|
Editorials Editorial no. 4 - July 2006 The ESPON research programme Two ideas underpinned the continued work after 1999, firstly, the idea of establishing a network across Europe among research institutions specialised in spatial development issues, and secondly, the pursuit of reliable statistics in order to elaborate criteria and indicators for the monitoring of spatial development across the continent. In order to test these ideas, a preliminary phase was initiated in 1998-2000, known as SPESP (Study Programme on European Spatial Planning) under the auspices of DG Regio from the Commission (see www.nordregio.se, search ”SPESP”, see also Nordregio report R2000:4). Subsequently, the ESPON programme was initiated as an Interreg III Community initiative. The various contributions of the ESPON programme, as well as the programme as a whole, have of course been assessed along the road. It remains as yet however too early to try to deliver any pertinent overall assessment of the results of the programme. Published material can be assessed, but there is much more to it than that, including all the training and learning aspects as well as all of the contacts and networks established over the years. Indeed this is an aspect of European integration that while often being much undervalued is certainly of some significance. Leaving all this aside, it may be fruitful to discuss ESPON-experiences in terms of more fundamental matters of European integration and the role of EU institutions, notably the Commission, in relation to Member State co-operation. All this of course takes place in a global context. From a researcher’s point of view, “policy-relevant research” always actualises the blurred borderline between politics and academia, which is a matter of credibility both for the academic and the political world, but sometimes only vaguely understood by many of those involved. Whatever the intellectual and ideological point of departure, we feel it is important to initiate a discussion about the experiences gained from the ESPON process. Such a discussion could prove to be very fruitful with regard to our endeavours to come, providing that we try to free ourselves of the ‘ideological binoculars’ most of us use. This may not of course be possible as we all need a secure starting point, but it is certainly something to consider. * Much of what currently passes for “planning theory” seems to have been reduced to neo-liberal ideology, as is obvious in the agenda and discourse of international planning associations such as AESOP. Liberalisation is pursued by the planning academia using an arsenal of allegedly novel catchwords, while the factual effects of market liberalisation such as sharply rising real estate prices and the corresponding exclusion of large parts of the middle class from home ownership raise few comments. The concept of good governance has spread from institutions promoting globalisation such as the World Bank to other institutions such as the EU, lending itself to promoting a vocabulary that may at times blur more than it clarifies global conditions. This neo-liberal jargon transcends the various documents on spatial planning, which formed the basis of the ESPON programme as well as the texts of standard academic commentators on European spatial planning. From the point of view of science, the problem is not that liberal ideas (rather than conservative or socialist ones) are pursued, but that ideology is sometimes mistaken for evidence and that a particular “future” is claimed to be inevitable. All this is obviously standard practice in rhetorical terms, but unacceptable as a point of departure for research. In view of the challenges of globalisation that Europe currently faces, a more analytical approach is needed. Here again, we want to provide a forum for a discussion on these matters. * The status and power of the EU as a supranational institution is of course something that is constantly contested by its Member States, while questions over the various development options, i.e. moving towards a supranational state formation or deepening intergovernmental cooperation between sovereign states, cloud the every day running of the EU in almost every field. By its very nature, the Commission seems to promote its own stately influence in whatever endeavour it is involved in, the promotion of spatial planning and development considerations in a concerted manner across the European territory being a case in point here. The question remains however, who is the “owner” of such an endeavour, the Commission or the Member States in the context of intergovernmental co-operation? Spatial planning is not widely recognised as a matter within the competence of the EU. This has been contested by representatives of the Commission, putting forward the argument that decisions and policies should match the geographical extent of the problems to which they refer. Consequently, the Community is said to have competence in spatial planning since it concerns the co-ordination of Community policies, which affect the use, organisation, and structure of the EU territory. The road that led from the initial preparations of the ESDP, through SPESP to ESPON has been long and winding, while the relationship between the Commission, promoting supranational ambitions, and the Member States, trying to promote improved conditions for spatial planning based on intergovernmental co-operation, has not always been easy. The ESDP was essentially the result of intergovernmental co-operation. The SPESP was set up as a pilot action under Article 10 of the Structural Funds in co-operation with the Member States and the Commission, while ESPON was put in place under Article 53 of the Structural Funds Regulations for 2000-2006. Meanwhile, a new process, representing intergovernmental co-operation, the so-called Rotterdam process, initiated in 2004, has emerged producing documents on the territorial perspectives of the European Union. With all of this in mind we can ask, how then should responsibility for the future promotion of European spatial planning be allocated? Moreover, does historical experience suggest that we are likely to see the emergence of an efficient, workable and mutually agreed upon solution apportioning responsibility between the Commission and the Member States? The floor, as they say, is yours! Christer Bengs
Editorial no 3 - June 2005 Read it here or download the pdf-file Time for a critique of planning theory? The worldwide pursuit of trade liberalisation and the promotion of investment opportunities has been the prevailing tendency for at least the last quarter of a century. However, a liberalised economy cannot in the long run be pursued successfully without undertaking a structurally oriented overhauling of governmental structures: “government” implying the rigid ‘top-down’ conduct of public agencies is allegedly now being increasingly replaced by “governance” indicating ‘bottom-up’ co-operation between the stakeholders of development. The neo-liberal economy seeks its counterpart then in the neo-liberal society. The idea of planning is in these emerging new conditions reviewed and reconstructed by those involved in producing new ideologies for the planning profession. The central vehicles for ideology production are the professional organisations of planners aiming at securing business opportunities for their members, and in particular those academics who get their daily bread from teaching planning. Consequently, fabricating planning “theory” is not just an innocent pastime for career academics, but it is a political act in the classical sense of the word. The political implications of planning were long ago noted by Aristotle, who in his comments on Hippodamos (“the first town planner”, sic!) stated that, “this man was the first to speak about government without having any personal experience of it.” In current planning theory, the entire arsenal of rhetoric is employed in framing a view of the world where planners and planning “must” recognise the new situation and switch their interest from the conduct of long-term strategies based on the idea of a public interest to more ad hoc type professional activities where planners basically become moderators between the divergent interests of stakeholders and the facilitators of development. Planning is therefore essentially reduced to communication where the economic interests of investors and developers are seen as the point of departure, not as a particular issue among others to be modified and weighted in the balance with a more general notion of the public interest. Consequently, the public is conceived of as having the legitimate right to comment on planning proposals, that is, to contribute to the outcome as consumers on the real estate market, but not for instance to produce their own environment according to their own means and interests. The celebrated writer and theatre man Dario Fo concluded in an interview that he, as a young man, left his studies in architecture and planning after a couple of years, because it seemed to him to be all about sitting in the pocket of real estate speculators.
The legal framework of spatial planning, land use and development has been significantly amended in most European countries since the early 1980s. This process has coincided with the de-regulation of property markets and with the de-centralisation of decision making with regard to spatial matters, followed by attempts on the part of the EU to review the spatial implications of European and national policies across Europe. Here we obviously have a concrete expression of economic liberalisation and the unlocking of new investment possibilities, accompanied however by rising property prices and the relative shrinking of affordable housing provision. The indigenous population in attractive locations finds it increasingly difficult to cope with rising costs for housing, and, as a consequence, rocketing prices. It seems then that social segregation is turning increasingly territorial. Generally speaking, the liberalisation of the economy is applauded while the exclusion of significant groups from the property market has received much less attention. The blessings bequeathed by a de-regulated property market of course primarily benefit investors, while also, (if one applies a neo-liberal bias), generating positive external effects across the economy. The price-driving effects of increased rental housing have not, however, attracted much attention. As the rising share of rental housing coincides positively with increasing housing costs in any national economy, the growing inequality between different tenure forms of housing has become increasingly obvious, though rarely commented on particularly in countries with a traditionally high share of social housing. On the contrary, in countries like Sweden, price-regulated rental housing is perceived as a bulwark against the allegedly price-driving speculation of the un-regulated property market. The gigantic property owners of the rental sector in Sweden have obviously been very successful in their lobbying for market control. The situation is somewhat peculiar in the externalities it produces: the de-regulation of property markets may indicate an increased shares of rental housing, and in some countries the effect of this is the reduction of market incentives! A major effect of de-regulated property markets is most probably the monopolisation of control and ownership, and subsequently reduced market incentives. Land use planning could be used as an instrument against monopolistic tendencies, but this is seldom the case. The de-regulation of real estate markets and the de-centralisation of decision-making coincide, though this connection is rarely made by either the proponents of de-centralised decision-making or by planning theoreticians. The issues of cause and effect however seem clear enough, though the justification for de-centralised decision-making ultimately needs more fancy tales than the crudely perceived economic arguments themselves provide. Often de-centralisation is pictured as enhanced democracy. The proposition that the geographical level where decisions are taken would coincide with the degree of democracy is of course impossible to state as an undisputable general fact. According to the principle of subsidiarity, as elaborated within the EU, the “correct” level of any decision would coincide with the territorial level or party of those concerned. What that indicates in terms of operational practices is quite another matter. If democracy is conceived as a quantitative matter, that is, if the amount of a given population becoming involved corresponds to the degree of democracy in decision-making, then the territorial level of decision-making as such is of dubious significance. Democracy namely also implies transparency and the control of those in power, and this matter is not necessarily an exponent of de-centralised decision-making in the sense that de-centralisation would, as such, increase transparency or facilitate better control although it may contribute to this. From a global perspective, the question of democracy seems to resemble that of “the tragedy of the common”: every single stakeholder has an interest in maximising her/his part of the yield, but in so doing, everybody loses out in the end. Globally operating economic agents seek the most profitable investment opportunities they can find, and in so doing, national welfare regimes may turn out to cause additional costs, which provide incentives for national governments to reduce taxes and dismantle various modes of public control in order to attract investments. The democratic control of national economies it appears then hampers investment opportunities. Traditionally, the advancement of capitalism has been connected to the emergence of democratic institutions. Now, due to the territorial imbalance between a global economy and national governments, democracy seems to be conceived as a potential restriction to capitalistic development. * Planning theory is exiting reading compared to other branches of social science, but not because of its wit. Rather the contrary may hold true: much of what is labelled ‘planning theory’ actually displays little knowledge of the disciplines’ intellectual traditions but rather a shambles of concepts and theories and/or a simple apology for neo-liberal ideologies. In neo-liberal rhetoric, the economy is taken for a given like the forces of nature, and “we” have to adopt “our” actions to it – in order to be at least successful if not happy. But history indicates something else: the economy is a (fundamental) part of social life and implemented regimes are human endeavours and not given by extra-societal forces - except for cases where human endeavours have altogether destroyed the ecological requirements for human life. With reference to prevailing planning theory, it seems as if the planning profession in general and planning academics in particular have chosen to accept the role that Dario Fo refuted. Planning reduced to communication is a political statement in line with the building of a neo-liberal society, but fairly unfit for the pursuit of say sustainable development. Planning reduced to communication refutes the idea of the existence of something called a public interest. In a series of European policy documents, however, the idea of sustainable development is explicitly stated as a public interest, a fundamental point of departure. If current planning theorists refuse to recognise the existence of a public interest, other more up-to-date professions may soon replace planners. Perhaps the replacement process is already under way? Who needs communicative planning theory? Christer Bengs Editorial no 2 Is rationality rational? In line with the multidisciplinary ambitions of the journal the articles already issued have succeeded in covering a wide range of topics and disciplines. A mere glance at the list of published articles indicates that they match the original objectives of the journal, namely, to provide a forum for scrutinising policy-relevant concepts in the context of established academic disciplines, and for theoretical reflections and empirical testing. Most of the contributions deal with the rational organisation of society in terms of the efficient use of resources, performance and competitiveness as well as the spatial aspects of development. In short, the main focus is on two matters: purposeful action and efficiency. These are matters that everyone can accept within the context of rational behaviour. Indeed, what about the question of rationality in this context? How do we address a standard situation where the rational actions of actors involved, i.e. the maximisation of individual interests, causes irrational effects on the meta-level? Only one contribution thus far has taken a point of departure where rationality in itself is the main focus. * In Medieval Europe, two categories of maps were produced, the first termed mappa mundi and the second, portolano. The latter kind was developed in the late 13th century and was used for navigation at sea. They were technical in nature and were essentially practical devices for reaching a chosen destination safely. The first kind of map, the mappae mundi, were a combination of detailed information, mostly of Europe, and an encyclopaedic chart where history and religion were projected onto an image of the physical world. One of the most famous, the Hereford mappa mundi, is a circular T-O map, where the world is divided into three parts. The T within the O is formed by the rivers Don and Nile flowing into the Mediterranean. These waters form the boundaries of the three known continents: Asia, Europe and Africa. East is at the top of the map where the Garden of Eden is located as part of the physical world. On the top of that presides Christ at the Last Judgement. In the centre is the Holy Jerusalem. The great cosmic events of past and future are located in the inhabited world alongside famous cities. At the borders of the known world (such as the Nordic countries) are pictured the savage and demonic forces in the created order. Around the borders of the map are written the letters M O R S, which recall death as the necessary condition for life. Interwoven here are the limited context of the physical world and the eternal, unlimited spiritual world. The mappae mundi of the medieval world represent in a way a more advanced understanding of human conditions than any modern rendering. They may seem irrational for a modern viewer due to the theological and mythical speculation they entail, but they do have one major advantage - from a rational point of view in particular. The implied worldview sets a limit on the rational actions of this physical world. By delimiting the rational, the map at the same time establishes another superior rationality. By setting limits to the possible actions of the physical world, the religious frame provides the physical world with the possibility to apply an overall standard for human endeavours. It thus provides a standard for purposeful action and efficiency not only in any single case but also for the whole. It unites the various levels of existence and the episteme, from single individuals to countries and continents, from the beginning to the end of the world, from bad to good, from perdition to salvation. Currently we find ourselves in a situation that is the polar opposite of this. At any given level, we can agree on rationality as being manifested in human action that fulfils two criteria: purposefulness and efficiency. We can assess the purposefulness of action by relating inputs to defined goals, and we can judge efficiency in the context of the (alternative) allocation of resources. We can attempt to do this on various hierarchical levels. The scheme applies on the level of the individual, the organisation, the local community, perhaps even on the level of the region, the nation and the world. Our difficulties start when we have to find arguments connecting the alleged rationality of the various levels together. Why is my personal interest in conformity with the interest of the whole organisation as well? Why is the interest of our local community in the interest of the nation or of the whole world? As such, any child understands that a father, who buys some time for himself by referring to the wellbeing of the child, is merely pretending. But in philosophy, a utilitarian would argue in favour of self-interest as an ethical solution for connecting the individual to his or her community. Liberalism is an ideology (and a discipline) that argues in favour of a causal relation between economic self-interest and the economic interest of the community. Are these connections empirically tested facts? Perhaps in some particular cases they are. Yet utilitarianism and liberalism are not only models of explanation, their main function most often is that of justification. They are above all rhetorical endeavours where the best arguments are deployed, that is, in the realm of necessity. After all, who would be stupid enough not to succumb to necessity? Purposeful action requires one or more purposes. In an unlimited world of constant economic accumulation, any purpose when fulfilled becomes a means of reaching the next purpose. Many phenomena are however not instrumental in character. Friedrich Nietzsche said that a melody’s end is not its goal. Being subjected to music of a younger generation, many would argue that Nietzsche was wrong, but maybe he had a point. Perhaps there are a lot of matters within the context of what we call ‘social agency’ that are neither a part of enforced accumulation nor of any other rational action. Besides, perhaps there is no rational action at all, because rational action does not seem very rational judged according to the criteria of rational action. If we lack the overall spiritual purposes of the medieval world, we cannot assess efficiency either. Consequently, in a totally rational world we lack final goals as well as knowledge on how to act efficiently in any singular case reaching beyond our immediate goal-horizon. This does not sound very rational, does it? * Thus far, nine contributions to the journal have been issued, the majority of which deal, in one way or another, with the rational organisation of the world while one deals with the nature of rational action as such. We think this is a good balance, and we want to keep it that way. We are however also eager to seek out more philosophical and theoretical contributions, dealing with the very premises of rational agency. Is the world of the uniform medieval culture just a dream, are the limits that used to make unlimited opportunities meaningful lost forever? Is there something to be called public interest in addition to the sum of private interests? In fact, is rationality rational? Christer
Bengs
Editorial no 1 * The logo of the journal includes a map issued in early 17th century. It is the quintessential world map of the period and includes the four elements and the four continents. The sun, moon and stars surround the map, while the mapmaker's own portrait is added to those of Caesar, Ptolemy and Mercator. The mapmaker himself, Judocus Hondius of Flanders (1563-1612), was a leading publisher of maps in his time. The intention of mapmakers then was to display not merely the world but the forces that shape and control reality as well. Strikingly absent are Christian motifs, replaced by a sense of Baroque theatre. Two distinct frames of reference are to be found, that is the classical tradition in which nature is personified by mythical images, and the political celebration of power. The current secular language of social science and the humanities is rooted in a legacy of the mythical past as well as being a 'representation of externals'. As with the 17th century maps, the spatial sciences of today create a sense of the world possessed, politically through exploration and conquest, and intellectually through spatial imagery. Are the attributes of our explorative journey sufficient enough? * We expect to produce a journal that will set the stage
for a lively international discussion, a small though significant part of which will
consist of our own (Nordregio) contributions. We therefore cordially invite scholars from
across the globe to proffer their contributions. Let science have relevance! |
|
