Institutional Environment And Power In Planning Case Analysis
2. Institutional Environment and Power in Planning. A literature review (785 de 750)
Before the presentation of the case study, it is necessary to describe the main concepts related to institutional environment, in order to provide a framework of reference for the empirical analysis described next.
Following to Bastiaensen et al (2002, 2004), Healey (2005), and Van den Broeck et al (2013); it is necessary to acknowledge the importance of the institutional environment as a crucial guiding concept to understand how the means and effects of planning vary as influenced by the context. Planning – as a management based function that involves the coordination of different resources (physical, social, human, economic, etc.) – needs to be linked to …show more content…
Since this approach is focused on the norms and rules that structure action in social context; the interaction (and motivations) among the stakeholders is more important to understand than the decisions made.
Other essential aspect to consider in this approach is its “historical” character. According to Van de Broeck (2013:328) the institutional analysis shows how actors “consciously or unconsciously (re)produce and transform institutional frames and their stabilities; […]; and how [they] shift spatial horizons, modify temporalities and spatialities, jump scales, and so forth, thus producing change and instabilities” in their context.
Also, it is necessary to recognize that the stakeholders develop in a ‘social landscape’ that Bastiaensen et al (2004:5) define as pluriform or polycephalous spaces. This means that the planning scenario is only one of the many ‘political arenas’ in which these actors are participating. Other social relations and bargaining over control and allocation over resources take place outside the planning sphere in wider social networks at different levels (macro and …show more content…
This asymmetric access to power gives to some stakeholder more “maneuvering space” to control the decision-making around the process, since they have a privileged access to different capitals. For example, in the planning context, having only one owner of the properties, means that this actor has a better position to ask for a certain type of development, since no intervention can happen in the space without his approval. However, this does not mean that the “strongest” actor in one particular asset will always define the negotiation. As mentioned before, a variety of institutional factors developed in different political arenas have to do with the agreements
Before the presentation of the case study, it is necessary to describe the main concepts related to institutional environment, in order to provide a framework of reference for the empirical analysis described next.
Following to Bastiaensen et al (2002, 2004), Healey (2005), and Van den Broeck et al (2013); it is necessary to acknowledge the importance of the institutional environment as a crucial guiding concept to understand how the means and effects of planning vary as influenced by the context. Planning – as a management based function that involves the coordination of different resources (physical, social, human, economic, etc.) – needs to be linked to …show more content…
Since this approach is focused on the norms and rules that structure action in social context; the interaction (and motivations) among the stakeholders is more important to understand than the decisions made.
Other essential aspect to consider in this approach is its “historical” character. According to Van de Broeck (2013:328) the institutional analysis shows how actors “consciously or unconsciously (re)produce and transform institutional frames and their stabilities; […]; and how [they] shift spatial horizons, modify temporalities and spatialities, jump scales, and so forth, thus producing change and instabilities” in their context.
Also, it is necessary to recognize that the stakeholders develop in a ‘social landscape’ that Bastiaensen et al (2004:5) define as pluriform or polycephalous spaces. This means that the planning scenario is only one of the many ‘political arenas’ in which these actors are participating. Other social relations and bargaining over control and allocation over resources take place outside the planning sphere in wider social networks at different levels (macro and …show more content…
This asymmetric access to power gives to some stakeholder more “maneuvering space” to control the decision-making around the process, since they have a privileged access to different capitals. For example, in the planning context, having only one owner of the properties, means that this actor has a better position to ask for a certain type of development, since no intervention can happen in the space without his approval. However, this does not mean that the “strongest” actor in one particular asset will always define the negotiation. As mentioned before, a variety of institutional factors developed in different political arenas have to do with the agreements