The role of the expert knowledge in politicizing urban planning processes: A case from Istanbul

Abstract

This article discusses the relationship between the expert knowledge and the prospects of politicizing and democratizing urban planning. The term ‘experts’ refers mainly to urban planners, yet also includes architects, engineers and lawyers, who are specialized in planning. The article begins with a review of the critical literature on communicative planning, agonistic pluralism, agonistic planning and discussions on what needs to be done in planning focusing on the role of the expert knowledge. It argues that expert knowledge can gain different and multi-dimensional roles in urban planning processes, leading not necessarily to techno-management, yet contributing in their inclusiveness and conflict sensitivity. Encompassing both technical support and objective intermediation for local communities, it can both be utilized to build an agonistic space and help the communities better utilize the existing communicative/collaborative channels to voice their disagreements. By this way, it contributes in the politicization and democratization of planning processes. With this argument, the article also aims to challenge the strict distinction between ‘the politics’ and ‘the political’ as well as the related communicative–agonistic divide. The argument is supported by evidence from a case study on two informally built residential neighbourhoods in Istanbul, where there has been an active citizen opposition and involvement in a planning process.

What is the role of epistemic communities in shaping local environmental policy? Managing environmental change through planning and greenspace in Fukuoka City, Japan

“…Moreover, given the relatively low inequality and high access to education (Fukuoka City Statistics, 2019) within Fukuoka, it is also the case that the local institutions at the core of the epistemic community – Kyushu University, Kyushu Institute of Design, Fukuoka University – may be considered relatively accessible to much of the population. This reflects not only Haas’ idea of the epistemic community having a normative core, but also Ozdemir’s (2018) argument that ‘experts’ are not necessarily apolitical and can steer environmental policy in response to their interactions with citizens and communities.…”

“…This matters because extant scholarship on the role of expertise in governing the built environment suggests that in a particular locale, the flow of knowledge between science and practice is not objective or value-neutral, and can be informed by societal context. Acuto et al (2018: 43) call for attention to the “political economy of expertise on cities.” This means considering questions such as whose knowledge shapes urban policies and how this expertise moves between cities and countries (Khirfan et al, 2013); who is defined as an ‘expert’ and how their claims to authority are made (Cashmore et al, 2015); and the possibility that expert knowledge might itself not be apolitical or closed (Ozdemir, 2018).…”

20 years Collaborative Governance and Action Research: Evaluation Process of the Regional Spatial Planning of Mappi Regency, Papua

“…While local stakeholders approved the decision to invite investors in Mappi through the industrial port and estate development in the region, they also noted the need to balance the rationale for using such an approach with other mechanisms allowing the economy to grow. The whole process of the regional spatial planning review and public hearing represented the dynamics of the decisionmaking process where issues of regional and local politics overlapped with pressures of economic concerns (Logan & Molotch, 1987;Benveniste, 1989;Uitermak & Nichols, 2015;Ozdemir, 2019).…”

Rationality revisited: Politicisation through planning rationality against the rationality of power

“…It is regarded as procedural, without any or much substantive meaning, providing answers only to the question of how decisions are made, rather than what these decisions are. In relation to this, Özdemir (2019) shows the interaction between expert knowledge and the political, or more specifically how the expert knowledge can contribute to the politicisation of planning processes. Here, building on the Nietzsche and Foucault-informed in-depth local analyses of Flyvbjerg (1998), I further argue that, exactly because of its strong relation to power and its context-dependency, rationality is neither a mere procedural issue, nor can be confined to the realm of only politics or police; it has a very strong political and a potential politicising role, which can be realized in different contexts.…”