This article makes the case that legally required participation methods in the US not only do not meet most basic goals for public participation, but they are also counterproductive, causing anger and mistrust. Both theory and practice are dominated by ambivalence about the idea of participation itself. Both struggle with dilemmas that make the problems seem insoluble, such as the conflict between the individual and collective interest or between the ideal of democracy and the reality that many voices are never heard. Cases are used to draw on an emerging set of practices of collaborative public engagement from around the world to demonstrate how alternative methods can better meet public participation goals and how they make moot most of the dilemmas of more conventional practice. Research shows that collaborative participation can solve complex, contentious problems such as budget decision making and create an improved climate for future action when bitter disputes divide a community. Authentic dialogue, networks and institutional capacity are the key elements. The authors propose that participation should be understood as a multi-way set of interactions among citizens and other players who together produce outcomes. Next steps involve developing an alternative practice framework, creating forums and arenas, adapting agency decision processes, and providing training and financial support.

Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century

/pdf/class-and-class-conflict-in-industrial-society-3g6ag8j6bc.pdf

Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society

Even a decade after the concept of polycentric development became popular and increasingly widespread in Europe as a normative policy stance allegedly leading to cohesion and competitiveness, its empirical basis is still rather weak. This is partly due to a lack of conceptual clearness, which makes its measurement difficult. This research briefing synthesises the results of two recent ESPON projects that aim to create a quantitative measurement of the extent of polycentricity of national urban systems, as well as the links they find between polycentricity and economic and social objectives. Both approaches have their limits and have been, and can be criticized from various perspectives. Some suggestions on how to proceed with this research agenda are presented.

Measuring Polycentricity and its Promises

The transformation of regional governance in China: The rescaling of statehood

In contemporary literature on changing urban systems, it is often argued that the traditional central place conceptualisation is outdated and should be replaced by a network view that emphasises the increasing criss-crossing pattern of interdependencies between spatial units. This paper tests for urban network development by looking at commuting patterns in the Greater South East UK. The analysis is based on census commuting interaction data for three points in time during the past three decades (1981, 1991, and 2001). Although the empirical results indicate that the Greater South East UK can still not be characterized as a polycentric urban region or integrated urban network, there is some evidence for urban network development at the local, intra-urban, level as well as a decentralization of the system at the regional, inter-urban, level.

/pdf/functional-polycentrism-and-urban-network-development-in-the-488qexfr1p.pdf

Functional Polycentrism and Urban Network Development in the Greater South East, United Kingdom: Evidence from Commuting Patterns, 1981–2001

PART 1: OBJECTIVES, THEORY AND CONCEPTS 1: Planning and place identity Cliff Hague 2: Space, place and territory: an analytical framework Paul Jenkins 3: Place identity and participation Harry Smith PART 2: RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE 4: Background to place identity and planning across Europe Cliff Hague and Paul Jenkins 5: Regional change and place identity Cliff Hague 6: Territorial and place identities: new collaborations in strategic planning Paul Jenkins 7: Local participation and place identity Karryn Kirk 8: Identity, sustainability and settlement patterns Cliff Hague 9: Design and place identity Marilyn Higgins PART 3: CONCLUSIONS 10: Reconceptualizing the narratives of place identity in planning Paul Jenkins and Cliff Hague

Place identity, participation and planning

Since the late 1960s traditions of paternalistic management in British council housing have been challenged by calls for greater tenant involvement Such calls came first from the tenants’ movement, but during the 1970s and 1980s they have been echoed in different ways by central government. The forms, aims, advocates and development of tenant participation have varied, so that events are not well explained by functionalist theories of the state. While there have been significant economic influences, political and cultural factors (particularly the ideology of consumer expectations) have been very important in putting tenant participation on the agenda of both the tenants’ movement and the state.

The development and politics of tenant participation in British council housing

Introduction Why and How are Regional and Local Economies Changing Place Competitiveness and Territorial Capital Governance and Partnerships Land and Premises for Business Infrastructure and Communications Economic Development and the Environment Support for Entrepreneurship and Business Development Housing and Housing Markets Retailing, Food and Economic Development Leisure, Culture and Tourism Place Marketing Skills for Regional and Local Economic Development Conclusions

Regional and Local Economic Development

Comprehensive Planning, Public Participation and the Public Interest1:

/pdf/polycentricity-scoping-study-1brwkdh16e.pdf

Cliff Hague

Papers

Place identity, participation and planning

The development and politics of tenant participation in British council housing

Regional and Local Economic Development

Comprehensive Planning, Public Participation and the Public Interest1:

Polycentricity scoping study