See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258178807

Reframing strategic spatial planning by

using a coproduction perspective
Article in Planning Theory February 2013
Impact Factor: 2.09 DOI: 10.1177/1473095212452722

CITATIONS

READS

39

349

1 author:
Louis Albrechts
University of Leuven
52 PUBLICATIONS 1,299 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Louis Albrechts

Retrieved on: 18 June 2016

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2015, volume 42, pages 000000

doi:10.1068/b130104p

Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial

planning
Louis Albrechts
Faculty of Architecture, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 51, Postbox 02429-ASRO,
Leuven 3001, Belgium; e-mail: Louis.Albrechts@asro.kuleuven.be
Received 6 June 2013; in revised form 23 January 2014; published online 28 January 2015
Abstract. The purpose of the paper is to contribute to the debate on existing planning
approachesmore specifically, strategic spatial planningand the search for new ideas.
Therefore, after briefly dealing with the history, logic, aims of strategic planning, and some
critiques the paper sketches the contours of a more radical strategic planning, introduces
coproduction as a corner stone of this approach, and opts for working with conflicts and
legitimacy as additional building blocks. The paper relies on a selective review of critical
planning literature and the authors experience in practice.
Keywords: strategic spatial planning, coproduction, conflict, legitimacy

Introduction: some ontological and epistemological challenges

Everything you do for me without me, you do it against me.
Central African proverb, cited in Van Reybrouck (2013, page101)
A lot of traditional planning is about maintaining the existing social order rather than
challenging and transforming it, and it fails to capture the dynamics and tensions of relations
coexisting in particular places (see Albrechts and Balducci, 2013). Its rhetorical commitment
to inclusivity limits perceptions of diversity and causes deliberate exclusions (see Watson,
2007). Traditional spatial planning becomes less focused on the visionary and imagining
the impossible and more concerned with pragmatic negotiations around the immediate
in a context of the apparent inevitability of market-based forms of political rationality (see
Haughton etal, 2013, page232). The rollout of neoliberal policy privileges urban and regional
competitiveness mainly through the subordination of social policy to economic policy and
new, more elitist, forms of partnerships and networks (see Allmendinger and Haughton,
2009a, page618; Jessop, 2000). City and regional governments are lured to adopt a more
entrepreneurial style of planning in order to enhance city and regional competitiveness. As
a result, planning faces major ontological and epistemological challenges. These may imply
the scope of planning, approaches, use of skills, resources, knowledge base, and involvement
of a wider range of actors. It is therefore argued (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010; Sager,
2013) that spatial planning is in desperate need of both critical debate that questions the
political and economic processes of which existing planning approaches are an integral
part (see Sager, 2013, pagexviii) and a search for new ideas (Allmendinger and Haughton,
2010, page328). A growing literature (Albrechts, 2004; Balducci etal, 2011; Healey, 1997a;
2000; 2006; 2007; Motte, 2006) and an increasing number of practices, all over the world,
seem to suggest that strategic spatial planning(1) may be looked upon as a possible approach
(1)

The term strategic planning is, probably apart from Healey (1997a; 1999: 2004), more used in
continental Europe (see Albrechts, 2004, Balducci etal, 2011; Motte, 2006; Salet and Faludi, 2000).
It often matches with UK literature on spatial planning (see Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009;
Brand and Gaffikin, 2007). Moreover, there is ample evidence that in many strategic plans the often
more abstract discourse is turned into something more tangible and is redefined into a more familiar
vocabulary of statutory planning (see also Olesen and Richardson, 2012, page1703).

L Albrechts

able to cope with the challenges our society is facing and embed structural changes that
are needed. But at the same time, critical comments and reactions are raised on the theory
and practices of strategic spatial planning. I reflect on what can be done to revive strategic
planning as a critical theory and praxis. What could a more radical type of strategic planning
provide that statutory planning and the more traditional strategic planning could not? The
paper is organized in four main sections. Following this introduction I briefly introduce the
military and corporate history of strategic planning, its logic and aims and some critiques.
I then introduce the contours of a more radical strategic planning, initiate coproduction
as a cornerstone and, finally, opt for working with conflicts and legitimacy as supportive
building blocks. The paper relies on a selective review of planning literature and the authors
experience in practice.
Strategic spatial planning: history, logic, aims, critique
Physical planners, dreaming to develop sustainable cities and regions for the good of
society, and planning regulators, who are obsessed with avoiding potential conflicts by
setting clear and enforceable rules, have dominated planning for a long time. The business
community and politicians associated this type of planning with constraints on their freedom
of maneuver (Healey, 2006, page533). At some point in time strategic planning became
the new hope of the community of (mainly academic) planners in Europe and beyond to
overcome the shortcomings of statutory planning at local and regional tiers of planning
and decision making. The word strategy has its roots within a military context (see Sun
Tzu, 1994 [500BCE]). The focus is on accurate understanding of the real situation, realistic
goals, focused orientation of available strengths and persistence of the action. In the early
1980s, the state and local governments were called upon to use the strategic planning
approach developed in the corporate world (Kaufman and Jacobs, 1987). Others (Bryson,
1995; Bryson and Roering, 1988) stress the need to gather the key (internal and external)
stakeholders (preferably key decision makers), the importance of external trends and forces,
and the active involvement of senior-level managers, in order to construct a longer term
vision. Even if some of the objectives and arguments furnished by plans that develop this
perspective may seem innovative, the approach, method, and working hypotheses are quite
traditional (see Albrechts and Balducci, 2013). More recently some authors (see Albrechts,
2004; Balducci etal, 2011; Healey 1997a; 2000; Motte, 2006), have gradually developed a
definition that is clearly different from the military and corporate stance. Strategic planning
is defined as: a sociospatial process through which a range of people in diverse institutional
relations and positions come together to design planmaking processes and develop contents
and strategies for the management of spatial change; an opportunity for constructing new
ideas and processes that can carry them forward; collective efforts to reimagine a city, urban
region, or region and to translate the outcome into priorities for area investment, conservation
measures, strategic infrastructure investments, and principles of land-use regulation (see
Healey, 1997b; 2000). Defined in these ways strategic spatial planning is as much about
process, institutional design, and mobilization as it is about the development of substantive
theories. Content relates to the (strategic) issues selected in the process. The motivations
for using strategic spatial planning vary in practice, but the objectives have typically been:
to construct a challenging, coherent, and coordinated vision; to frame an integrated longterm spatial logic (eg, for land-use regulation, resource protection, sustainable development,
spatial quality, sustainability, and equity); to enhance action orientation beyond the idea of
planning as control; and to promote a more open multilevel type of governance.
Despite a certain popularity of strategic spatial planning (see Metzger, 2012, page781)
one cannot be blind to the critique formulated on strategic planning. The critiques focus
on very different registers of the strategic spatial planning approach. Some of the critiques

Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning

are related to the ontology and epistemology of strategic planning. Questions are raised on
how (and to what extent) the shift from a Euclidian concept of stable entities towards a nonEuclidian concept of many spacetime geographies (see Friedmann, 1993, page482; Graham
and Healey, 1999) is reflected in strategic spatial planning? How are the different types
ofknowledge (tacit/experiential knowledge of local communities versus traditional scientific
knowledge), relevant for a relational(2) strategic planning, reflected in strategic plans and
actions based on these plans? Economicpolitical ideological critiques draw a link between
the uprise of strategic spatial planning and the strengthened neoliberal political climate (see
Cerreta etal, 2010; Olesen, 2011; 2012; Olesen and Richardson, 2012;). It is feared that the
ideal of strategic spatial planning could easily be used to favor the most aggressive neoliberal
models of urban and regional development (Cerreta etal, 2010, pagex; see also Olesen
2011; Sager, 2013) and questions are raised about whether strategic spatial planning practices
are able to resist the hegemonic discourses of neoliberalism (see Olesen, 2011; 2012). Others
attack the militaristic and corporate terminology (see Adonis Barbieri, 2008; Leal de Oliveira,
2000) of strategic planning. And finally, there are those who focus on the implementation of the
theory in practice, asking whether existing practices of strategic spatial planning really follow
its normative grounding (see Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009b; 2010; Newman, 2008).
In the next section I sketch the contours of a more radical strategic planning that opens
some perspective to broaden the scope of possible futures and to organize the relationship
between (all) actors in a more open and equitable way.
Contours for a more radical strategic spatial planning
Due to an increasing complexity, strategic planning processes need to be adaptive to changing
circumstances and need to evolve with new information, new knowledge (scientific and
local), and changing contextual conditions. As practices clearly demonstrate, strategic spatial
planning is not a monolithic block of axioms set in stone. It is not a single concept, procedure,
or tool. In fact, it is a set of concepts, procedures, and tools that must be tailored carefully to
the situation at hand if desirable outcomes are to be achieved. The context forms the setting
ofthe planning process but also takes form and undergoes changes in the process (see Dyrberg,
1997). For some people strategic planning needs a specific political and institutional context
[see Olesen and Richardson (2012, page1690); see also Needham (2000) for success factors]
and is sensitive to specific intellectual traditions. Therefore, the capacity of a strategic spatial
planning system to deliver the desired outcomes is dependent not only on the legalpolitical
system itself, but also on the conditions underlying it. These conditionsincluding political,
societal, cultural, and professional attitudes towards spatial planning (in terms of planning
content and process) and the political will on the part of the institutions involved in setting the
process in motion (and, even more difficult, to keep it going)affect the ability of planning
systems to implement the chosen strategies.
The actual conditions are dominated by a persistent neoliberal context. Neoliberalism
assumes that sociospatial problems have a market solution (see Peck and Tickel, 2002;
Purcell, 2009; Swyngedouw etal, 2002), and its aim was and is to depoliticize the economy
(Friedmann, 1992, page83) and to subordinate everything to the economic realm and
sovereignty of the market (Mouffe, 2005, page92). Indeed, one can witness neoliberal
attempts to create competitive cities and regions by generating investments in major cities
and urban regions (Olesen and Richardson, 2012, page1692; Swyngedouw etal, 2002). Such
investments (projects) have become a key component of a neoliberal shift from distributive
policies, welfare considerations, and direct service provision towards more market-oriented
(2)

A relational approach emphasizes the multiplicity of the webs of relations which transect a territory
and the complex intersections and disjunctions which develop among them (Healey, 2006, page526).

L Albrechts

and market-dependent approaches aimed at pursuing economic promotion and competitive

restructuring (see Swyngedouw etal, 2002, page572). In many cities, urban revitalization is
presented as an (the?) opportunity to change economic hierarchies and functions within the
urban region, creating new jobs and strengthening the citys position in the urban division
of labor. Strategic planners and local authorities are lured to adopt a more proactive and
entrepreneurial approach aimed at identifying market opportunities and assisting private
investors to take advantage of them (see Harvey, 1989; Peck and Tickle, 2002; Purcell, 2009;
Swyngedouw etal, 2002). A democratic deficit emerges as a central element of the neoliberal
approach (Purcell, 2009, page144; Swyngedouw etal, 2002, page573).
Within this context a basic purpose of a more radical strategic spatial planning is to
unravel and resist the influence of international neoliberal ideologies on planning theory
and planning practices in cities, city regions, and regions. Its aim is to provide direction
without destination, movement without prediction, tackle problems, raise awareness, meet
challenges, and broaden the scope of the possible [see iek (1999, page199) about the art of
the impossible; Hillier (2007)], and to avoid serving other interests than intended, encourage
hopes and dreams, appeal to values (equity, social justice), provide a frame(3) for decisions,
and challenge existing knowledge, conventional wisdom, and practices(4) (see also Brand and
Gaffikin, 2007; Healey, 2010; Hillier, 2002, 2007; Metzger, 2012). This also implies taking
on board the wishes and aspirations of the disadvantaged and the urban poor.
Strategic planning provides an arenaa space of deliberative opportunities in Foresters
(2010) termswith an open dialogue in which a plurality of interests and demands, opinions,
conflicts, different values, and power relationships(5) are addressed. In these arenas actors
reflect on who they are and what they want, and in this way articulate their identities,
traditions, and values. As such, strategic spatial planning deals with values and meanings
and the related judgments and choices formed with reference to the ideas of desirability
(Ozbekhan, 1969), the good society (Friedmann, 1982), and betterment (see also Campbell
and Marshall, 2006). The normative(6) dimension inscribed in strategic spatial planning is
of an ethical nature, as it always refers to values and specific practices [see also Healey
(2010) for the crucial normative foundation of strategic spatial planning]. Without the
normative, we risk adopting a pernicious relativism where anything goes (see Metzger,
2012, page793; Ogilvy, 2002). The ethical stand taken on substantive and procedural
issues (see also Forester, 1989) depends on particular (eg, institutional, legal, political,
cultural) contexts and intellectual traditions.
As strategic planning is not only instrumental it cannot be reduced to a set of neutral
procedures, and the implicit responsibility of strategic planners can no longer simply be to
be efficient or to function smoothly as a neutral means for obtaining given, and presumably
well-defined, ends. Strategic planners have an active but not dominant role in a planning
(3)

A frame in this context embodies a sensitivity to plurality. As Healey (2008, page35) perceptively
writes a frame embodies a sensitivity to the complexity, plurality and indeterminacy of particular
urban development dynamics as they emerge, and which generate sufficient energy to inspire and
direct transformative actions within those dynamics with the aim of shaping what happens in a place.
(4)
Reference could be made here to parallel discussions on communicative/collaborative planning (see
Brand and Gaffikin, 2007; Huxley and Yftachel, 2000; Sager, 2013).
(5)
Foresters (2010) Habermasian idea of deliberation (and particularly his concept of power) is very
different from the form of engagement described by Mitlin (2008) with a Foucauldian concept of
power.
(6)
A plan, policy, or approach is termed normative when it gives the force of law to its object (a
prescriptive plan, policy, approach). For Campbell and Marshall (2006, page240) planning is an
activity which is concerned with making choices about good and bad, right and wrong, with and for
others, in relation to particular places.

Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning

process (see Metzger, 2012). As active generators of conditions of collective becoming

(Metzger, 2012, page793) they must be more than navigators keeping the ship on course
and they are necessarily involved with formulating that course. In this line of reasoning they
are not just looking for existing articulated interests but are actively involved in broadening
the scope of the possible and in articulating and bringing to the table the interests that
can be of a collectivity that may yet become (Metzger, 2012, page794). This implies
an activist mode of planning [see Sager (2011; 2013) for an overview of activist modes
of planning]. For planners working in the system (government planners) an equity type of
planning (Krumholz and Forester, 1990) open to local knowledge and where citizens and
the disadvantaged become an equal part of the action seems suited. For planners working
outside the system (NGOs, community organizations) only a radical type of planning [for
references see Sandercock (1998, pages 97104) makes it possible to work for structural
transformation of systemic inequalities.(7) In this way strategic planning is undoubtedly a
political process.
One of the most important manifestations of legal and spiritual life is the fact that whoever
has true power is able to determine the content of concepts and words (Schmitt, 1988). With
regard to crucial political (and by extension planning) concepts it depends on who interprets,
defines, and uses them. Who concretely defines what spatial quality, equity, accountability,
and legitimacy are? In this respect, to add to the debate for a more radical strategic planning
I look for a cornerstonecoproductionand additional building blocksworking with
conflicts and legitimacywith a relatively consistent logical relationship, related to not only
epistemological challenges but also ontological issues.
Coproduction as a cornerstone for a more radical strategic planning
A challenge in contemporary politicsand by extension, in planningconsists in the
dialectic between movements that seek democratization, collective decision making, and
empowerment of citizens on the one hand and the established institutions and structures
that seek to reabsorb such demands into a distributive framework on the other (see Young,
1990, page90). It entails a political struggle between different visions of justice: justice
as distribution, which presumes a consumer oriented, possessively individualist conception
of persons, and justice as enablement and empowerment, which presumes a more active
conception of persons (Young, 1990, pages 1538). A crucial element in this respect is
the way in which people are excluded or included in planning processes and the way the
relationship between peopletechnologies of government, norms of self-rule (Roy, 2009)
are organized. If concerns of some groups in society (especially the weak groups) cannot
be tackled within the preconceived level of government, then new practices will have tobe
invented. Problematically, a wide range of these relationships is being compressed into a
one-fits-all concept of citizens participation which does not seem to provide the equal
and reciprocal relationship between the state and (all) citizens that is so much aimed for. If
we reflect upon the places in which we live our lives, we will be able to discover layers of
stakes (Healey, 1997b, pages 69, 9192; 2006, page542) that consist of existing but perhaps
unconscious interests in the fate of a specific place. Hence, a plea for strategies that treat
the territory of the urban not just as a container in which things happen, but as a complex
mixture of nodes and networks, places and flows, in which multiple relations, activities and
values co-exist, interact, combine, conflict, oppress and generate creative synergy (Healey,
2007, page1). So, for strategic planning to be successful, a key task is to explore who has a
(7)

The focus on structural transformation does not imply that the day-to-day problems are not important
for strategic planning. They are important! But there is evidence that, for whatever reasons, spatial
planners are often left out (or leave themselves out) or else are reduced to being mere providers of
space when major decisions are at stake.

L Albrechts

stakeinanissue. The question concerning who is to be considered a stakeholder in a particular

context or situation is not only an epistemological challenge, but also a fundamentally
ontological issue (Metzger, 2012, page782). The more radical strategic planning therefore
looks for an arena: that is, a platform that organizes the relationship between (all) actors in a
more open and equitable manner and where actors can articulate their identities, traditions,
and values. In different contexts and different intellectual traditions, this search led to a more
likely successful coproduction approach and engagement between the state and (all) citizens(8)
(see Albrechts, 2013; Bovaird, 2007; Boyle and Harris, 2009; Cahn, 2000; Corburn, 2003;
Joshi and Moore, 2004; Mitlin, 2008; Ostrom, 1996; Parks etal, 1981; Time Banks, 2011;
Watson, 2011; Whitaker, 1980). A strategic spatial planning process based on coproduction
acknowledges that some forms of strategic spatial planningtend in the long term to reinforce
the status quo because it seeks to resolve conflict, eliminate exclusion, and neutralize
power relations rather than embracing them as the very terrain of social mobilization (see
Purcell, 2009, page155). Therefore, it needs to mobilize sufficient discursive counter-power
to challenge prevailing powers and go beyond the recycling of established discourses and
practices.
It must be emphasized that the concept of coproduction as described in this section
is a normative (see Healey, 2010) and moral concept in its own right. This means that its
content is given by certain ideals and principles, and these norms articulate certain values
(justice, equity, accountability). Following Ostrom (1990), Roy (2009), Mitlin (2008), and
Albrechts (2013) coproduction is conceived as a collective endeavor, with citizens as a part
of action not its object (Friedmann, 2005) and as a combination of a needs-based and a
rights-based approach. Coproduction is constructed as an inclusive and multivocal arena,
that is grounded in a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics of urban and regional
relations (see Healey, 2006, page541) where value systems can be articulated, local and
scientific knowledge can be combined on an equal base, shared strategic conviction can
grow, and conflicts are reframed in a less antagonistic manner. It recognizes that knowledge
is always partial and sometimes partisan, and that the search for enhanced knowledge is
endless rather than exhaustive (Brand and Gaffikin, 2007, page293). It is inclusionary (for
those in and outside the system), intending to secure political influence and change the
status quo with specific projects and policies. In order to expand its impact through radical
(political) activism (Purcell, 2009, page141) it needs substantial autonomy of action. It
provides an interaction between the delivery of public goods (strategies, policies, projects)
and building strong, resilient, mutually supportive communities: that is, coproduction as a
political strategy. In a coproductive form of governance, deliberation takes place through
a lot of face-to-face interaction in real time (see Friedmann, 1993, page482). Face-toface dialogue (see Legacy, 2010, page2706) allows acknowledgement of the role of the
emotional and the personal, expressed in the narrative that allows the whole person to
be present in negotiations and deliberations (Sandercock, 2000, page6). Coproduction
compels citizens to be engaged in issues other than their personal ones. In this way it
opposes individual selfishness that, as it were, causes society to rust up (see de Toqueville,
1992 [1835]) and it may function to reshuffle the dividing lines and shift stale allegiances
and attachments. The dialogic process is itself transformative in the relations among the
participants, creating a sensing together rather than the conventional consensus, whereby
antagonism can be domesticated into agonism (Hillier, 2002, page289). Only under such
conditions can policy be designed, not for citizens but by citizens in their role as policy
users (see Brand and Gaffikin, 2007, page290).
(8)

See Mazza (2009) and Holston and Appadurai (1996) in this respect

Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning

Using coproduction in a strategic planning process offers alternatives, stimulates critical

reflection, is noncoercive, and is capable of reflecting particular experiences with more
universal principles (equity, social justice) and issues (sustainable development, spatial quality)
(see Brand and Gaffikin, 2007, page294). Coproduction as a central concept embodies a
social science perspective (see also Cahn, 2000, page29) and strengthens the sociospatial
character of the strategic planning process. It is looked upon as a process of becoming with
outcomes which must be well informed, just, and fair. In this way coproduction is part of a
much broader shift that is emerging across all sectors, and most obviously in those fractures
that exist between public and private and in public and private. It blurs the boundary
between producers and consumers, emphasizes repeated informal interactions (Boyle and
Harris 2009, page22), and derives from a strong ethical sense (see also Moulaert, 2011).
As an alternative to institutionalized and taken-for-granted practices and routines, the added
value of incorporating coproductionconceived as a political strategyfor the selection of
problems, discussing of evidence, strategies, justice, or fairness, and the nature and scope
of desired outcomes, is that it is conceived as a learning process that permits a pluralityof
problem definitions, ambitions, and ways to achieve it for those inside and outside the
system. Coproduction introduces into the neighborhood, city, or region new identities and
practices that disturb established histories. In this way coproduction may strengthen the local
organization base of citizensmore specifically the urban poorand increase their capacity
to negotiate successfully with the state (see Mitlin, 2008, page340) and other powerful
actors. In its own politicization it may have the capacity to hold a mirror to the process of
neoliberalization revealing its real character, scope, and consequences (see Peck and Tickel,
2002, page400).
Opening up to the discourses and practices of coproduction, emerging in very different
contexts (urban poor in developing countries versus citizens in the West), intellectual traditions
(needs based approach versus rights based approach), and practices (provision of services
versus securing political influence), forces planning experts to engage with the realities of
the urban poor (in the global south as well as in the west) and to include their experiences
in planning theory and practice. Coproduction is focused on developing sociospatial
imaginations that reinvent modernisms activist commitments to the construction of places
and to the construction of an inclusionary governance system. In this way it includes not
only the views of the most articulate or powerful, but also the views of those who have been
systematically excluded by structural inequalities of class, gender and religion (Sandercock,
1998, page65) and, as a learning process, it has an emancipatory potential. This implies
that strategic planning may not be locked within the interstices of the state and the powerful
actors in society(9) (Friedmann, 2011). In a world where actors are interdependent and have
an (implicit) reason to engage with each other, coproduction is considered in this paper to be
an engine of change that may make a difference between systems working or failing. This
assumes that transformative potential lies in the very multiplicity of tensions and stresses of
the relational complexity of coproduction processes, creating all kinds of fissures and cracks
which can be opened up to create and enlarge moments of opportunity for new ideas (Healey,
1997b; 2006, page540).
Coproduction, as a normative and ethical concept, is seen as an ideal to be aimed at
rather than something that can be perfectly achieved. It requires a change of the status quo.
Coproduction is conceived as a creative task of generating collective becomings underwritten
by a democratizing ethos (see Metzger, 2012, page794) and there are no technical rules and
norms according to which coproduction processes are to be conducted (see Mitlin, 2008;
(9)

Friedmann (2011, page71) calls these leftover, marginal areas where social practice is
inconsequential because it poses no threat to the basic configurations of power.

L Albrechts

Roy, 2003; 2009; Watson, 2011). With coproduction, people are being asked to construct
their own governance institutions (see Healey, 1997b, page209). While taking part in these
processes participants (may) develop institutional rules, or norms of behavior. Demands for
openness and accountability arise from the perception that some (the more articulate, the
powerful) may have undue influence behind the scenes (Healey, 1997b, page209). Intelligent
accountability requires more attention to good governance and fewer fantasies about total
control. Good governance is possible only if institutions are allowed some margin for selfgovernance in a form that is appropriate to their particular tasks, and within a framework
of financial and other reporting (ONeill, 2002, page58). Coproduction advocates greater
accountability of the disregarded interests of traditionally marginalized groups. As classical
institutions are still endowed with substantial powers, it is clear that redistributive policies
also need to be framed in more general redistribution and regulatory policies at higher-scale
levels (see also Swyngedouw etal, 2002).
As the values, interests, views, ideas, and policies from actors in a coproduction process are
different, strategic spatial planning involves choices and hence inevitably works in a context
of conflicts, or clashes between the different actors. As most strategic planning processes are
nonstatutory processes, questions are raised about the legitimacy of such processes.
Working with conflict and legitimacy as additional building blocks
Working with conflict

Content and process are given by certain ideals, the principles which articulate certain values
(justice, equity, accountability). These values may be different from the perspective of (even
different levels of) the state,(10) the community, and NGOs. In the spatial planning field it
requires a need to recognize the deeply pluralistic character of our neighborhoods, cities,
city regions, and regions and the irreducible conflicts of values and interests, with all the
conflicts that pluralism entails. Conflicts for which no rational solution could ever exist
(Mouffe, 2005, page10). Hence the necessity to open up strategic spatial planningas a
field of contested planning rationalities and spatial logics (see Olesen and Richardson, 2012,
page1691)for a plurality of understandings. What is at stake is the recognition of social
division and the legitimization of conflict. It brings to the fore the existence in a democratic
society of a plurality of interests and demands which, although they conflict and can never
be finally reconciled, should nevertheless be considered as legitimate (Mouffe, 2005, pages
119120; see also Hillier, 2002; 2003; Brand and Gaffikin, 2007).
It is not in the power of strategic spatial planning to eliminate conflicts but it is in its
power to create the practices, discourses, and institutions that would allow those conflicts to
take an agonistic(11) form (see Mouffe, 2005, page130). It, therefore, aims for a fundamental
shift in the balance of power not only between governments and citizens but also between
different private actors (see Boyle and Harris, 2009). Planners must raise awareness that
strategic spatial planning is a field shaped by power relations where a hegemonic struggle
takes place and that it risks becoming an instrument in the imposition of a neoliberal policy
and a Western intellectual (political) hegemony. Hence, the necessity of making room for
pluralizing strategic spatial planning. As these processes may have a deep impact, concerns
(10)

In any context the state (and actors who promote their interests through the state) comprises actors
who have agency and power, operate within different rationalities, and take positions (individually
or in coalition) even within the disciplining effects of laws, rules, and regulations (Watson, 2011,
page14). In fact I suggest combining a rights-based and a needs-based approach.
(11)
Agonism is looked upon as a wethey relation where the conflicting parties, although acknowledging
that there is no rational solution to their conflict, nevertheless recognize the legitimacy of their
opponents (Mouffe, 2005, page20).

Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning

are expressed (see Mntysalo, 2013; Mazza, 2013)(12) about the legitimacy of strategic
planning processes and consequently about the role of planners in these processes.
Legitimacy

Legitimacy is not only a procedural problem (who decides) but also a substantive problem (the
link between strategic planning and statutory planning). For Mazza (2013)(13) and Mntysalo
(2013) the possible detachment of strategic spatial planning from the statutory planning
system into a parallel informal system would pose a serious legitimacy problem. So, instead
of detaching strategic planning from statutory planning Mntysalo (2013, page51) identifies
strategic planning not only as planning distinct from statutory planning but also as planning
framing the statutorystrategic planning relationship itself. In line with Friedmann (2004,
page56), he argues that, as a consequence, the objective of strategic planning should not be
the production of plans themselves (not even strategic ones) but the production of insights
of prospective change and encouraging public debates on them. It is a way of probing the
future in order to make more intelligent and informed decisions in the present (Friedmann
2004, page56). The strategic probing of future uncertainties frames the fixing of certainties
in the present.
The voluntary character of most European strategic planning experiences seems, for some,
to act as a structural antidote against marked standardization (see Balducci, 2008; Sartorio,
2005)(14). As long as strategic planning is not defined as a legally defined instrument
and for many it would not be a wise move to strengthen or legalize the approachthen
strategic planning is a tool which can convey innovation and creative action into processes
of urban and regional development (Kunzmann, 2013). For some (see Balducci etal,2011;
(12)

L Mazza, personal communication by e-mail, 24 August 2011.

L Mazza, personal communication by e-mail, 24 August 2011.
(14)
To my knowledge there are two remarkable exceptions: plans in Flanders contain an informative
part describing the existing spatial structure, the trends, and prognoses; an indicative part: the vision
on the spatial development of the area concerned, the spatial principles, and the wished-for spatial
structure; a binding part: the tasks and guidelines for the realization of the desired spatial structure in
provisions which are binding for the government. Second, what is represented as strategic planning
in Australia at a metropolitan scale, often tends to be a set of long-range blueprints for investment
(Searle and Bunker, 2010), promising certainty in an increasingly uncertain world (Bunker and Searle,
2007; Searle and Bunker, 2010), whilst lacking the legal, budgetary and/or administrative bases
necessary for coordinated implementation (Bunker, 2011; Bunker and Searle, 2007; Engels, 2012;
Hillier, 2013; Huxley, 2000; McLoughlin, 1992). Whilst there is a multiplicity of actors with vested
interests in strategic spatial planning, each seemingly demanding their own certainty, in Victoria
and Western Australia (WA) certainty for landowners, investors and developers has tended to take
precedence, becoming an, if not the, authorised planning discourse. As Freestone (1981, page16)
states, planning promised certainty for investment decisions from the early 20th century onwards,
not only for Australian investors, but increasingly those from Britain (Engels, 2012; Grant and Searle,
1978). Planned residential subdivisions gave land and property owners certainty of investment returns.
Strict controls on subdivision have been opposed by property interests from the 1920s onwards. Landuse planning and economic growth are intrinsically connected. Progress is equated with order,
buildings, and economic development. The spatial rationalities comprising the plane of composition of
metropolitan planning in Victoria and WA have included progress and certainty, with concomitant
requirements of possession, and thereby dispossession, of land. Perths Metroplan (DPUD, 1990)
was primarily a predictive blueprint, as was Network City (WAPC/DPI, 2004) despite its claims
to the contrary, while its successor, Directions 2031 (WAPC/DOP, 2010), is claimed as a planning
framework that seeks to create planning certainty (Committee for Perth in 2009) all cited by Hillier,
(2013). From its origins, planning has been reactive rather than proactive. Its powers are negative: to
control development by either granting or refusing permission to applications made by other agents.
Until the late 1970s the planning system in WA was mainly implemented by building surveyors who
operated a mechanistic, tick-box system of controls derived from building by-laws (Hedgcock and
Yiftachel, 1994, page309).
(13)

10

L Albrechts

Kunzmann, 2013), any effort to standardize and legalize strategic planning would be extremely
counterproductive.(15) Indeed, by doing this, the flexible instrument would soon become
as procrustean and inflexible as traditional overregulated land-use planning (Kunzmann,
2013, page31). For others the end product may consist of a critical analysis of the main
processes and structural constraints shaping our places, which amounts to realistic, dynamic,
integrated,and indicative long-term visions (frames), plans for short-term and long-term
actions, a budget, andflexible strategies for implementation. It constitutes a commitment or
(partial) (dis)agreement between the key actors. As (mainly) nonstatutory processes, questions
are raised on the kind of legitimacy in strategic planning processes (see Mazza, 2013, page40).
Coproduction (can be/has been/is) looked upon as an attack on the legitimacy of political
institutions as it reverses and upsets the relationship between the state and its citizens. The
normative idea of coproduction does not sit easily within an increasingly neoliberal political
climate. It is clear that the representative government articulates merely political and not all
values. If we accept that representative democracy is not a single completed thing but that
it is capable of becoming(16) in a new context and in relation to new issues at hand then
we may conclude that a more radical strategic planning based on coproduction does not
reject representative democracy but complements it. It adds to the fullness of concrete human
content, and to the genuineness of community links [see iek (1992, page163) about the very
notion of democracy]. With coproduction the aim is to stimulate counterhegemonic projects
and to challenge power relations through a process of change. It needs a disarticulation of
existing practices and the creation of new discourses and (informal) institutions (Mouffe,
2005, page33). The narrative of coproduction is a narrative of emancipation: it fulfills a
legitimating function: that is, it legitimates social and political institutions and practices,
forms of legislation, ethics, and modes of thought and symbolism. It grounds this legitimacy
not in an original founding act but in a future to be brought about: that is, an idea to realize.
This idea (of equity, fairness, social justice) has legitimating value because it is universal (see
Lyotard, 1992, page50). So, apart from legitimacy stemming from a representative mandate,
in strategic planninglooked upon as a quest, a collective process, a social construction
fighting for a new (even impossible) future [see also Healey (2008) and Monno (2010) who
argues that strategic planning has too limited a scope in that it does not include envisioning
the impossible] and a specific outputlegitimacy may come from its performance as a
creative and innovative force and its capacity to deliver positive outcomes and actually gain
benefits. As such, strategic planning is in politics (it is about making choices) and it cannot
escape politics (it must make values and ethics transparent), but it is not politics (it does not
make the ultimate decisions).
(15)

Experience across Germany (see Kunzmann, 2001) shows that institutionalizing strategic planning
by creating new public or public supported agencies does not necessarily stabilize planning efforts. The
Ruhr is a pertinent example. The established intercommunal regional authority, the Regionalverband
Ruhr, did not succeed in launching any regional development perspective. Subsequently, many large
cities such as Berlin, Dortmund, and Frankfurt established new urban development units, acting as
think tanks for strategic urban development, while traditional routine land-use planning was left to the
established urban planning department. Though a few years later, with the declining trust in the role of
the public sector, most such units were scaled down or even sacrificed to demonstrate the willingness
to reduce unnecessary staff in the public sector. In recent years, however, a renaissance of strategic
urban development can be observed. Cities, such as Stuttgart, Leipzig, Bonn, and Dresden, or Vienna
in Austria have successfully initiated the development of strategic urban development perspectives.
Addressing the regional tier, the German Academy of Spatial Research and Planning has recently
launched a position paper to promote regional strategic planning (ARL, 2011).
(16)
Strategic spatial planning, as presented here, shifts from an ontology of being, which privileges
outcome and end-state, towards an ontology of becoming, in which actions, movement, relationships,
conflicts, process, and emergence are emphasized (see Chia, 1995, page601; 1999, page215).

Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning

11

Concluding note
To take part in the debate on existing planning approaches and the search for new ideas (see
Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010, page328) I have provided in this paper the contours
of a more radical strategic planning with coproduction as a cornerstone and working with
conflicts and legitimacy as additional building blocks. A basic purpose of this radical
strategic spatial planning is to position cities and regions as both the text and context of new
debates about fundamental sociospatial relations, and it is about thinking without frontiers,
by providing new kinds of practices and narratives about belonging to and being involved in
the construction of a place and in society at large.
It is argued that if dominant modes of knowledge (causal, statistical), are incapable of
envisioning the impossible [as the absolutely new (see Grosz, 1999, page21)], they have to
be questioned (see Roy, 2010) and complemented with other modes of knowing and other
forms of thinking. Coproduction, as conceived in this paper, is introduced to open up for
other modes of knowing, and to avoid shaping an urban future in a way that is just in line
with the aspirations of the most powerful segment among the actors. It therefore combines
the usual concept of coproduction in the provision of public goods and services needed and
coproduction as a political strategy preparing citizens and grassroots organizations for a more
substantive engagement with the political. In this way it is instrumental in the building of
strong, resilient, and mutually supportive communities that could assure its members that
their needs would be met. This makes coproduction different from standard participation
(see also Mitlin, 2008). Underlying this is the conscious or unconscious maintenance of
citizens as passive recipients is not just a waste of their skills and time; it is also the reason
why systemic change does not happen.
The normative viewpoint of a more radical strategic spatial planning produces quite a
different picture from traditional planning in terms of strategies (strategies versus master
plans or land-use plans), type of planning (providing a framework versus technical or
legal regulation), and type of governance (a more pivotal role for civil society through
coproduction). In this way it aims to enable a transformative shift, where necessary, to develop
openness to new ideas, and to understand and accept the need and opportunity for change.
Radical strategic planning needs to mobilize the power of citizens to engage in counterhegemonic struggles to establish other policies and to play a central role in decision making
by insisting that other policies are possible (see Lambert-Pennington etal, 2011; Purcell,
2009, pages 151152; Saija, 2011) or, in Monnos (2010) terms working the impossible as
emancipatory imagination. It counters hegemonic politics by challenging neoliberalization,
in which some groups are systematically advantaged by decision-making practices (Purcell,
2009, page154). In this way the results of strategic spatial planning processes cannot be
judged solely by the implementation of a plan or strategy. Broadening the scope of possible
futures and giving voice to certain groups must be considered as important and valuable
outcomes of a strategic planning process. Strategic planning gets its legitimacy through a
combination ofits performance as a creative and innovative force, its potential to deliver
positive outcomes, and a formal acceptance by the relevant government level.
The more radical strategic spatial planning is not presented here as the ultimate model
which would be chosen, in idealized conditions, by every planner, government, or NGO
as a panacea for all challenges and all problems; it is not meant as a substitute but as a
complement for other planning tools (statutory planning). It is clear that strategic spatial
planning and especially the more radical version presented in this paper needs a context and
an intellectual tradition in which success factors (see Needham, 2000) are available or can
be made available. The capacity of a strategic spatial planning system to deliver the desired
outcomes is dependent not only on the system itself, but also on the conditions underlyingit

12

L Albrechts

(see also Mintzberg, 1994). The surrounding political regime enhances or inhibits the
institutional change needed for the more radical strategic planning to be adopted. These
conditions clearly affect the ability of planning systems to implement the chosen strategies.
This is linked to moments of opportunity when strategic ambitions seem to engage with
political structures. The structure element of political opportunity helps us to focus on path
dependence in institutional development (Newman, 2008, page1379) and to acknowledge
that the past puts constraints on future development.
The more radical strategic planning described in this paper may take place beyond the
boundaries(17) of the (traditional) planning profession and planning laws and regulations. As
it aims to check government and corporate power, guarantee the use of local knowledge and
ensure that planning processes are responsive and democratic (see Friedmann, 1992) andas
it aims at securing political influence it is certainly confrontational and conflicting. It is
directed at change by means of specific outputs (strategies, plans, policies, projects) framed
through spaces of deliberative opportunities. These outcomes must be well informed, just,
and fair. As mentioned before, the fact that whoever has true power is able to determine the
content of these concepts and words places this conceptualization at the heart of any strategic
planning process.
If we want a culture of public service, professionals and public servants must in the end
be free to serve the public rather than their paymasters (ONeill, 2002, page59; see also
Healey, 2010). As a more radical strategic planning requires a change to the status quo the
world of planning and planners inevitably becomes more complicated and messy. However,
it is in making planning issues and approaches messy that transformative practices can take
place (see also Campbell, 2002, page351).
Acknowledgment. I would like to thank three referees for their insightful comments.
References
Adonis Barbieri R, 2008, From global to local: Erechim 100 plan and city marketing in the periphery,
paper presented at 44th Isocarp congress, http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1272.pdf
Albrechts L, 2004, Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design 31 743758
Albrechts L, 2013, Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective
Planning Theory and Practice 12 4663
Albrechts L, Balducci A, 2013, Practicing strategic planning: in search of critical features to explain
the strategic character of plans disP-The Planning Review 49(3) 1627
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2009a, Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new
spatial planning in the Thames Gateway Environment and Planning A 41 617633
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2009b, Commentary. Critical reflections on spatial planning
Environment and Planning A 41 25442549
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2010, The future of spatial planning: why less may be more Town
and Country Planning July, 326328
ARL, 2011, Strategische Regionalplanung, Ein Positionspapier 84, Akademie fr Raumforschung
und Landesplanung, Hanover, http://shop.arl-net.de/media/direct/pdf/pospaper_84.pdf
Balducci A, 2008, Constructing (spatial) strategies in complex environments, in Empowering the
Planning Fields: Ethics, Creativity and Action Eds J Van den Broeck, F Moulaert, S Oosterlynck
(Acco, Leuven) pp7999
Balducci A, Fedeli V, Pasqui G (Eds), 2011 Strategic Planning for Contemporary Urban Regions
(Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey)
Bovaird T, 2007, Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of
public services Public Administration Review 67 846860
(17)

Hajer (2009, chapter 1) refers to a legitimacy deficit as the complications that arise now the most
pressing policy problems no longer respect the territorial scales along which constituencies are
traditionally organized.

Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning

13

Boyle D, Harris M, 2009, The challenge of coproduction: how equal partnerships between
professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services, discussion paper, Nesta,
London, http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_challenge_of_co-production.pdf
Brand R, Gaffikin F, 2007, Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world Planning Theory
and Practice 6 282313
Bryson J M, 1995 Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (Jossey-Bass,
SanFrancisco, CA)
Bryson J M, Roering W D, 1988, Initiation of strategic planning by governments Public
Administration Review 48 9951004
Bunker R, 2011, Paradigm lost or paradigm renamed? Current Australian metropolitan strategies,
paper presented at SOAC, Melbourne University, 29 November2 December
Bunker R, Searle G, 2007, Seeking certainty: recent planning for Sydney and Melbourne Town
Planning Review 78 619642
Cahn E, 2000 No More Throw-away People: The Co-production Imperative (Essential Books,
Washington, DC)
Campbell H, 2002, Thinking about discourses: theory is practical? Planning Theory and Practice
3 351352
Campbell H, Marshall R, 2006, Towards justice in planning: a re-appraisal European Planning
Studies 14 239252
Cerreta M, Concilio G, Monno V (Eds), 2010 Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge
and Values (Springer, Dordrecht)
Chia R, 1995, From modern to postmodern organizational analysis Organization Studies 16
579604
Chia R, 1999, A rhizomic model of organizational change and transformation: perspective from a
metaphysics of change British Journal of Management 10 209227
Corburn J, 2003, Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: improving urban
planning for communities at risk Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 420433
de Toqueville A, 1992[1835] De la dmocratie en Amrique (Les ditions Gallimard, Paris)
DPUD, 1990 Metroplan: A Planning Strategy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Department of
Planning and Urban Development (Government of WA, Perth)
Dyrberg T B, 1997 The Circular Structure of Power (Verso, London)
Engels B, 2012, From parks to social infrastructure: the historical evolution of public facility
provision standards in the metropolitan planning of Melbourne, paper presented at 26th AESOP
Annual Congress, Ankara, 1115 July
Forester J, 1989 Planning in the Face of Power (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
Forester J, 2010, Foreword Making Strategies in Spatial Planning Eds M Cerreta, G Concilio,
VMonno (Springer, Dordrecht) ppvvii
Freestone R, 1981, Planning for profit in urban Australia 19001930: a descriptive prolegomenon
Antipode 13(1) 1526
Friedmann J, 1982 The Good Society (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Friedmann J, 1992 Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development (Blackwell, Oxford)
Friedmann J, 1993, Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning Journal of the American Planning
Association 59 482485
Friedmann J, 2004, Strategic spatial planning and the longer range Planning Theory and Practice
5 4967
Friedmann J, 2005, Globalization and the emerging culture of planning Progress in Planning 64
183234
Friedmann J, 2011 Insurgencies: Essays in Planning Theory (Routledge, London)
Graham S, Healey P, 1999, Relational concepts of space and place: issues for planning theory and
practice European Planning Studies 7 623646
Grant J, Searle G, 1978 The Melbourne Scene 18031956 (Hale and Ironmonger, Sydney)
Grosz E, 1999, Thinking the new: of futures yet unthought, in Becomings: Explorations in Time,
Memory, and Futures Ed. E Grosz (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY) pp1528

14

L Albrechts

Hajer M, 2009 Authoritative Governance: Policy-making in the Age of Mediatization (Oxford

University Press, Oxford)
Harvey D, 1989, From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban
governance in late capitalism Geografiska Annaler Series B 71 317
Haughton G, Allmendinger P, Oosterlynck S, 2013, Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: soft
spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality Environment and Planning A 45 217234
Healey P, 1997a, The revival of strategic spatial planning in Europe, in Making Strategic Spatial
Plans Eds P Healey, A Khakee, A Motte, B Needham (UCL Press, London) pp319
Healey P, 1997b Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (Palgrave
Macmillan , Basingstoke, Hants)
Healey P, 1999, Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places Journal of
Planning Education and Research 19 111121
Healey P, 2000, Planning in relational time and space: responding to new urban realities, in
ACompanion to the City Eds G Bridge, H Watson (Blackwell, Oxford) pp517530
Healey P, 2004, The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28 4567
Healey P, 2006, Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning
European Planning Studies 14 525546
Healey P, 2007 Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for our
Times (Routledge, London)
Healey P, 2008, Making choices that matter: the practical art of situated strategic judgement in
spatial strategy-making, in Empowering the Planning Fields: Ethics, Creativity and Action
EdsJVan den Broeck, F Moulaert, S Oosterlynck (Acco, Leuven) pp2341
Healey P, 2010 Making Better Places: The Planning Project for the Twenty-first Century (Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
Hedgcock D, Yiftachel O, 1994, Planning the West: one hundred years of planning in Western
Australia Planning Perspectives 9 297319
Hillier J, 2002 Shadows of Power (Routledge, London)
Hillier J, 2003, Agonising over consessuswhy Habermasian ideals cannot be real Planning
Theory and Practice 2 3759
Hillier J, 2007 Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning (Ashgate,
Aldershot, Hants)
Hillier J, 2013, On relationality and uncertainty disP-The Planning Review 49(3) 3239
Holston J, Appadurai A, 1996, Cities and citizenship Public Culture 8 187204
Huxley M, 2000, Administrative coordination, urban management and strategic planning in the
1970s, in The Australian Metropolis Eds S Hamnett, R Freestone (Spon, London) pp119134
Huxley M, Yftachel O, 2000, New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in
planning theory Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 331342
Jessop B, 2000, The crisis of national spatio-temporal fix and the ecological dominance of
globalizing International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24 323360
Joshi A, Moore M, 2004, Institutionalized coproduction: unorthodox public service delivery in
challenging environments The Journal of Development Studies 40(4) 3149
Kaufman J L, Jacobs H M, 1987, A public planning perspective on strategic planning Journal of
the American Planning Association 53 2131
Krumholz N, Forester J, 1990 Making Equity Planning Work (Temple University Press, Philadelphia,
PA)
Kunzmann K, 2000, Strategic spatial development through information and communication, in
The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning Eds W Salet, A Faludi (Royal Netherlands Academy
of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam) pp259265
Kunzmann K, 2001, The Ruhr in Germany: a laboratory for regional governance, in The Changing
Institutional Landscape Eds L Albrechts, J Alden, A da Rosa Pires (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
pp133158
Kunzmann K, 2013, Strategic planning; a chance for spatial innovation and creativity disP-The
Planning Review 49(3) 2831

Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning

15

Lambert-Pennington K, Westendorff D, Reardon, K, 2011, Planning under the lions paw: a Bluff
City tale, paper presented at ACSP Congress, Salt Lake City, 1316 October
Leal de Oliveira F, 2000, Strategic planning and urban competition Planners Network: The Agenda
of Multinational Agencies in Brazil number 143 1113
Legacy C, 2010, Investigating the knowledge interface between stakeholder engagement and planmaking Environment and Planning A 42 27052720
Lyotard J F, 1992 The Postmodern Explained (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
McLoughlin J B, 1992 Shaping Melbournes Future? (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Mntysalo R, 2013, Coping with the paradox of strategic spatial planning disP-The Planning
Review 49(3) 5152
Mazza L, 2009, Strategic planning and republicanism, paper presented at IAUS Conference,
Belgrade, 78 December,
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-569X/2010/1450-569X1022001M.pdf

Mazza L, 2013, If strategic planning is everything maybe its nothing disP-The Planning Review
49(3) 4042
Metzger J, 2012, Placing the stakes: the enactment of territorial stakeholders in planning processes
Environment and Planning A 45 781796
Mintzberg H, 1994 The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (The Free Press, New York)
Mitlin D, 2008, With and beyond the state: coproduction as a route to political influence, power and
transformation for grassroots organizations Environment and Urbanization 20 339360
Monno V, 2010, When strategy meets democracy: exploring the limits of the possible and the
value of the impossible, in Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Values
EdsM Cerreta, G Concilio, V Monno (Springer, Dordrecht) pp161183
Motte A, 2006 La Notion de Planification Stratgique Spatialise en Europe (19952005) (Puca,
Paris)
Mouffe Ch, 2005 On the Political (Routledge London)
Moulaert F, 2011, When solidarity boosts strategic planning, in Strategic Spatial Projects: Catalysts
for Change Eds S Oosterlynck, J Van den Broeck, L Albrechts, F Moulaert, AVerhetsel
(Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon) pp7984
Needham B, 2000, Making strategic spatial plans: a situational methodology! Revival of Strategic
Planning Eds Salet W, A Faludi (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam)
pp7990
Newman P, 2008, Strategic spatial planning: collective action and moments of opportunity
European Planning Studies 16 13711383
Ogilvy J, 2002 Creating Better Futures (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Olesen K, 2011 Strategic Spatial Planning in Transition: Case Study of Denmark PhD thesis,
Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University,
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/56082656/strategic_spatial_planning_in_transition_olesen_2011.pdf

Olesen K, 2012, The neoliberalisation of strategic planning Planning Theory and Practice 13
288303
Olesen K, Richardson T, 2012, Strategic spatial planning in transition: contested rationalities and
spatial logics in 21st century Danish spatial planning European Planning Studies 20 16891706
ONeill O, 2002 A Question of Trust (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Ostrom E, 1990 Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Ostrom E, 1996, Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development World
Development 24 10731087
Ozbekhan H, 1969, Towards a general theory of planning, in Perspectives of Planning
Ed. E Jantsch (OECD, Paris) pp45155
Parks R, Baker P, Kiser L, Oakerson R, Ostrom E, Ostrom V, Percy L, Vandivort M, Whitaker G,
Wilson R, 1981, Consumers as coproducers of public services: some economic and institutional
considerations Policy Studies Journal 9 10011011
Peck J, Tickel A, 2002, Neoliberalizing space Antipode 34 380404

16

L Albrechts

Purcell M, 2009, Resisting neoliberalization: communicative planning or counter-hegemonic

movements? Planning Theory 8 140165
Roy A, 2003 City Requiem, Calcutta; Gender and the Politics of Poverty (University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis, MN)
Roy A, 2009, Civic governmentality: the politics of inclusion in Beirut and Mumbai Antipode
41159179
Roy A, 2010 Poverty Capital (Routledge, New York)
Sager T, 2011, Activist modes of planning: a systematic overview, paper presented at WPSC Perth
48 July
Sager T, 2013 Reviving Critical Planning Theory (Routledge New York)
Saija L, 2011, The US empowerment planning approach meets Sicilian community planning. The
community mapping initiative in the Simeto Valley (Sicily, Italy), paper presented at ACSP
Congress, Salt Lake City 1316 October
Salet W, Faludi A (Eds), 2000 Revival of Strategic Planning (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts
and Sciences, Amsterdam)
Sandercock L, 1998 Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, Sussex)
Sandercock L, 2000, When strangers become neighbours: managing cities of difference Planning
Theory and Practice 1 1330
Sartorio F, 2005, Strategic spatial planning: a historical review of approaches, its recent revival, and
an overview of the state of the art in Italy disP-The Planning Review 41(162) 2640
Schmitt C, 1988, Vlkerrechtliche Formen des modernen Imperialismus, in Positionen und
Begriffe Ed. C Schmitt (Duncker and Humbolt, Berlin) pp162180
Searle G, Bunker R, 2010, Metropolitan strategic planning: an Australian paradigm? Planning
Theory 9 163180
Sun Tzu, 500BCE/1994 Art of War translated by R Sawyer (Westview Press, Boulder, CO)
Swyngedouw E, Moulaert F, Rodriguez A, 2002, Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large-scale
urban development projects and the New Urban Policy Antipode 34 542577
Time Banks, 2011, History of coproduction: coproduction the emerging imperative,
http://sbtimebank.org/pages//historyOfCoProduction

Van Reybrouck D, 2013 Tegen Verkiezingen (De Bezige Bij, Amsterdam)

WAPC/DOP, 2010 Directions 2031: Draft Spatial Framework for Perth and Peel West Australian
Planning Commission/Department of Planning (WAPC, Perth)
WAPC/DPI, 2004 Network City: Community Planning Strategy for Perth and Peel West Australian
Planning Commission/Department of Planning and Infrastructure (WAPC, Perth)
Watson V, 2007, Revisiting the role of urban planning. Concept Paper for the 2009 Global Report
on Human Settlements, Cape Town
Watson V, 2011, Planning and conflictmoving on, paper presented at WPSC Perth, 48 July
Whitaker G, 1980, Coproduction: citizen participation in service delivery Public Administration
Review 40 240246
Young I, 1990 Justice and the Politics of Difference. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
iek S, 1992 Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan Through Popular Culture (MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA)
iek S, 1999 The Ticklish Subject (Verso, London)