Phil Allmendinger

Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces

In this paper we put forward the case for viewing ‘spatial planning’ as a political resource, one which has been largely supportive of the rollout neoliberal approach of New Labour. Drawing on work on postpolitics, we argue that ironically the progressive credentials of spatial planning in terms of consensus building, policy integration, and the search for ‘win – win – win’ solutions may have helped script out oppositional voices. We then outline how the combination of changes to planning systems, devolution, and local government reform has not generated a ‘double dividend’ of greater planning powers devolving from new territorial administrations to local planning authorities. Instead a more complex process of creating new planning spaces has emerged after devolution. Five types of new planning spaces and spatial practices are identified, including new soft space forms of governance.

Spaces of Neoliberal Experimentation: Soft Spaces, Postpolitics, and Neoliberal Governmentality

This paper examines the proliferation of soft spaces of governance, focusing on planning. We move beyond more functional explanations to explore the politics of soft spaces, more specifically how soft space forms of governance operate as integral to processes of neoliberalisation, highlighting how such state forms facilitate neoliberalisation through their flexibility and variability. Recent state restructuring of the planning sector and emerging trends for soft spaces in England under the Coalition government proposals are discussed.

The Evolution and Trajectories of English Spatial Governance: ‘Neoliberal’ Episodes in Planning

Abstract English planning again finds itself in a transition from one paradigm—spatial planning—to another—localism. Whilst there is uncertainty and a debate over the significance of these changes and whether they represent a rupture or evolution, we argue in this paper that such change is best understood within the framework of neoliberalization. Seen from this perspective planning is a form of, or contributor to, neoliberal spatial governance. We explore how such an understanding helps explain temporal, spatial, and sectoral variance in planning as well as some of the characteristics of recent planning including scalar change, signature policy moments, resistance, tensions, and insurgent movements. We finally turn to some possible implications of the emerging paradigm.

The Soft Spaces of Local Economic Development

This article examines soft spaces, soft outcomes and soft infrastructure, trying to make some connections between them. We argue that soft spaces of governance constitute one of the most important but little understood components of contemporary sub-national economic development policy.

Spatial Planning and the New Localism

Abstract This special issue looks at spatial planning and the new localism, focusing on the recent changes to policy in England following the May 2010 elections when the Coalition government came to power. As Bas Waterhout, Frank Othengrafen and Olivier Sykes note in their contribution, changes in English planning seem to be more frequent and more dramatic than in many other European countries. Partly in consequence of this, planners and critics in other countries watch carefully the English experience for what they can learn about reforming planning systems.

Where is planning to be found? Material practices and the multiple spaces of planning

A range of new spaces of English planning have emerged in recent years. One new space of clear import is the sub-region. In this paper we seek to gain a better understanding of why sub-regional spaces emerge, how they are used and how planning functions through them. Drawing upon an analysis of three English regions and interviews with actors the paper identifies four types of sub-regional planning that highlight the relationship between accountable, legally sanctioned territorial spaces on the one hand and more informal, open and strategic sub-regional spaces on the other. Sub-regional planning provides an important if not critical strategic parallel to regulatory planning though the relationship between the two is characterised by complexity, contestation, experimentation and impermanence. Among other issues raised by this contemporary reworking of planning is the emergence of an accountability gap through the uncoupling of formal democratic processes embedded within territories and the more diffuse practices of strategic plan making.

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.