internal quality assurance cellspa.ac.in/writereaddata/session1adrashokkumar.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
• Presented by
•ASHOK KUMAR, Ph.D. • Professor of Physical Planning
• Head, Department of Regional Planning
• School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi
THEORIZING PARTICIPATION Consensus, Conflicts and Widening
Spaces of Participation in Planning
• Participation implies ‘efforts to increase public input
oriented primarily to the content of programs and
policies’.
• Inclusion means ‘continuously creating a community involved in coproducing processes, policies, and
programs for defining and addressing public issues’.
• Both are dimensions of ‘public engagement’
• Communities of practice: situated practices that
produce distinct ways of knowing and learning
• Source: Quick and Feldman (2011:272).
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
INCLUSION
• Planning unduly focuses on land
use planning
• Master plan or development
plan takes the central stage
• Public Participation revolves
largely around commenting on
the draft of a development plan
CURRENT MEANING OF PLANNING
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PLANNING
THEORIES
Planning
Theory
Role of the
Planner
Arenas of
Participation
Nature of Public
Participation
Rational
Planning
Model
An
unbiased
expert
Public
planning
agency
Informing and securing
information for legitimation
purposes; No feedback
mechanisms for people
Advocacy
Planning
Model
Pleader for
her clients
Places
created by
diverse
interest
groups
Diverse interest groups
prepare plural plans with
the help of advocate
planners
Equity
Planning
Model
Provider of
choices
Public
planning
agency,
media, etc.
Informing and securing
information for legitimation
purposes; Fairness central
to the planner
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PLANNING
THEORIES
Planning
Theory
Role of the
Planner
Arenas of
Participation
Nature of Public
Participation
Political Economy
Model
Part of the state
Production and
Reproduction arenas of the state
Radical transformations; Resources and power with
people, not state or capital
Radical Planning
Model
Minimalist Enabler
Communities and planning
agency
People set the agenda for themselves; An exercise in
community development apart from delivery of outcomes
Collaborative Planning Model
One of the stakeholders
Created by stakeholders themselves
People are fully responsible for planning after deliberations under ‘communicative rationality’
• Planning is inherently ideological in its discourses and
practices
• Planning visions and ideals are reflective of desires of
conflicting but dominant privileged minorities shaping
public interest
• Something is missing in a good city and then dominant
groups impose desired solutions through master
signifiers
• Planning obscures agonistic conflicts of difference
between actors and imposes common policies by using
master signifies such as containment, sustainability,
smart cities, etc.
A LACANIAN VIEW OF PLANNING
•
A TYPOLOGY OF INTERESTS
Form What ‘participation’ means to the implementing agency
What ‘participation’ means for those on the receiving end
What ‘participation is for
Nominal Legitimation – to show they are doing something
Inclusion- to retain some access to potential benefits
Display
Instrumental Efficiency – to limit funder’
input, draw on community contributions and make projects more cost-effective
Cost – of time spent on
project-related labour and other activities
As a means to
achieving cost-effectiveness and local facilities
Representative Sustainability – to avoid
creating dependency Leverage – to influence
the shape the project takes and its management
To give people a
voice in determining their own development
Transformative Empowerment – to enable people to make their own
decisions, work out what to do and take action
Empowerment – to be able to decide and act for
themselves
Both as a means and an end, a
continuing dynamic
Source: White (1996: 7-9).
• Planning involves all those activities, processes, outcomes and transformations that are related
in some way with the production, reproduction
and destruction of built environment
• Planning is a distributional and re-distributional
of resources, and thus conflictual in nature,
some people will win and others will lose
• From sociétal guidance to social transformation
(John Friedmann, 1987). Action oriented
SUGGESTED SCOPE OF PLANNING
• Public participation means involvement in
the processes of development plan
making, more specifically commenting
on the draft a development plan
• Exclusion of implementation of planning
policies even emanating from
development plan
• Some participation may take place
during monitoring or feedback
CURRENT VIEW OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
• Inviting objections or suggestions from the
general public on a draft of the plan
• Public hearings through constituted
committees: Board of Enquiry and Hearing
• Public Grievances Cells
• Open Houses for monitoring and review: An
ongoing process in Delhi
CURRENT SPACES OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING
• Predetermines broad policy planning
agenda
• Assumes equality of participation and
deliberations among citizens
• Aims at securing legitimation about
planning policies reflected as the public
interest
• Attempts to secure consensus about
planning policies
IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
• Undermines multiplicity of public interests
• Consensus downplays differences
• Consensus threatens freedoms by eliminating
possibility of engagements in conflicts
• Exclusion of some voices and foreclosure of
certain possibilities
• Consensus is utopian in a highly politicized
planning environment
Source: Sager (2013: 12).
CONSENSUS AND ITS PITFALLS
• Restricted view of public participation
• Leaves out a number of arenas of
participation as it leaves out a lot of
activities to be considered as planning
activities proper
• Not radically transformative
• Not re-distributional enough: power and
resources
IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
• Public participation means involvement of
citizens in any processes, and outcomes
related with the production, reproduction
and destruction of built environment
• Public participation is transformational and
re-distributional making planning a
profession firmly based on ‘spatial justice’
• Public participation involves conflict
resolution rather than obtaining consensus
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
PLANNING REDEFINED
• Closed spaces or provided spaces
• Invited spaces
• Claimed spaces or third spaces
Gaventa (2006: 26-27).
SPACES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• Decisions are made by a set of actors behind
closed doors, without any pretense of broadening
the boundaries for inclusion
• Within the state, …these [are] ‘provided’ spaces
[where] bureaucrats, experts or elected
representatives make decisions and provide
services to ‘the people’, without the need for
broader consultation or involvement
• Provided spaces
CLOSED SPACES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• People ae invited as users, citizens or beneficiaries
are invited to participate by various kinds of
authorities
• Invited spaces could be institutionalized ongoing, or
more transient through one-off forms of consultation
• With rise of participatory governance, these spaces
are seen at every level, from local government, to
national policy and even in global policy forums
INVITED SPACES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• Spaces which are claimed by less powerful actors from or
against the power holders, or created more autonomously by
them.
• Organic spaces which emerge out of sets of common concerns
or identifications’ and may come into being as a result of
popular mobilization and like-minded people join together in
common pursuits
• Third spaces (Soja 1996): These spaces range from ones created by social movements and community associations, to those
simply involving natural places where people gather to debate, discuss and resist, outside of the institutionalized policy arenas.
CLAIMED SPACES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
After Gaventa (2006: 26-27).
SPACES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Type of Space Spaces in Planning Spaces in
Development
Closed Spaces Planning Agencies
generally, SEZ, and
Corridor Development:
DMIC
Bureaucracy in
general
Invited Spaces
Development Plans,
Resident Welfare
Associations, CDPs
73rd and 74th
amendments to
the Constitution
Claimed Spaces Sit ins protest in Delhi for
Master Plan participation,
Dharavi: enumeration and
community design, SEZ in
Raigarh
Noida Land
Acquisition
• Low gainers and losers to protest
• Deep differences among social groups
• Caste, religion, region and language
• Economic inequalities
• Diversity of epistemologies (knowledge)
• Government policies
• Government policies and diverse interests
CONFLICTS IN PLANNING
POWER OVER Ability of the powerful to affect the actions and thought of the
powerless.
POWER TO Capacity to act; to exercise agency and to realize the potential of
rights, citizenship or voice.
POWER WITHIN Gaining the sense of self-identity, confidence and awareness that is a
precondition for action.
POWER WITH Synergy which can emerge through partnerships and collaboration with
others
COMPREHENDING POWER
• Visible power: observable decision
making
• Hidden power: setting the political
agenda
• Invisible power: shaping meaning and
what is acceptable
Source: Adapted by Just Associates from VeneKlasen and Miller (2002) after Gaventa (2006: 29).
FORMS OF POWER
• Global
• National
• Local
PLACES OF PARTICIPATION
THE POWER CUBE
.
Source: Gaventa (2006: 25).
• Half of U.S. assets owned by just 400 people
Merrifield (2014: 77).
• India’s 100 richest people own assets equivalent to
one fourth of country’s GDP (Roy, 2012).
• Neo-Haussmannization: “a process that likewise
integrates financial, corporate and state interests,
yet tears into the globe and seizes land through
forcible slum clearance and a handy vehicle for
dispossession known as “eminent domain”
(Merrifield (2014: 73).
SPATIAL INEQUALITY
• New development plan for Dharavi,
Mumbai
• Over 300 square feet space for each family
• Similar amount of space for residents of Kathputli Colony
in Delhi
• Antilla: Mukesh Ambani’s House • Estimated 1 million square feet space for the family
• Unbridgeable inequality
SPATIAL INEQUALITY
FACES OF UNBRIDGEABLE INEQUALITY
FACES OF UNBRIDGEABLE INEQUALITY
FACES OF UNBRIDGEABLE INEQUALITY
FACES OF UNBRIDGEABLE INEQUALITY
• Built environment not part of a development
plan making process
• Projects resulting from central and state
government policies
• Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission
• Special Economic Zones
• Corridor development
• Smart cities
WIDENING AND DEEPENING OF
SPACES OF PARTICIPATION
• Delhi Metro by the DMRC with separate act
• Housing for the income poor under JNNURM
• 25,000 dwelling units constructed in Delhi by 2014
• Resident Welfare Associations in Delhi
• Created a wall between the urban poor and elected
representatives
WIDENING AND DEEPENING OF
SPACES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• Participation in Plan Making: Master Plan,
Zonal Plan, Local Area Plan, etc.
• Participation in redevelopment plans such as
in Dharavi;
• Participation in development projects: Slum
redevelopment in Kathputli and Kalkaji, etc.
• Participation in reform programs such as
JNNURM and Stakeholder Workshops in CDPs
WIDENING AND DEEPENING OF
SPACES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• Public participation concerns everything
related with built environment
• Public participation is used as a vehicle for
coordination among policies not part of
development plan
• Public participation’s primary goal is to
resolve built environment related conflicts
NATURE OF REINVIGORATED PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING
• Participation during implementation planning
policies emanating or not from a development
plan
• Large part of the built environment takes shape
during implementation, which is distinct from planned vision of a city
• Planning policy also made during implementation
• From informing and securing feedback to
planning policy framing by citizens
NATURE OF REINVIGORATED PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING
• Public participation as an instrument for
identification of diversities and diverse
perspectives
• Public participation explores possibilities of
social interactions to formulate planning
policies
• Public participation redistributes power and
resources in favour of the urban poor (after
Arnstein, 1969).
WIDENED AND DEEPENED SPACES OF
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• Participation during implementation planning
policies emanating or not from a development
plan
• Large part of the built environment takes shape
during implementation, which is distinct from planned vision of a city
• Planning policy also made during implementation
as in street level bureaucrat (Lipsky, 2010).
• From informing and securing feedback to
planning policy framing by citizens
NATURE OF REINVIGORATED PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING
• Hope: Development plans being prepared
with citizen involvement such as in Kerala
• Hope: Metropolitan Planning Committees
and District Planning Committees
• Hope: Public Participation Bills
• Hope: Converting DPCs and MPCs from
sector plans to spatial plans
HOPES OF WIDENED AND DEEPENED
SPACES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• Planning and therefore participation is
aimed at conflict resolution
• Planning and therefore participation is
aimed at re-distributive spatial justice
• Planning and participation is about radical
transformations not ritualistic involvement
• Participation extends upto implementation
CONCLUDING REMARKS