Gert Verschraegen

The Limits of Planning: Niklas Luhmann's Systems Theory and the Analysis of Planning and Planning Ambitions

In this article, we argue that Niklas Luhmann has a lot to offer present-day planning theory. Until now, planning theory has been engaged with Luhmanns work only minimally. Convinced of its potential, we want to show how Luhmanns systems theory offers fresh insight into both limits and possibilities of planning in contemporary society. We argue that Luhmanns understanding of society as functionally differentiated into self-referentially closed subsystems (politics, economy, law, science, etc.) creates space for a complex and subtle analysis of planning practice. In particular, we look at the role of planning within an autopoietic account of society, and its ability to steer other social subsystems. Planning is seen as the form of steering aiming to coordinate processes of spatial organization, therefore an activity dealing with steering problems. We illustrate key concepts of the systems theory in brief analyses of planning situations and interpret these situations using the systems theoretical framework. The analyses center around the questions of plannings steering capacity and the role of the planner, thus creating linkages with mainstream discussions in planning theory.

The European Social Fund and domestic activation policies: Europeanization mechanisms

This article analyses the effects of the European Social Fund (ESF) on domestic activation policies in the three Belgian regions: Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels. We argue that over the last decade the ESF has had a catalytic impact, first on the innovation of activation instruments, second on the governance of employment policies and third on policy framing. We explain how three different mechanisms (leverage, conditionality and learning) generate these effects and how they can account for a differential influence in different regions. We conclude by summarizing our research findings and framework, suggesting its usefulness for analyzing other domestic settings and European policy instruments.

Forgetting and remembering in the margins: Constructing past and future in the Romanian Danube Delta

This article investigates the process of social forgetting by relating it to the disintegration of social and spatial networks. Looking at the case of Sulina, a small town on the eastern edge of the Romanian Danube Delta, we analyze how the unraveling of networks caused a process of social forgetting with margin-specific features, a fundamental restructuring of social memory and social identities. An important focus of our investigation is the connection between social memory and spatial planning, as a coordinated effort to look forwards. While forgetting as such is seen as a positive process, constitutive of memory, its local characteristics can create problems, for example, for cooperation and planning. Theoretically, this article adopts a systems theoretical framework, incorporating notions derived from anthropology and geography. Social memory is defined as a continuous process of selection, carried out in various specialized subsystems. Concepts of social identity and network are found to be essential in a localized analysis of social memory. Concluding, we argue that local characteristics of social memory can impede the articulation of viable spatial planning strategies.

Changing Frames: Citizen and Expert Participation in Georgian Planning

Abstract In this paper, we analyze the evolution of the spatial planning system in the Republic of Georgia, from late Soviet times to the present day, with a focus on its capital, Tbilisi. Through a reconstruction of the changing roles of various professional groups and governmental actors, we try to delineate the possibilities for citizen participation at different points in time. By examining the paths of historical dependence in this evolution, we outline the transformation options that are most likely to succeed now. This is relevant, since the current planning system is not very inclusive, making it hard to observe issues and to adjust to changing preferences in society. Using key concepts from social systems theory (Luhmann) and new institutional economics (North), it is argued that, in the current situation, import of western concepts of participatory planning might not be advisable. Participatory planning, direct citizen participation in spatial governance, is more likely to succeed in a highly differentiated society; in particular, one where the representative democracy, with its separation of powers, is already functional. It could even undermine the fragile process of ongoing institution-building, by reinforcing undesirable informal institutions.

Commensuration and policy comparison: How the use of standardized indicators affects the rankings of pension systems

This article presents an analysis of the process of commensuration in the field of pension policy. It looks at the consequences of reducing disparate and variable characteristics of pension systems to a limited set of standardized policy indicators. Although techniques of scoring complex systems through common indicators are applied today in fields as diverse as scientific research, human resources management and international development, this article is the first to examine the process of commensuration in the field of pensions. The empirical analysis looks at three cases where international institutions use standardized pension indicators to score and rank the performance of national pension systems. The first case examines the use of replacement rates in the international benchmarking of pension systems. We then focus on how rankings diverge considerably depending upon which function of the pension system is under assessment. Finally, we discuss how the public–private mix of a pension system affects the ranking of pension adequacy due to the way in which second and third pillar pensions are measured. The cases illustrate some of the problems associated with scoring and ranking the outcomes of unique and complex pension systems by means of internationally standardized indicators.

Social systems and social engineering: Niklas Luhmann

This chapter introduces a number of concepts from Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory as they relate to innovation, transition and transition management. An understanding of Luhmann’s ideas on innovation and steering is essential to grasp a Luhmannian view of system innovation and transition management. Two levels of analysis are developed. The first level centres on the political system, pushing innovation and trying to manage transition, while the second level focuses on organisations and their attempts to innovate. Luhmann is eminently useful in relating the two levels and thus in laying the groundwork for a theory of innovation and transition. An analysis of the development of Dutch discourse on systems innovation, social engineering and transition management since the 1990s serves to illustrate and apply the social systems perspective. Finally, the chapter argues that modernist notions of steering pervading the governance system overestimate the role of governmental actors and underestimate other sources of innovation and systemic innovation that could be labeled ‘transition’.

Connecting entrepreneurship with policy experimentation? The EU framework for social innovation

This article investigates how “social innovation” made its way onto the European Union (EU) agenda and how this notion has been creatively used to advance distinct policy goals. It does so by analysing the resources the EU provided to promote social innovation over the period 2006–2014. Three main conclusions arise. First, between 2006 and 2010 the label social innovation was rarely used, although several EU instruments and processes supported it. Second, throughout 2009–2010, the European Commission’s Bureau of European Policy Advisers played a key agenda setting role in flagging social innovation on the eve of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Consequently, and third, since 2010 social innovation has been explicitly mainstreamed into the EUs new growth strategy. This phase is characterized by a stronger emphasis on “social entrepreneurship” and “social experimentation”. As a result, social innovation has become an important tool in the European Semester’s focus on the reform of the welfare state.

Fabricating Social Europe: From Neo-corporatism to Governance by Numbers

In the last decade, cognitive instruments and devices such as standardised indicators, periodic monitoring, benchmarking, and peer review have become an integral part of the self-regulation of European social and labour market policies. The increasing relevance of knowledge regarding the governance of welfare states in Europe refects a broader shift to what is often described as the “knowledge society” or the knowledge economy. A defining characteristic of contemporary society and its governance regimes is that the knowledge necessary for decision-making is no longer mainly based upon routine and procedures, but is increasingly generated through active learning processes (e.g., Willke, 2007). This not only entails a dependency on research, experts, and epistemic communities but also a growing refexivity of knowledge, in the sense that social systems become actively engaged in knowledge production and aim to initiate and produce new knowledge themselves, rather than just manage a stock of existing knowledge (Nowotny et al., 2001).

Toward a New Sociology of Human Rights

While disciplines such as law and history have now developed distinct subfields of human rights research, sociology only more recently started developing a clear research agenda with regard to human rights. The work reviewed in this article, sociologist Hans Joas’ book The Sacredness of the Person, is an important addition to the new sociological research into human rights. In this essay we outline the key thesis underlying the book, namely the social process of sacralization of human personhood and discusses it against advances in the sociology of human rights, notably the sociology of law, and recent historical scholarship on human rights.

Planning and Law in Evolving Governance

This chapter presents a theoretical perspective on the roles of law in the evolution of planning systems. Three main roles of law in planning are distinguished: law can enable, delimit and codify planning. How these roles play out and relate to each other in the evolution of a planning system, will differ by community. In four scenario’s we discern key points regarding the relation between the roles of law in evolving spatial governance. Understanding the different roles of law in planning, and their interplay in the evolution of the planning system, adds to the scientific and societal debates on planning and law, where hitherto polarizing discourses (planning vs law) dominated the discussion. More broadly, our perspective on the enabling, codifying and delimiting functions of law in planning sheds a new light on the potential and limitation of both law and planning to shape the future of communities.