为什么公众参与不是实现规划民主化的工具?一个评论

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING Planning Theory Pub Date : 2021-02-16 DOI:10.1177/1473095221991487
Nurit Alfasi
{"title":"为什么公众参与不是实现规划民主化的工具?一个评论","authors":"Nurit Alfasi","doi":"10.1177/1473095221991487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The trigger for this comment is Zakhour’s (2020) paper published in Planning Theory earlier this year. Zakhour searches for ways to grant democratic legitimacy through practicing public participation in planning. His subject, linking public participation in planning with democracy and particularly with the democratization of planning, is a central theme in planning discourse, one that is burdened with theorization and demonstration. My aim here is to challenge the common understanding, reflected in this paper and many others, that public participation in planning is a tool for democratization. Let me start by stating the suppressed truth: Planning is not a democratic action. In most countries, planning institutions and processes are modeled in a way that negates the basic principles of liberal democracy, forming a non-democratic system within the democratic state. Democratic governance ought to be based on publicly-articulated rules legislated by elected parliaments that lay substantive legal foundations, thus providing stability and impartiality. In the field of planning, however, the rules are mostly procedural; they delegate the authority to specify substantial principles and guidelines to nonelected professionals, often governmental officials. In this regard, Moroni (2007, 2010) and Slaev et al. (2019: 454) distinguish between a teleocratic governmental approach that is “organized, detailed and strict, focusing on specific ends (e.g. drawing up a detailed plan or project)” and nomocratic governance, which is based on universal rules and adherence to the rule of law. Defining planning as a form of teleocratic professionalism relates to land-use ordinances as the main planning tool, and to the detailed, resultoriented, local nature of this type of ruling. Even in places where stated principles are the basis for planning decision-making (i.e. NPPF in the UK; Upton, 2019), these principles are articulated—and importantly, authorized—by governmental officials. Planning thus violates at least two of the main pillars of democratic regimes: first, those who authorize","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095221991487","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why public participation isn’t a tool for democratizing planning. A comment\",\"authors\":\"Nurit Alfasi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1473095221991487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The trigger for this comment is Zakhour’s (2020) paper published in Planning Theory earlier this year. Zakhour searches for ways to grant democratic legitimacy through practicing public participation in planning. His subject, linking public participation in planning with democracy and particularly with the democratization of planning, is a central theme in planning discourse, one that is burdened with theorization and demonstration. My aim here is to challenge the common understanding, reflected in this paper and many others, that public participation in planning is a tool for democratization. Let me start by stating the suppressed truth: Planning is not a democratic action. In most countries, planning institutions and processes are modeled in a way that negates the basic principles of liberal democracy, forming a non-democratic system within the democratic state. Democratic governance ought to be based on publicly-articulated rules legislated by elected parliaments that lay substantive legal foundations, thus providing stability and impartiality. In the field of planning, however, the rules are mostly procedural; they delegate the authority to specify substantial principles and guidelines to nonelected professionals, often governmental officials. In this regard, Moroni (2007, 2010) and Slaev et al. (2019: 454) distinguish between a teleocratic governmental approach that is “organized, detailed and strict, focusing on specific ends (e.g. drawing up a detailed plan or project)” and nomocratic governance, which is based on universal rules and adherence to the rule of law. Defining planning as a form of teleocratic professionalism relates to land-use ordinances as the main planning tool, and to the detailed, resultoriented, local nature of this type of ruling. Even in places where stated principles are the basis for planning decision-making (i.e. NPPF in the UK; Upton, 2019), these principles are articulated—and importantly, authorized—by governmental officials. Planning thus violates at least two of the main pillars of democratic regimes: first, those who authorize\",\"PeriodicalId\":47713,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Planning Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095221991487\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Planning Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095221991487\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095221991487","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

这一评论的导火索是Zakhour(2020)今年早些时候发表在《规划理论》上的论文。Zakhour寻求通过实践公众参与规划来赋予民主合法性的方法。他的主题是将公众参与规划与民主联系起来,特别是与规划民主化联系起来,这是规划话语的中心主题,充满了理论化和论证。我在这里的目的是挑战本文件和许多其他文件中反映的共识,即公众参与规划是民主化的工具。让我首先陈述一个被压制的事实:计划不是一种民主行动。在大多数国家,规划机构和程序的模式否定了自由民主的基本原则,在民主国家内部形成了一个非民主制度。民主治理应该以民选议会制定的公开规则为基础,这些规则奠定了实质性的法律基础,从而提供了稳定性和公正性。然而,在规划领域,规则大多是程序性的;他们将规定实质性原则和指导方针的权力下放给非民选专业人士,通常是政府官员。在这方面,Moroni(20072010)和Slaev等人(2019:454)区分了“有组织、详细和严格、专注于特定目的(例如制定详细的计划或项目)”的目的论政府方法和基于普遍规则和遵守法治的法治治理。将规划定义为一种目的论专业化的形式,涉及作为主要规划工具的土地使用条例,以及这类裁决的详细性、结果导向性和地方性。即使在以既定原则为规划决策基础的地方(即英国的NPPF;Upton,2019),这些原则也得到了政府官员的明确阐述,而且重要的是,得到了授权。因此,规划至少违反了民主政权的两个主要支柱:第一,那些授权
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
Why public participation isn’t a tool for democratizing planning. A comment
The trigger for this comment is Zakhour’s (2020) paper published in Planning Theory earlier this year. Zakhour searches for ways to grant democratic legitimacy through practicing public participation in planning. His subject, linking public participation in planning with democracy and particularly with the democratization of planning, is a central theme in planning discourse, one that is burdened with theorization and demonstration. My aim here is to challenge the common understanding, reflected in this paper and many others, that public participation in planning is a tool for democratization. Let me start by stating the suppressed truth: Planning is not a democratic action. In most countries, planning institutions and processes are modeled in a way that negates the basic principles of liberal democracy, forming a non-democratic system within the democratic state. Democratic governance ought to be based on publicly-articulated rules legislated by elected parliaments that lay substantive legal foundations, thus providing stability and impartiality. In the field of planning, however, the rules are mostly procedural; they delegate the authority to specify substantial principles and guidelines to nonelected professionals, often governmental officials. In this regard, Moroni (2007, 2010) and Slaev et al. (2019: 454) distinguish between a teleocratic governmental approach that is “organized, detailed and strict, focusing on specific ends (e.g. drawing up a detailed plan or project)” and nomocratic governance, which is based on universal rules and adherence to the rule of law. Defining planning as a form of teleocratic professionalism relates to land-use ordinances as the main planning tool, and to the detailed, resultoriented, local nature of this type of ruling. Even in places where stated principles are the basis for planning decision-making (i.e. NPPF in the UK; Upton, 2019), these principles are articulated—and importantly, authorized—by governmental officials. Planning thus violates at least two of the main pillars of democratic regimes: first, those who authorize
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
Planning Theory
Planning Theory REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
20.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Planning Theory is an international peer-reviewed forum for the critical exploration of planning theory. The journal publishes the very best research covering the latest debates and developments within the field. A core publication for planning theorists, the journal will also be of considerable interest to scholars of human geography, public administration, administrative science, sociology and anthropology.
期刊最新文献
Post-growth planning: Cities beyond the market economy Book Review: Caring for place. Community development in rural England Planning and caring: A reflection Book Review: Against the Commons. A Radical History of Urban Planning Celebrating Patsy Healey (1940 - 2024)
×
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