برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی در بستر نهادگرایی، نظریه‌ای برای عمل

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، تهران، ایران

2 استاد گروه برنامه‌ریزی و طراحی شهری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

امروزه رابطه بین نظریه و کنش برنامه‌ریزی مورد توجه بوده و نظریه‌های برنامه‌ریزی به‌عنوان جزیی از جامعه به‌شمار می‌آیند. با این حال فقدان نظریه معتبر از ماهیت روش برنامه‌ریزی‌ به معنای واقعی کلمه همچنان وجود دارد. در این ارتباط ضمن تأکید بر ضرورت لحاظ چارچوب‌های خاص ملی، سعی در ارائه چارچوب مفهومی عمومی و عملی در نظریه برنامه‌ریزی رو به تزاید است. هدف این مقاله تبیین جایگاه نهادگرایی در برنامه راهبردی به‌عنوان راهکار غلبه بر جدایی نظریه و عمل برنامه‌ریزی است. روش تحقیق در این مقاله تطبیقی- تحلیلی بوده و از ابزار گردآوری اطلاعات اسنادی و کتابخانه‌ای استفاده شده است. چارچوب مفهومی نحوه‌ کاربست نظریه برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی در فرآیند تحول نهادی، بر پایه تحلیل محتوای کیفی منابع مختلف از جمله برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی در حوزه نظری و تجربیات عملی برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی در آمریکا و اتحادیه اروپا احصا شده‌است. روش برنامه‌ریزی در اینجا به‌عنوان یک دانش نهادی و امری که کارکرد و ظرفیت کلی آن در طول زمان تجدید می‌پذیرد، معرفی شده ‌است. رویکرد نهادی، برنامه‌ریزی را در پیوند با تغییرات و ویژگی‌های سیاسی، اجتماعی، فرهنگی و اقتصادی مطرح می‌کند. این امر تغییر در عملکرد برنامه‌ریزی را تحت تأثیر فرآیند تحول در تغییرات نهادی توضیح می‌دهد. ماهیت تکاملی نهادها، ظرفیت استفاده از این مفهوم در نظریه و عمل برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی را فراهم می‌سازد. در برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی نهادگرا، با آگاهی از مشکلات و نواقص آشکار شده از عمل جمعی و با توجه به چشم‌انداز دگرگون شده جدید از حکومت دموکراتیک و مترقی، هدف اصلی، کمک به بازیگران حکومت و جامعه مدنی به‌منظور همکاری هر چه بیشتر با یکدیگر است.  

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Strategic Planning in the Context of Institutionalism, a Theory for Practice

نویسندگان [English]

  • Maryam Daneshvar 1
  • Ali Ghaffari 2
  • Hamid Majedi 3
1 Ph.D. of Urban Planning, Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor of Urban Design, Department of Urban Planning and Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Professor of Urban Planning, Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The relations between planning practice and planning theory have been accentuated in recent years, so that planning theory is being assumed as a part of the community today. However, a reliable theory about the nature of planning system in the full sense of the word is still missing. Therefore, regarding the necessity of having a particular national framework, we would need a generic and practical conseptual framework or terminology to explain the planning theory. This article presents an institutional approach to the strategic planning to overcome the separation of planning theory and practice. For this reason, qualitive methodology and espechially content analysis technique has been used. The analytical framework represents how strategic planning theory is used in institutional evolution. Based on qualitative analysis, great attention was paid to the literature on strategic planning and practical experience. Here, the Strategic planning is identified as institutional technology and explained, as such, in its overall capacity to be renewed over time. The territorial focus of strategic planning aims to help actors, in government and in civil society, to work together. This concept explains the planning practice within wider processes of institutionalization, triggered by a social convention. In other word, the notion of institution is adopted in order to understand planning systems as specific social constructs; thus, encompassing the shaping of respective planning cultures.
The institutionalist perspective is only the latest of a series of images of planning, which have varied to reflect changes in planning and how it is perceived. The institutionalist perspective shifts the focus from considering planning as an individual or interpersonal activity, to viewing planning as an aspect of governance. This view implies a broader vision of planning and relevant contexts rather than a limited public planning focusing on the state. The writing on new institutionalism in planning dates back to early and mid-1990s. Ernest Alexander, may well be one of the earliest writers among planners on the subject. Alexander’s early foray was accompanied by Patsy Healey, which linked planning theory and institutions. Patsy Healey, a known contributor to the new institutionalism literature situates herself in the broad political economy justification of planning as a form of government intervention that aims to amend the wrongs of unfettered freedom.The planning environment has changed from focusing on government to focusing on governance; the goal of transformation has replaced that of intervention. Healey’s project in this essay is to explain the transformative process and to place the new institutionalism in the context of the transformative goals of planning. One of the main theoretical foundations of institutionalism involves her collaborative approach in the form of a space strategy generation. This approach discusses the planning in relation with changes related to the political, social, cultural features. In other words, the planning theory does not develop in a social, economic and political vacuum, but is formulated by individuals in social situations with the aim of clarifying the enviroment and recommending appropriate procedures and processes. In order to understand the relationship between planning and institutionalization, an analytical framework has been used. At first, the variety of practices generated from the social experience of planning and control activities in an institutional context is considered as a continuous source of evolutionary process. Moreover, successful experiences in particularly affected places and best practices can rise to selective processes of policy transfer. Further selection occurs through a competitive and iterative discourse concerning the overall assessment of territorial governance outcomes within the institutional context. A reduction of discoursces may occur when ‘hegemonic concepts’ are shared or accepted through political acknowledgment in the relevant institutional context, till possible agreement on substantial and / or procedural changes in the planning system structure. Institutional codification is necessary to let the selected changes be commonly adopted in the concerned institutional context, producing widespread application and new network effects. A sort of descending phase in the cycle continues from here, as systematic application of established tools becomes indeed the new operational framework for practices. Strategic planning tools are generally recognized as ‘plans’, although these may be of very different nature, ranging from regulative zoning maps to strategic programs, visions or guidelines. They include, however, further means for governance which are not technically identifiable as plans, such as control devices, monitoring and evaluation procedures and various forms of economic incentive, allowing altogether a wide range of opportunities for practices. Moreover, new problems of spatial organization may emerge over time, inducing the exploration of new solutions from spatial planning, and determining a possible breakthrough for the initiation of a new cycle.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Theory of Planning
  • Planning in Practice
  • Strategic Planning
  • Institutionalism

Adams, T. (2010). Taming an Urban Frontier? Urban Expansion and Metropolitan Spatial Plans in Perth, Planning Perspectives from Western Australia: A Reader in Theory and Practice, 33-47.
Albrechts, L. (2001). How to Proceed from Image and Discourse to Action: As Applied to the Flemish Diamond. Urban Studies, 38(4), 733-745.
Albrechts, L. (2003). Planning and Power: Towards an Emancipatory Planning Approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(6), 905-924.
Albrechts, L. (2006). Shifts in Strategic Spatial Planning? Some Evidence from Europe and Australia. Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1149-1170.
Albrechts, L., Alden, J., & Pires, A.D.R. (Eds.). (2017). Revival: The Changing Institutional Landscape of Planning. Routledge.
Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzmann, K.R. (2003). Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 113-129.
Alexander, E.R. (2016). Evaluation in Planning: Evolution And Prospects. Routledge.
Alinsky, S.D. (1946). Reveille for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.
Allmendinger, P. (2010). Planning Theory. (E. Teimouri, Trans.). Tehran. Azerakhsh.
Allmendinger, P. (2011). New Labour and Planning: From New Right to New Left. Routledge.
Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2010). Spatial Planning, Devolution, and New Planning Spaces. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(5), 803-818.
Allmendinger, P., Haughton, G., Counsell, D., & Vigar, G. (2009). The New Spatial Planning: Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries. Routledge.
Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (1995). Institutional Issues for the European Regions: From Markets and Plans to Socioeconomics and Powers of Association. Economy and Society, 24(1), 41-66.
Anthony, G. (1989). Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Balchin, P., Sykora, L., & Bull, G. (2002). Regional Policy and Planning in Europe. Routledge.
Balducci, A. (2003). Policies, Plans and Projects: Governing the City-region of Milan. Disp-the Planning Review, 39(152), 59-70.
Beauregard, R.A. (1989). Between Modernity and Postmodernity: The Ambiguous Position of US Planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 7(4), 381-395.
Bolan, R.S. (1980). The Practitioner as Theorist the Phenomenology of the Professional Episode. Journal of the American Planning Association, 46(3), 261-274.
Bryson, J.M., & Delbecq, A.L. (1979). A Contingent Approach to Strategy and Tactics in Project Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(2), 167-179.
CEC. (1999). European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP).
Coaffee, J., & Healey, P. (2003). My Voice: My Place: Tracking Transformations in Urban Governance. Urban Studies, 40(10), 1979-1999.
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331-338.
Davidoff, P., & Reiner, T.A. (1962). A Choice Theory of Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 28(2), 103-115.
Davoudi, S., & Strange, I. (Eds.). (2008). Conceptions of Space and Place in Strategic Spatial Planning. Routledge.
Douglass, C. (1990). Institutional Change and Economic Performance. North Institutions.
Ericksen, N.J., Berke, P.R., & Dixon, J.E. (2017). Plan-making for Sustainability: The New Zealand Experience. Routledge.
Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning: A” Third” Approach to Decision-making. Public Administration Review, 385-392.
Fainstein, S.S., & Campbell, S. (Eds.). (2002). Readings in Urban Theory. Wiley-Blackwell.
Faludi, A. (2000). The Performance of Spatial Planning. Planning Practice and Research, 15(4), 299-318.
Faludi, A. (2013). A Reader in Planning Theory, 5. Elsevier.
Faludi, A., & Waterhout, B. (2012). The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective. Masterplan. Routledge.
Forester, J. (1993). Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice. SUNY Press.
Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Mit Press.
Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America; A Theory of Transactive Planning.
Friedmann, J. (2008). Planning in the Domain: From Knowledge to Action. (A. Aghvamimoghadam, Trans.). Tehran. Center for Urban and Architecture Studies.
Hall, P.A., & Taylor, R.C. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936-957.
Harris, N., & Hooper, A. (2004). Rediscovering the ‘Spatial’in Public Policy and Planning: An Examination of the Spatial Content of Sectoral Policy Documents. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(2), 147-169.
Healey, P. (1992). Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143.
Healey, P. (1997a). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Ubc Press.
Healey, P. (1997b). An Institutionalist Approach to Spatial Planning. Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in Europe, 21-36.
Healey, P. (2006a). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for our Times. Routledge.
-Healey, P. (2006b). Transforming Governance: Challenges of Institutional Adaptation and a New Politics of Space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299-320.
Healey, P. (2008). Knowledge Flows, Spatial Strategy Making, and the Roles of Academics. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(5), 861-881.
Healey, P. (2012). Communicative Planning: Practices, Concepts and Rhetorics. Planning Ideas that Matter: Livability, Territoriality, Governance and Reflective Practice, 333.
Healey, P., & Williams, R. (1993). European Urban Planning Systems: Diversity and Convergence. Urban Studies, 30(4-5), 701-720.
Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A., & Needham, B.E. (1997). Making Strategic Spatial Plans. Innovation in Europe.
Hemmens, G.C. (1980). New Directions in Planning Theory Introduction. Journal of the American Planning Association, 46(3), 259-260.
Hoch, C. (1994). What Planners Do: Power, Politics and Persuasion. American Planning Association.
Innes, J. E. (1992). Group Processes and the Social Construction of Growth Management: Florida, Vermont and New Jersey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(4), 440-453.
Innes, J.E., & Booher, D.E. (2003). Collaborative Policymaking: Governance through Dialogue. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, 33-59.
Kasper, W., & Streit, M.E. (1998). Institutional Economics, Cheltenham, U K. and Northampton, MA.
Kaufman, J.L., & Jacobs, H. M. (1987). A Public Planning Perspective on Strategic Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(1), 23-33.
Knapp, W., Kunzmann, K.R., & Schmitt, P. (2004). A Cooperative Spatial Future for Rheinruhr. European Planning Studies, 12(3), 323-349.
Kraushaar, R. (1988). Outside the Whale: Progressive Planning and the Dilemmas of Radical Reform. Journal of the American Planning Association, 54(1), 91-100.
Krumholz, N. (1982). A Retrospective View of Equity Planning Cleveland 1969–1979. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 163-174.
Kunzmann, K.R. (1996). Euro Megalopolis or Themepark Europe? Scenarios for European Spatial Development. International Planning Studies, 1(2), 143-163.
Kunzmann, K.R. (2001). State Planning: A German Success Story? International Planning Studies, 6(2), 153-166.
Lambregts, B., & Zonneveld, W. (2004). From Randstad to Deltametropolis: Changing Attitudes towards the Scattered Metropolis. European Planning Studies, 12(3), 299-321.
Langton, S. (1979). Citizen Participation in America: Current Reflections on the State of the Art.-E-What Is Citizen Participation. Citizen Participation in America, 1-24.
Larsson, G. (2006). Spatial Planning Systems in Western Europe: An Overview. Ios Press.
Lindblom, C.E. (1969). The Science of Muddling through. Harmondsworth, 41-60.
Mastop, H. (1998). National Planning: New Institutions for Integration. In Paper for the XII AESOP Congress, Aveiro.
Mazziotti, D.F. (1974). The Underlying Assumptions of Advocacy Planning: Pluralism and Reform. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40(1), 38-47.
Memon, P.A. (1993). Keeping New Zealand Green: Recent Environmental Reforms. Otago University Press.
Meyerson, M. (1956). Building the Middle-range Bridge for Comprehensive Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 22(2), 58-64.
Meyerson, M., & Banfield, E.C. (1964). Politics, Planning and the Public Interest: The Case of Public Housing in Chicago. Free Press.
Moroni, S. (2010). An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions and a Dynamic Approach to Reform. Planning Theory, 9(4), 275-297.
Morphet, J. (2010). Effective Practice in Spatial Planning. Routledge.
Nadin, V. (2007). The Emergence of the Spatial Planning Approach in England. Planning, Practice & Research, 22(1), 43-62.
Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning. Disp-the Planning Review, 44(172), 35-47.
Newman, P. (2008). Strategic Spatial Planning: Collective Action and Moments of Opportunity. European Planning Studies, 16(10), 1371-1383.
Rivolin, U.J. (2008). Conforming and Performing Planning Systems in Europe: An Unbearable Cohabitation. Planning, Practice & Research, 23(2), 167-186.
Rivolin, U.J. (2012). Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: A Proposed Conceptualization and the Implications for Comparison. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 63-85.
Salet, W., & Faludi, A. (2000). The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie Van Wetenschappen).
Schön, D.A. (2017). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Thinki Action. Routledge.
Susskind, L. (2013). Paternalism, Conflict and Coproduction: Learning From Citizen Action and Citizen Participation. Springer-verlag New York.
Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. In Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. Basic Books.
Thornley, A., & Newman, P. (2002). Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition, National Systems and Planning Projects. Routledge.
Van Den Broeck, P., Abdelwahab, M., Miciukiewicz, K., & Hillier, J. (2013). On Analysing Space from a Strategic-relational Institutionalist Perspective: The Cultural Park for Children in Cairo. International Planning Studies, 18(3-4), 321-341.
Van Houtum, H., & Lagendijk, A. (2001). Contextualising Regional Identity and Imagination in the Construction of Polycentric Urban Regions: The Cases of the Ruhr Area and the Basque Country. Urban Studies, 38(4), 747-767.
Verma, N., & Tiesdell, S. (Eds.). (2007). Institutions and Planning, 2. Elsevier.
Vigar, G.I., Healey, P., Hull, A., & Davoudi, S. (2000). Planning, Governance and Spatial Strategy in Britain: An Institutionalist Analysis. Planning, Environment, Cities.
Wallace, G. (2006). The Development and Outcomes of Building Regulation Reform in Australia 1990-2003. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Submitted to School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University, Melbourne.