[en] This paper deals with planning conflicts in the pluralistic democracy, based on an international literature review. The aim is to trace the state of research on how spatial planning deals with conflicts. Moreover, we reflect upon the development of major planning paradigms with regard to this topic.
To this end, some basics on conflict and conflict resolution in spatial planning are presented. The ollaborative planning paradigm, which appears hegemonic in planning theory and practice until today, is then critically discussed with regard to its handling of conflicts. Subsequently, agonistic planning theory is introduced with reference to the work of political scientist Chantal Mouffe. This concept claims to deal specifically with conflict, which renders it particularly relevant for this topic. In conclusion, the paper reflects on the extent to which agonistic planning can have practical relevance for the regulation of conflicts and how this can be achieved in contemporary planning practice.
Disciplines :
Geographie humaine & démographie
Auteur, co-auteur :
HESSE, Markus ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Geography and Spatial Planning (DGEO)
Kühn, Manfred
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Allemand
Titre :
Planungskonflikte in der pluralistischen Demokratie
Titre traduit :
[en] Planning conflicts in the pluralistic democracy
Date de publication/diffusion :
août 2023
Titre du périodique :
Raumforschung und Raumordnung
ISSN :
0034-0111
Maison d'édition :
oekom Verlag, Munich, Allemagne
Titre particulier du numéro :
Planungskonflikte in der pluralistischen Demokratie: agonistische Planung zwischen Theorie und Praxis
Own contribution (written in German) to a collection of papers on planning conflicts, the theory of agonistic planning and related (potential) practice. The papers are already online, and altogether with a short introduction, will be published in no. 5 or 6 of the Journal's volume 81 (2023).
Albers, G. (1969): Über das Wesen der räumlichen Planung. In: Stadtbauwelt 60, 21, 10–14.
Arnstein S. (1969): A ladder of citizen participation. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 35, 4, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Bäcklund, P.; Mäntysalo, R. (2010): Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. In: Planning Theory 9, 4, 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210373684
Bertram, G. F.; Altrock, U. (2020): Auf dem Weg zur Nor-malität: Planungsbezogener Protest und planerische Re-aktionen. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 78, 2, 185–201. https://doi.org/10.2478/rara-2019-0059
Bond S. (2011): Negotiating a,democratic ethos‘: moving beyond the agonistic-communicative divide. In: Planning Theory 10, 2, 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210383081
Brand, R.; Gaffikin, F. (2007): Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. In: Planning Theory 6, 3, 282–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207082036
Brownill, S.; Inch, A. (2019): Framing people and planning: 50 years of debate. In: Built Environment 45, 1, 7–25. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.45.1.7
Bunzel, A.; Pätzold, R.; zur Nedden, M.; Aring, J.; Coul-mas, D.; Rohland, F. (2017): Bodenpolitische Agenda 2020-2030. Warum wir für eine nachhaltige und sozial gerechte Stadtentwicklungs-und Wohnungspolitik eine andere Bodenpolitik brauchen. Berlin.
Castells, M. (1972): Urban renewal and social conflict in Pa-ris. In: Social Science Information 11, 2, 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847201100205
Comtesse, D.; Flügel-Martinsen, O.; Martinsen, F.; Non-hoff, M. (Hrsg.) (2019): Radikale Demokratietheorie. Ein Handbuch. Berlin.
Crouch, C. (2003): Post-Democracy. Cambridge.
Dahrendorf, R. (1961): Gesellschaft und Freiheit. Zur so-ziologischen Analyse der Gegenwart. München.
Dahrendorf, R. (1994): Der moderne soziale Konflikt. Essay zur Politik der Freiheit. München.
Diller, C. (2018): Die Dritte und Vierte Gewalt in Raum-planungsprozessen. Zum wechselseitigen Verhältnis von Medien, Justiz und Politik. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 76, 3, 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-018-0516-5
Domann, V.; Nuissl, H.; Schmiz, A. (2023): Frakturen über-winden – Neuer Lokalismus als Heuristik und Instru-ment zur produktiven Konfliktbearbeitung? In: Raumfor-schung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Plan-ning. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1675
Durner, W. (2005): Konflikte räumlicher Planungen. Ver-fassungs-, verwaltungs-und gemeinschaftsrechtliche Re-geln für das Zusammentreffen konkurrierender planeri-scher Raumansprüche. Tübingen. = Jus publicum 119.
Durner, W. (2023): Juristische Perspektiven auf die Idee der agonistischen Planung. In: Raumforschung und Raum-ordnung | Spatial Research and Planning. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1662
Eraydin, A.; Frey, K. (Hrsg.) (2018): Politics and Conflict in Governance and Planning: Theory and Practice. London.
Fainstein, S. S. (2000): New directions in planning theory. In: Urban Affairs Review 35, 4, 451–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808740003500401
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002): Bringing Power to Planning Research. One Researcher’s Praxis Story. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 21, 4, 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100401
Forester, J. (1989): Planning in the face of power. Berkeley.
Friedmann, J. (1989): Planning in the public domain: discourse and praxis. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 8, 2, 128–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X8900800214
Friedmann, J. (1998): Planning theory revisited. In: European Planning Studies 6, 3, 245–253. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09654319808720459
Fürst, D. (2005): Entwicklung und Stand des Steuerungs-verständnisses in der Raumplanung. In: disP – The Planning Review 41, 163, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2005.10556937
Fürst, D. (2018): Planung. In: ARL – Akademie für Raum-forschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.): Handwörterbuch der Stadt-und Raumentwicklung. Hannover, 1711–1719.
Gans, H. J. (1967): The Levittowners: Ways of life and politics in a new suburban community. London.
Glennerster, H. (1981): From containment to conflict? Social planning in the seventies. In: Journal of Social Policy 10, 1, 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279400010 369
Godschalk, D. R. (2004): Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 70, 1, 5–13. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01944360408976334
Gresch, P.; Smith, B. (1985): Managing spatial conflict: The planning system in Switzerland. In: Progress in Planning 23, 3, 155–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-9006(85)90007-8
Gribat, N.; Kadi, J.; Lange, J.; Meubrink, Y.; Müller, J. (2017): Planung als politische Praxis. Zur Einleitung in den Themenschwerpunkt. In: sub\urban 5, 1/2, 7–20. https://doi.org/10.36900/suburban.v5i1/2.268
Gualini, E. (Hrsg.) (2015): Planning and Conflict: Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments. Lon-don.
Healey, P. (1992): Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. In: Town Planning Review 63, 2, 143–162.
Healey, P. (1996): The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. In: Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23, 2, 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1068/b230217
Healey, P. (1997): Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places infragmented Societies. London.
Healey, P. (2003): Collaborative planning in perspective. In: Planning Theory 2, 2, 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030022002
Hertweck, F. (2020): Architektur auf gemeinsamem Boden: Positionen und Modelle zur Bodenfrage. Zürich.
Hillier, J. (2003): Agonising over consensus: Why Haber-masian ideals cannot be real. In: Planning Theory 2, 1, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005
Hoch, C. (1990): Power, planning and conflict. In: Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 7, 4, 271–283. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43028979.
Huxley, M. (2000): The limits to communicative planning. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 19, 4, 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900406
Huxley, M.; Yiftachel, O. (2000): New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 19, 4, 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900402
Innes, J. E.; Booher, D. E. (2004): Reframing Public Par-ticipation: Strategies for the 21st Century. In: Planning Theory and Practice 5, 4, 419–436. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1464935042000293170
Jabareen, Y. (2004): A knowledge map for describing variegated and conflict domains of sustainable devel-opment. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47, 4, 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964056042000243267
Janelle, D. G.; Millward, H. A. (1976): Locational conflict patterns and urban ecological structure. In: Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 67, 2, 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.1976.tb01391.x
Kaiser, H. H. (1978): The building of cities. Development and conflict. Ithaca. https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801469329
Kleniewski, N.; Thomas, A.R. (2019): Cities, change, and conflict: A political economy of urban life. London.
Kühn, M. (2021): Agonistic planning theory revisited: The planner’s role in dealing with conflict. In: Planning Theory 20, 2, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220953201
Kühn, M. (2023): Planungskonflikte und Partizipation. Die Gigafactory Tesla. In: Raumforschung und Raumord-nung | Spatial Research and Planning. https://doi.org/10. 14512/rur.1698
Laclau, E.; Mouffe, C. (1991): Hegemonie und radikale Demokratie. Zur Dekonstruktion des Marxismus. Wien.
Lane, M. B. (2005): Public participation in planning: an intellectual history. In: Australian Geographer 36, 3, 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180500325694
McAuliffe, C.; Rogers, D. (2018): Tracing resident antago-nisms in urban development: agonistic pluralism and participatory planning. In: Geographical Research 56, 2, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12283
McGuirk, P.; Baker, T.; Sisson, A.; Dowling, R.; Maalsen, S. (2022): Innovating urban governance: A research agenda. In: Progress in Human Geography 46, 6, 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221127298
Metzger, J. (2018): Postpolitics and Planning. In: Gunder, M.; Madanipour, A.; Watson, V. (Hrsg.): The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. London, 180–193.
Mitchell, D.; Attoh, K.; Staeheli, L. (2015): Whose city? What politics? Contentious and non-contentious spaces on Colorado’s Front Range. In: Urban Studies 52, 14, 2633–2648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014550460
Mössner, S. (2016): Sustainable urban development as consensual practice: Post-politics in Freiburg, Germany. In: Regional Studies 50, 6, 971–982. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00343404.2015.1102875
Mouffe, C. (2014): Agonistik. Die Welt politisch denken. Frankfurt am Main.
Mouffe, C. (2018): Für einen linken Populismus. Berlin.
Nijkamp, P. (1980): Environmental Policy Analysis: Opera-tional Methods and Models. Chichester.
OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and De- velopment (2020): Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. Paris.
Othengrafen, F.; Reimer, M.; Sondermann, M. (2015): Städ-tische Planungskulturen im Wandel? Konflikte, Proteste, Initiativen und die demokratische Dimension räumlichen Planens. In: Othengrafen, F.; Sondermann, M. (Hrsg.): Städtische Planungskulturen im Spiegel von Konflikten, Protesten und Initiativen. Berlin, 357–377. = Reihe Pla-nungsrundschau 23.
Özdemir, E.; Tasan-Kok, T. (2017): Planners’ role in accom-modating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning. In: Urban Studies 56, 4, 741–759. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098017726738
Paxton, M. (2020): Agonistic Democracy: Rethinking Political Institutions in Pluralist Times. New York.
Pløger, J. (2004): Strife: Urban Planning and Agonism. In: Planning Theory 3, 1, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042318
Pløger, J. (2018): Conflict and Agonism. In: Gunder, M.; Madanipour, A.; Watson, V. (Hrsg.): The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. London, 264–275.
Pløger, J. (2021): Politics, planning, and ruling: the art of taming public participation. In: International Planning Studies 26, 4, 426–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475. 2021.1883422
Pullan, W.; Baillie, B. (Hrsg.) (2013): Locating urban con-flicts: ethnicity, nationalism and the everyday. Basingsto-ke.
Rabinovitz, F. F. (1989): The Role of Negotiation in Plan-ning, Management, and Policy Analysis. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 8, 2, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X8900800205
Raco, M.; Savini, F. (Hrsg.) (2019): Planning and know-ledge: How new forms of technocracy are shaping contemporary cities. Bristol.
Radtke, J.; Canzler, W.; Schreurs, M. A.; Wurster, S. (Hrsg.) (2019): Energiewende in Zeiten des Populismus. Wies-baden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26103-0
Reuter, W. (2004): Planung und Macht. Positionen im theoretischen Diskurs und ein pragmatisches Modell von Planung. In: Altrock, U.; Güntner, S.; Huning, S.; Peters, D. (Hrsg.): Perspektiven der Planungstheorie. Berlin, 57–78. = Planungsrundschau 10.
Reuter, W. (2023): Konsens und Konflikt in einem Macht-modell von Planung. In: Raumforschung und Raumord-nung | Spatial Research and Planning. https://doi.org/10. 14512/rur.1667.
Roskamm, N. (2015): On the other side of “agonism”: The “enemy,” the “outside,” and the role of antagonism. In: Planning Theory 14, 4, 384–403. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1473095214533959
Selle, K. (2019): Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in der Stadt-entwicklung. Anstiftungen zur Revision. Berlin. = vhw-Schriftenreihe 15.
Silver, H.; Scott, A.; Kazepov, Y. (2010): Participation in urban contention and deliberation. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34, 3, 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00963.x
Simmie, J. (2001): Planning, power and conflict. In: Pad-dison, R. (Hrsg.): Handbook of Urban Studies. London, 385–401.
Slotterback, C. S.; Lauria, M. (2019): Building a foundation for public engagement in planning: 50 years of im-pact, interpretation, and inspiration from Arnstein’s Lad-der. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 85, 3, 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019. 1616985
Stadt Frankfurt am Main (2016): Statusbericht Frankfurt 2030. Frankfurt am Main.
Swyngedouw, E. (2013): Die postpolitische Stadt. In: sub\urban 1, 2, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.36900/suburban.v1i2.100
Tewdwr-Jones, M.; Allmendinger, P. (1998): Deconstruc-ting communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasi-an collaborative planning. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 30, 11, 1975–1989. https://doi. org/10.1068/a301975
Vogel, H.-J. (2019): Mehr Gerechtigkeit. Wir brauchen eine neue Bodenordnung – nur dann wird auch Wohnen wieder bezahlbar. Freiburg im Breisgau.
Webber, M. M. (1983): The myth of rationality: development planning reconsidered. In: Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 10, 1, 89–99. https://doi. org/10.1068/b100089
Wolff, A. (2020): Planning culture – dynamics of power relations between actors. In: European Planning Studies 28, 11, 2213–2236. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313. 2020.1714553
