hytönen, ) and reforms in the administration would simultaneously affect the nature of the state itself (Peters, ). Finnish municipalities have adopted some elements of managerial administration, but this does not sit very well with the welfare state model and strong role of local public administration (Mäntysalo, Jarenko, Nilsson, & Saglie, ; Thynne & Peters, ).…”

“…In urban climate change adaptation, distribution of roles between actors and the legitimacy of decisions is slowly becoming established. How these roles and responsibilities are divided depends not only on the legal regulations and existing administrative structures but also on the wider set of normative settings built on shared assumptions, societal norms, and a deeper level of taken‐for‐granted beliefs and codes of conduct, structures, and actor relations (e.g., Cashmore & Wejs, ; Dovers & Hezri, ; Hytönen, ; Knieling & Othengrafen, ; Runhaar et al, ). It is argued that adaptation is not solely a public‐sector task but private actors can contribute substantially.…”

Shifting Approaches to Planning Theory: Global North and South

“…Healey's (1997aHealey's ( , 2003) comment that she sees her own work situated in "a particular North-west European experience" is an important recognition of this kind of influence, but there are few theorists who locate their work in this way. Newer literature is starting to recognize this problem: for example see Hytönen (2016) who uses the case of Finland to argue that sources of legitimacy in public planning might be fundamentally different outside of the Anglo-American tradition. But generally there is a failure in much current planning theory to recognize and surface the very significant differences between various parts of the world, especially between global North and South and also within these regions.…”