Citizens stakeholders and interests who wins and loses

  • Slides: 22
Download presentation
Citizens, stakeholders and interests: who wins and loses? Planning and politics Marcin Dąbrowski Photo:

Citizens, stakeholders and interests: who wins and loses? Planning and politics Marcin Dąbrowski Photo: Euro. Pics

Who or what are stakeholders? What is an ‘interest’? What is ‘general interest’?

Who or what are stakeholders? What is an ‘interest’? What is ‘general interest’?

What is governance? How do stakeholders and interests relate to it?

What is governance? How do stakeholders and interests relate to it?

How to define governance? • “Governance signifies a change in the meaning of government,

How to define governance? • “Governance signifies a change in the meaning of government, referring to a new process of governing; or a changed condition or ordered rule; or the new method by which society is governed” (Rhodes, 1996, p. 652 -653) • Governance refers to a mode of management of public affairs that is based on collaboration and networks of actors

 • Multi-level governance: o vertical dimension – the ‘multi-level‘ component referring to the

• Multi-level governance: o vertical dimension – the ‘multi-level‘ component referring to the “increased interdependence of governments operating at different territorial levels” o horizontal/governance dimension - refers to the “growing interdependence between governments and non-governmental actors at various territorial levels” (Bache and Flinders, 2004, p. 3) • Both dimensions redefine the roles of the state, sub-national and non-state actors as well as the way in which public policies are designed and implemented decentralisation, cross-level and horizontal coordination, stakeholder participation increasing complexity of decision-making and implementation!

Type I MLG Type II MLG multi-task, general purpose jurisdictions task-specific jurisdictions mutually exclusive,

Type I MLG Type II MLG multi-task, general purpose jurisdictions task-specific jurisdictions mutually exclusive, nonintersecting jurisdictions at any particular level overlapping jurisdictions at all levels limited number of jurisdictions unlimited number of jurisdictions organized in limited number of levels no limit to the number of jurisdictional levels jurisdictions are system-wide and intended to be permanent jurisdictions are ad-hoc and intended to be flexible Source: adapted from Hooghe and Marks, 2001, 2010

MLG Type I Supranational authority Central government Regions / Provinces Civil society Sub-regional authorities

MLG Type I Supranational authority Central government Regions / Provinces Civil society Sub-regional authorities Private sector Municipalities

MLG Type I Source: static. freewebstore. org

MLG Type I Source: static. freewebstore. org

MLG Type II Supranational authority Central government Civil society Regions / Provinces Inter-jurisdictional cooperation

MLG Type II Supranational authority Central government Civil society Regions / Provinces Inter-jurisdictional cooperation Private sector Municipalities Sub-regional authorities

MLG Type II Relativity, by M. C. Escher. Lithograph, 1953.

MLG Type II Relativity, by M. C. Escher. Lithograph, 1953.

Why participation matters? Is it necessarily desirable? What are the advantages and disadvantages of

Why participation matters? Is it necessarily desirable? What are the advantages and disadvantages of participation of stakeholders in planning decisions?

Advantages of participation • From the governmental perspective, it allows for controlling the actions

Advantages of participation • From the governmental perspective, it allows for controlling the actions of subnational government by involving them in decision-making • Possibility of learning through interaction and using local/expert knowledge • Opportunities and new ideas and solutions may emerge in the process • Enhances transparency • Helps to avoid misguided investment that fails to recognise the local needs – place-based approach and flexibility • Building stakeholders commitment and a feeling of ownership which facilitates sustainability of plans and associated decisions • By enhancing the understanding between stakeholder groups, participation reduces conflicts and promotes the creation of social capital and trust between the actors - crucial factor for regional and local economic development (e. g. Putnam et al. , 1993) and effective cooperation 12

Cons and risks • Time consuming • Possibility of blockages and bottlenecks • The

Cons and risks • Time consuming • Possibility of blockages and bottlenecks • The originally defined aims of the process may shift • Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) • Capacity challenge – are the stakeholders capable to meaningfully participate? • Risk of capture of collaborative arrangements by powerful local interest groups who participates and by whom and how the stakeholders are selected? How to control rogue behaviour and protect the interests of the weaker players? • Communication and coordination challenges • Is cooperative, network-based decision-making rotted in the local political culture or is it a misunderstood imported practice?

 More participatory decision-making less stakeholders are actually involved Source: http: //daad. wb. tu-harburg.

More participatory decision-making less stakeholders are actually involved Source: http: //daad. wb. tu-harburg. de/

What is the role of planning in relation to conflicting stakeholders and interests? Who

What is the role of planning in relation to conflicting stakeholders and interests? Who does the planner serve? Local political officials? Citizens? Legal mandates? Or maybe professional interests of developers?

Strategies in the face of the conflict (Forester, 1987): 1. The facts! The rules!

Strategies in the face of the conflict (Forester, 1987): 1. The facts! The rules! (the planner as regulator): playing the role of neutral fact finder, technician that processes information and lets others decide. 2. Pre-mediate and negotiate – representing concerns: Anticipate the positions of the community and defend them in first discussions with developers to temper their expectations. 3. Let them meet – the planner as a resource: planner listens to both developers and community groups, knows the concerns of both and encourages ‘back and forth meeting between them’ to encourage exchange of views early on in the process.

4. Perform shuttle diplomacy – probe and advise both sides: planner mediates by speaking

4. Perform shuttle diplomacy – probe and advise both sides: planner mediates by speaking to one side at a side, to avoid overt conflict. 5. Active and interested mediation – thriving as neutral: planner as a trusted intermediary to whom one can complain (let off steam), acting to build confidence and trust in a situation where both parties distrust one another; sharing insights so that neither party is surprised by a position of the other. 6. Split the job – you mediate, I’ll negotiate: designate a member of the planning board or another external actor as ‘process manager’ playing the role of liaison to the community group (advisor and negotiator). (Forester, 1987)

Discuss the pros and cons of these different strategies to deal with conflict. Which

Discuss the pros and cons of these different strategies to deal with conflict. Which one do you consider the most effective? Can you think of any other strategies?

1. The facts! The rules! (The planner as regulator): playing the role of neutral

1. The facts! The rules! (The planner as regulator): playing the role of neutral fact finder, technician that processes information and lets others decide. 2. Pre-mediate and negotiate – representing concerns: Anticipate the positions of the community and defend them in first discussions with developers to temper their expectations. 3. Let them meet – the planner as a resource: planner listens to both developers and community groups, knows the concerns of both and encourages ‘back and forth meeting between them’ to encourage exchange of views early on in the process. 4. Perform shuttle diplomacy – probe and advise both sides: planner mediates by speaking to one side at a side, to avoid overt conflict. 5. Active and interested mediation – thriving as neutral: planner as a trusted intermediary to whom one can complain (let off steam), acting to build confidence and trust in a situation where both parties distrust one another; sharing insights so that neither party is surprised by a position of the other. 6. Split the job – you mediate, I’ll negotiate: designate a member of the planning board or another external actor as ‘process manager’ playing the role of liaison to the community group (advisor and negotiator).

Caveats 1. The facts! The rules! (the planner as regulator): planner has to make

Caveats 1. The facts! The rules! (the planner as regulator): planner has to make professional judgements too, and on that basis make recommendations to the decision-makers. In negotiating with the parties. 2. Pre-mediate and negotiate – representing concerns: Lack of transparency and possible political minefield. How does the planner actually know what the community wants? What relations does the planner have with the community groups? Does he favour some of them? But in some context such pre-mediation by planners may be the only mediation that takes place. 3. Let them meet – the planner as a resource: planner can remain neutral, avoids crossing any interests, including the vested interests of the planning department. 4. Shuttle diplomacy – can use more direct arguments, be frank and make more extreme proposals, but can easily poor gasoline on fire by fueling a particlar argument or focusing attention on a particular problem, inevitably political role. 5. Active and interested mediation – thriving as neutral: building trust, but this takes some personal qualities (empathy, patience), resistance to emotional strain, and time. 6. Split the job – you mediate, I’ll negotiate: is the process manager neutral? Is he or she emotionally able to cope with negative messages from angry parties?

To what extent should planning decisions consider objections by citizens? When can/should opposition to

To what extent should planning decisions consider objections by citizens? When can/should opposition to plans be overridden?

Thank you.

Thank you.