IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v39y2021i6p1294-1309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflict, consent, dissensus: The unfinished as challenge to politics and planning

Author

Listed:
  • John Pløger

Abstract

Public participation in planning politics is a legal right in many countries. Planners often see themselves as the defenders of public interests, whereas planning studies may see public planning as the institutionalization of politics, the politicized management or government of disputes on planning issues. Public participation is ultimately a political decision, and this article focuses on how phrases like planning is ‘a work in progress’ and agonistic consensus is a ‘solution for now’ in fact add a critical issue to planning politics: such statements indicate that planning should be seen as an unfinished process, and decisions as temporary. A ‘solution for now’ literally means a ‘planning for-the-time-being’ and a ‘coming-back-to’, highlighting that there are processual issues unresolved within planning praxis. Politics and planning cannot be separated. Two cases of urban planning conflict—the struggle of the homeless for shelter and the Occupy movement—show this: they are used to discuss how planning politics may benefit from having a temporary resting place and being unfinished.

Suggested Citation

  • John Pløger, 2021. "Conflict, consent, dissensus: The unfinished as challenge to politics and planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1294-1309, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:39:y:2021:i:6:p:1294-1309
    DOI: 10.1177/2399654420985849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654420985849
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399654420985849?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Hillier, 2017. "On Planning for Not Having a Plan?," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 668-675, October.
    2. Tore Sager, 2016. "Activist planning: a response to the woes of neo-liberalism?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(7), pages 1262-1280, July.
    3. Mark Purcell, 2017. "Our Own Power to Act," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 690-694, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lummina G. Horlings & Christian Lamker & Emma Puerari & Ward Rauws & Gwenda van der Vaart, 2021. "Citizen Engagement in Spatial Planning, Shaping Places Together," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Mojgan Taheri Tafti, 2020. "Assembling street vending," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(9), pages 1887-1902, July.
    3. Sagaris, Lake & Berríos, Emilio & Tiznado-Aitken, Ignacio, 2020. "Using PAR to frame sustainable transport and social justice on policy agendas. A pilot experience in two contrasting Chilean cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Verlinghieri, Ersilia & Venturini, Federico, 2018. "Exploring the right to mobility through the 2013 mobilizations in Rio de Janeiro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 126-136.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:39:y:2021:i:6:p:1294-1309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.