Seçenekleri Arayış: Planlamanın ve Planlama Pratiğinin Çıkmazından Çıkış Yolu Nedir?

İçinde yaşadığımız dönemde planlama ve planlama pratiği ile ilgili düş kırıklıkları ve kaygılar neoliberal ekonomik gündemin yol açtığı artan eşitsizlikler, demokrasideki eksiklikler ve dezavantajlı grupların karar süreçlerinden bazı güç gruplarının çıkarları doğrultusunda dışlanması gibi olumsuzluklar nedeniyle artmaktadır. Güncel tartışmalar, neoliberal yönetişimin planlamayı bir çıkmaza sürüklediğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu çer- çevede bu makale, önemli bir soruya odaklanmaktadır. Planlamanın ve planlama pratiğinin bugün yaşadığı çıkmazın üstesinden gelebilmek için mevcut yazında hangi tartışmalar ve öneriler geliştirilmektedir? Konu ile ilgili yazının irdelenmesi iki farklı yönelimi işaret etmektedir: de- mokratik politikanın ve karar süreçlerinin gerçekleşmesi için mücadele etmek veya planlamanın mevcut konum ve koşullarını iyileştirerek etkin ve uygulanabilecek seçenekleri araştırmak. Farklı önerilerin irdelenmesi, genel ve gerçeklikten soyutlanmış yaklaşımlar yerine değişen koşullara dayanıklı ve uyum sağlayabilecek bir planlama yaklaşımının gerekli olduğunu gösterirken, bu yaklaşımın deneysel bir ele alışla ve sosyal, siyasal ve mekânsal ilişkileri ve çatışmaları dikkate alarak mümkün olabileceği iddia edilmektedir. Makalenin son bölümü, mevcut koşullara duyarlı ve tepkili bir planlama yaklaşımının ana ilkelerine odaklanmı

Searching for Alternatives: What is a Way Out of the Impasse in Planning and Planning Practice?

In the current era, there is an increasing disappointment related to planning practice, about the neoliberal agenda that led to increased inequality, democratic deficit, and the exclusion of disadvantaged groups for the benefit of groups with power in the decision-making mechanisms. The current debates emphasise the rise of neoliberal governmentality brought an impasse in planning. That said, this paper address one major question: How does literature respond to the impasse of the existing planning process and planning prac- tice? The literature review summarises the two strands of response: struggle for democratic politics and decision-making and search for effective and practical alternatives while improving the existing status and conditions of planning. Reviewing different proposals, the paper argues that what is needed is a resilient politics of planning that follows a heuristic approach and looks for the possible considering local dynamics that include social, political, and spatial relations and struggles instead of planning based on abstract and generalised principles. The last part of the paper is devoted to the main principles in building planning both responsive and reactive to the existing conditions

PDF

___

Agger, A. and Sorensen, E. (2018). Managing collaborative inno- vation in public bureaucracies. Planning Theory 17(1):53–73.
Ataöv, A., Bilgin-Altınöz, G., and Şahin-Güçhan, N. (2019). En- gaging in politics of participation: managing power through action research. In: Eraydin, A. and Klaus F. Politics and Con- flict in Governance and Planning, Routledge, New York and London, pp. 75–92.
Barry, J., Horst, M., Inch, A., Legacy, C., Rishi, S., Rivero, J.J, Taufen, A., Zanotto, J.M., and Zitcer, A. (2018). Unsettling planning theory. Planning Theory 17(3):418–438.
Basta, C. (2016). From justice in planning toward planning for jus- tice: A capability approach. Planning Theory 15(2):190–212.
Bifulco, L. and Dodaro, M. (2019). Local welfare governance and social innovation: The ambivalence of the political dimen- sion. In: Eraydin, A. and Klaus F. Politics and Conflict in Gov- ernance and Planning, Routledge, New York and London. pp. 169–185.
Boelens, L. and de Roo, G. (2016). Planning of undefined becom- ing: First encounters of planners beyond the plan. Planning Theory 15(1):42–67.
Bragaglia, F. (2020). Social innovation as a ‘magic concept’ for policy-makers and its implications for urban governance. Planning Theory 1–19.
Bruzzone, V. (2019). The moral limits of autonomous democra- cy for planning theory: A critique of Purcell. Planning Theory 18(1):82–99.
Campbell, H. (2012). ‘Planning ethics’ and rediscovering the idea of planning. Planning Theory 11(4):379–399.
Campbell, H. (2006). Just planning: The art of situated ethi- cal judgment. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(1):92–106.
Campbell, H., Tait, M., and Watkins, C. (2014). Is there space for better planning in a neoliberal world? Implications for plan- ning practice and theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 34(1):45–59.
Chan, J.K.H. and Protzen, J.P. (2018). Between conflict and con- sensus: Searching for an ethical compromise in planning. Planning Theory 17(2):170–189.
Cowell, R. and Owens, S. (2006). Governing space: Planning re- form and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Plan- ning C 24(3):403–421.
Davidson, M. and Iveson, K. (2015). From the ‘post-political city’ to a ‘method of equality’ for critical urban geography. Prog- ress in Human Geography 39(5):543–559.
Davoudi, S., Galland, S., and Stead, S. (2019). Reinventing plan- ning and planners: Ideological decontestations and rhetorical appeals. Planning Theory 19(1):17–37.
Dikeç, M. and Swyngedouw, E. (2017). Theorizing the politicizing city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 41(1):1–18.
Eraydin, A. and Taşan-Kok, T. (2014). State response to contem- porary urban movements in Turkey: a critical overview of state entrepreneurialism and authoritarian interventions. Antipode 46(1):110–129.
Eraydin, A., and Taşan-Kok, T. (2013). Introduction: resilience thinking in urban planning. In: Eraydin, A and Taşan-Kok, T. (eds.) Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 17–37.
Fainstein, S. (2010). The Just City. New York, Cornell University Press.
Fox-Rogers, L. and Murphy, E. (2014). Informal strategies of pow- er in the local planning system. Planning Theory 13(3):244– 268.
Global Agenda Council on the Future of Cities (2015) Top Ten Ur- ban Innovations, Top_10_Emerging_Urban_Innovations_re- port_2010_20.10.pdf (weforum.org)
Grange, K. (2017). Planners – A silenced profession? The politici- sation of planning and the need for fearless speech. Planning Theory 16(3):275–295.
Gunder, M. (2010). Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory 9(4):298–314.
Healey, P. (2018). Developing a ‘Sociological Institutionalist’ ap- proach to analysing institutional change in place governance. In: Salet, W. The Routledge Handbook of Institutions and Planning in Action, Routledge: New York and London. pp. 24–42.
Healey, P. (2016). The Planning Project. In: Fainstein, S. and De- Fillipis, J. (eds.) Readings in Planning Theory. Malden, Oxford, John Wiley & Sons.
Hillier, J. (2003). Agonizing over cons ensus: why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Theory 2(1):37–59.
Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of power: An allegory of prudence in land-use. Planning, London, Routledge. Huq, E. (2020). Seeing the insurgent in transformative planning practices. Planning Theory 19(4):371–391.
Inch, A. and Shepherd, E. (2020). Thinking conjecturally about ideology, housing and English planning. Planning Theory 19(1):59–79.
Inch, A. (2015). Ordinary citizens and the political cultures of planning: In search of the subject of a new democratic ethos. Planning Theory 14(4):404–424.
Klink, J. and Denaldi, R. (2016). On urban reform, rights and plan- ning challenges in the Brazilian metropolis. Planning Theory 15(4):402–417.
Legacy, C. (2017). Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Plan- ning Theory 16(4):425–442.
Lennon, M. (2017). On ‘the subject’ of planning’s public interest. Planning Theory 16(2):150–168.
Lia, W., Feng, T., Timmermans, H.J.P., Li, Z., Zhang, M., and Li, B. (2020). Analysis of citizens’ motivation and participation intention in urban planning. Cities 106, 102921, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102921
Marotta, S. and Cummings, A. (2019). Planning affectively: Power, affect, and images of the future. Planning Theory 18(2):191–213.
McClymont, K. (2011). Revitalising the political: development control and agonism in planning practice. Planning Theory 10(3):201–212.
McGuirk, P. (2001). Situating communicative planning theory: context, power, and knowledge. Environment and Planning A 33(2):195–217.
Mouffe, C. (1993). [2005 edition] The Return of the Political, Lon- don, Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. London, Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. London, Routledge.
Newman, S. (2011). Postanarchism and space: Revolution- ary fantasies and autonomous zones. Planning Theory 10(4):344–365.
Nyseth, T., Pløger, J., and Holm, T. (2010). Planning beyond the horizon: The Tromsø experiment. Planning Theory 9(3):223– 247.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
Özdemir, E. and Eraydin, A. (2017). Fragmentation in urban move- ments: the role of urban planning processes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 41(5):727–748.
Özdemir, E. and Taşan-Kok, T. (2019). Planners’ role in accommo- dating disagreements of citizens – the case of Dutch urban planning. Urban Studies, 56(3):741-759.
Özdemir, E. (2021) Rationality revisited: Politicisation through planning rationality against the rationality of power, Planning Theory, https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211001103
Ploger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory 3(1):71–92.
Purcell, M. (2007). City – regions, neoliberal globalisation and democracy: a research agenda. International Journal of Ur- ban and Regional Research 31(1):197–206.
Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning The- ory 8(2):140–165.
Purcell, M. (2016). For democracy: planning and publics without the state. Planning Theory 15(4):386–401.
Ranciere, J. (1998). Disagreement. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Ranciere, J. (2001). Ten Theses on Politics, Theory and Event, 5(3), http://muse.jhu.edu/ journals/theory_and_event/ v005/5.3ranciere.html.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Roskamm, N. (2015). On the other side of “agonism”: “The ene- my,” the “outside,” and the role of antagonism. Planning The- ory 14(4):384–403.
Rydin, Y. (2010). Silences, categories and black-boxes: Towards analytics of the relations of power in planning regulation. Planning Theory 19(2):214–233.
Sager, T. (2020). Populists and planners: ‘We are the people. Who are you?’ Planning Theory 19(1):80–103.
Schmitt, P. and Smas, L. (2019). Shifting political conditions for spatial planning in the Nordic countries. In: Eraydin, A. and Klaus F. Politics and Conflict in Governance and Planning, Routledge, New York and London. pp. 133–150.
Shatkin, G. (2011). Coping with actually existing urbanisms: The real politics of planning in the global era. Planning Theory 10(1):79–87.
Slaev, A.D., Kovachev, A., Nozharova, B., Daskalova, D., Nikolov, P., and Plamen, P. (2019). Overcoming the failures of citizen participation: The relevance of the liberal approach in plan- ning. Planning Theory 18(4):448–469.
Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The antinomies of the post-political city: in search of a democratic politics of environmental produc- tion. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(3):601–620.
Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Impossible sustainability and the post-political condition. In: Cerreta, M., Concilio, G. and V. Monno, V. (eds.) Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Values. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Busi- ness Media B.V, pp.185–205.
Swyngedouw, E. (2014). Where is the political? Insurgent mobil- isations and the incipient “return of the political”. Space and Polity 18(2):122–136.
Taşan-Kok, T. and Oranje, M. (2017). From Planning Student to Urban Planner: Young practitioners’ Reflections on Contem- porary Ethical Challenges. New York, Routledge.
Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collab- orative planning. Environment and Planning A 30(11):1975– 1989.
Uitermark, J. and Nicholls, W. (2017). Planning for social justice: Strategies, dilemmas, tradeoffs, Planning Theory 16(1):32– 50.
Zanotto, J.M. (2020). The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism: Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning. Planning Theory 19(1):104–126.
Žižek, S. (1999). The spectre of ideology. In: Wright E, Wright E (eds) The Žižek Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 53–86.