HUD Community Challenge Planning Grant Tarrant County Consortium September 17, 2010.
Community planning 2010
-
Upload
drnicolaheadlam -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
171 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Community planning 2010
![Page 1: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Community Planning Philosophy to Policy 2010
Nicola Headlam8th March 2010
![Page 2: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Lecture Structure
PhilosophyPlanning Theory The Policy Process
Some stories about policy…• Policy 1: Open Source Planning • Policy 2: CLG and the Community Empowerment White
Paper • Policy 3 : The Sustainable Communities Act
A Case Study : East Oxford Action
![Page 4: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Handouts/references
Chapter 10 of Smith, Lepine & Taylor (2007)
Chapter 7 of IPPR Public Services at the Crossroads
Open Source Planning Conservative Green Paper Feb 2010
References : Allmendinger and Brownill
![Page 5: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Nicola
• 4th year PhD student • Research interests; governability of
the Greater Manchester city region, policy transfer and innovation in regeneration and economic development, LAAs, MAAs
• Previously worked in Social Inclusion in Oxford
• Doctorate sponsored by CLES
![Page 6: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Philosophy 101
• Ontology = what exists• Epistemology = how you can make claims
about it • Empirical = what you argue you
demonstrated about what exists• Action (including policy making) contains
implicit ontological, epistemological and empirical assumptions
• Unpacking and challenging these can keep you busy for a lifetime
![Page 7: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Changed Perspectives…
Reality as a social construct
![Page 9: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
A Changed Perspective
(b) “state” as asocial system
(a) Dynamic systemsin a spatial dimension
The state as part of an overall system
![Page 10: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Governability (Kooiman)
![Page 11: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Roots
• Jurgen Habermas Theory of Communicative Action
• Jan Kooiman Governability
• Michel Foucault Genealogies, Fragments
These oppositions recur throughout philosophy and are differences primarily in ontology.
![Page 12: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Governmentality• The semantic linking of governing ("gouverner")
and modes of thought ("mentalité") indicates that it is not possible to study the technologies of power without an analysis of the political rationality underpinning them. But there is a second aspect of equal importance. Foucault uses the notion of government in a comprehensive sense geared strongly to the older meaning of the term and adumbrating the close link between forms of power and processes of subjectification. While the word government today possesses solely a political meaning, Foucault is able to show that up until well into the 18th century the problem of government was placed in a more general context. (Lemke, 1992)
![Page 13: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
POWER
“Power may become the acid test of planning theory”
Flyvberg and Richardson, 2002, in Planning Futures, New Directions for Planning Theory, pg. 44
![Page 14: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![Page 15: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Habermas, Healey and Forester
![Page 16: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Foucault and after
![Page 17: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Understanding of knowledge generation based on
Communicative theory
Governmentality theory
Views on relationships between different ways of seeing the world
Powerful stakeholders are under moral duty to empower all stakeholders and find consensus
Powerful stakeholders attempt to frame that ways in which “neighbourhood renewal” is understood and to dominate other ways of seeing the world
Who is learning/changing
Everyone Those who see the world differently
Typical abstract system views
Constructionist/realist Positivist/realist
What are typical knowledge-generation strategies?
Deliberative and participative evaluation methods
Performance management and audit, centrally controlled evaluation
![Page 18: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Question 1 – 5 min discussion
Which of the two approaches;1) Governability – communciative
action2) Governmentality Do you think rings
most true of your experience with power and authority and why?
Feed back with examples please…
![Page 19: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
So what?
• These very different ontological positions regarding what exists
• Belief that reality is socially constructed and therefore subject to influence
• By whom?• Leads inevitably into different strategies
for production of (valid) knowledge• Leads to different behaviour (on the part
of the planner)
![Page 20: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
The Policy Process
![Page 21: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Social Learning…
• Who is learning? / changing? • What is the most appropriate
juncture for community involvement?• What do you want to change? Why?
“Do you think that the treasury is a learning organisation?”
![Page 22: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Planning Policy
• Connects with LGMA, localism, public sector,
• Important as defined relationship where market and state meet one another
• And who else is involved… • “Stakeholders”
![Page 23: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Question 2 – 5 mins discussion
• Who are the stakeholders in the planning system?
Whose “versions” are best or least supported and resourced?
![Page 24: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Localism?
• “We are all localists now”• NuLabour LGMA as centralising process• IPC, etc• Subservience of UK local govt.• Structural problems
• “Postcode lotteries” • Equity and local discretion
![Page 25: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Communities in Control
Hazel Blears : personal mission
Participatory budgeting etc.
Widely dismissed as gimmicky
Short tenure as Secretary of State
![Page 26: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Open Source Planning
Page 8 section on “a new system of
collaborative planning”
“A truly local plan”
“Mandating collaborative democratic methods”
![Page 27: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Sustainable Communities Act
Special
Case
![Page 28: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Sustainable Communities Amendment Act
• The Sustainable Communities Act Amendment Bill will do the following things:• 1. Create a rolling programme for proposals so that more councils and citizens
can be involved in the Act’s process. There is great public interest in this.• 2. Involve Parish and Town Councils by formally including them in the process
when their Local Authorities choose to use the Act and by also allowing them to• put forward suggestions for government action via their County Associations. Very
many Parish and Town Councils were involved in the campaign for the Act but• are now becoming disillusioned that they have been omitted from the process. The
new Bill will prevent that.• 3. Involve citizens further by empowering them to petition their Local
Authorities to use the Act. Many citizens have been unhappy about the fact that they
• can only be involved in the Act if their Local Authority chooses to be. The Bill will give them the power to petition their Local Authorities to get involved, so that
• residents in their areas can too. Petitioning is already government policy.• 4. Proper publishing of the Local Spending Reports (LSRs). The former Minister
(Phil Woolas) said the LSRs would require government to publish a local• breakdown of spending and proposed spending by all public bodies, so people can
see how their money is spent. But the LSRs currently contain information• mostly about local government bodies. The new Bill would put this right.
![Page 30: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
So What? #2
• Decision -making• How are decisions taken?• How are views sought?• What are the mechanisms in play?• What are the interests?
![Page 31: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
(Bit of a) Case Study
• East Oxford Action SRB scheme• Read Sue Brownill paper Brownill, S.
(2007). "New labour's evolving regeneration policy: The transition from the single regeneration budget to the single pot in Oxford." Local Economy 22(3): 261-278.
• “Official version” http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/G02149.pdf
![Page 32: Community planning 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062319/55636f94d8b42a4b628b4b6e/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)