智囊团和英国计划改革的压力

G. Haughton, P. Allmendinger
{"title":"智囊团和英国计划改革的压力","authors":"G. Haughton, P. Allmendinger","doi":"10.1177/0263774X16629677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines how advocacy think tanks have sought to influence the remaking of the English planning system. Pressure for planning reform has come particularly though not exclusively from the political right, which has sought to portray planning as a form of bureaucratic regulation, out of touch with the needs of modern, global economies and the needs of society. This research involved 27 interviewees, the majority of whom have worked in think tanks, whilst others worked in government or in advocacy and professional groups. We explore how despite years of critique and many reforms to the planning system, it is still portrayed as failing. Drawing on ideas around the experimental state, we seek to develop a better understanding of the dynamics behind the process of continuous calls for planning reform before turning to some of the implications for both planning and our understanding of how think tanks seek to influence policy.","PeriodicalId":232420,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Think tanks and the pressures for planning reform in England\",\"authors\":\"G. Haughton, P. Allmendinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0263774X16629677\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines how advocacy think tanks have sought to influence the remaking of the English planning system. Pressure for planning reform has come particularly though not exclusively from the political right, which has sought to portray planning as a form of bureaucratic regulation, out of touch with the needs of modern, global economies and the needs of society. This research involved 27 interviewees, the majority of whom have worked in think tanks, whilst others worked in government or in advocacy and professional groups. We explore how despite years of critique and many reforms to the planning system, it is still portrayed as failing. Drawing on ideas around the experimental state, we seek to develop a better understanding of the dynamics behind the process of continuous calls for planning reform before turning to some of the implications for both planning and our understanding of how think tanks seek to influence policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":232420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16629677\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16629677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

本文考察了倡导性智库是如何试图影响英国规划体系的重塑的。要求进行计划改革的压力虽然并非完全来自政治权利,但主要来自政治权利,它试图把计划描绘成一种官僚管理的形式,与现代全球经济的需要和社会的需要脱节。这项研究涉及27位受访者,其中大多数在智库工作,而其他人则在政府或倡导和专业团体工作。我们探讨了尽管多年来对规划系统进行了批评和许多改革,但它仍然被描绘成失败的。借鉴有关实验状态的想法,我们试图更好地理解不断呼吁规划改革的过程背后的动态,然后转向对规划和我们对智库如何寻求影响政策的理解的一些影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Think tanks and the pressures for planning reform in England
This article examines how advocacy think tanks have sought to influence the remaking of the English planning system. Pressure for planning reform has come particularly though not exclusively from the political right, which has sought to portray planning as a form of bureaucratic regulation, out of touch with the needs of modern, global economies and the needs of society. This research involved 27 interviewees, the majority of whom have worked in think tanks, whilst others worked in government or in advocacy and professional groups. We explore how despite years of critique and many reforms to the planning system, it is still portrayed as failing. Drawing on ideas around the experimental state, we seek to develop a better understanding of the dynamics behind the process of continuous calls for planning reform before turning to some of the implications for both planning and our understanding of how think tanks seek to influence policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Energy transitions and uncertainty: Creating low carbon investment opportunities in the UK electricity sector Scale as both material and discursive: A view through China’s rescaling of urban planning system for environmental governance Global and local governance, industrial and geographical dynamics: A tale of two clusters Bundling the procurement of sports infrastructure projects: How neither public nor private actors really benefit The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: An evaluation for seven European Union regions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1