IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v55y2018i5p1076-1092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Opening for business’? Neoliberalism and the cultural politics of modernising planning in Scotland

Author

Listed:
  • Andy Inch

Abstract

In this paper I explore how the culture of land-use planning in Scotland has been targeted as an object of modernising reform, exploring how ‘culture change’ initiatives played a prominent role in stabilising a new settlement around ‘open for business’ planning between 2006 and 2012, containing potential tensions between diverse goals to make planning more efficient, inclusive and integrative. This highlights the potentially significant role of governance cultures in containing tensions and securing consent to processes of state restructuring. I therefore argue that greater empirical attentiveness to the cultural micro-politics of state restructuring can improve understanding of complex, contemporary dynamics of change, and the contested role of the neoliberal hegemonic project in reshaping urban governance. I conclude by arguing that the continued power of neoliberal critiques of the inefficiency of land-use planning indicate a need to acknowledge and engage contemporary cultural battles over the purposes of planning and urban governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Andy Inch, 2018. "‘Opening for business’? Neoliberalism and the cultural politics of modernising planning in Scotland," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(5), pages 1076-1092, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:55:y:2018:i:5:p:1076-1092
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098016684731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098016684731
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098016684731?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. Michael Gunder, 2016. "Planning's "Failure" to Ensure Efficient Market Delivery: A Lacanian Deconstruction of this Neoliberal Scapegoating Fantasy," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 21-38, January.
    2. Frank Othengrafen & Mario Reimer, 2013. "The Embeddedness of Planning in Cultural Contexts: Theoretical Foundations for the Analysis of Dynamic Planning Cultures," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(6), pages 1269-1284, June.
    3. Phil Allmendinger & Graham Haughton, 2013. "The Evolution and Trajectories of English Spatial Governance: 'Neoliberal' Episodes in Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 6-26, February.
    4. Michael Keating, 2005. "Policy convergence and divergence in Scotland under devolution," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 453-463.
    5. Alex Lord & Mark Tewdwr-Jones, 2014. "Is Planning "Under Attack"? Chronicling the Deregulation of Urban and Environmental Planning in England," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 345-361, February.
    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. Andy Inch & Richard Dunning & Aidan While & Hannah Hickman & Sarah Payne, 2020. "‘The object is to change the heart and soul’: Financial incentives, planning and opposition to new housebuilding in England," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(4), pages 713-732, June.
    2. Kristian Olesen & Helen Carter, 2018. "Planning as a barrier for growth: Analysing storylines on the reform of the Danish Planning Act," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(4), pages 689-707, June.
    3. Nancy Holman & Alessandra Mossa & Erica Pani, 2018. "Planning, value(s) and the market: An analytic for “what comes next?â€," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(3), pages 608-626, May.
    4. Edward Shepherd & Matthew Wargent, 2024. "Embedding the land market: Polanyi, urban planning and regulation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 56(3), pages 905-926, May.
    5. Jessica Ferm & Ben Clifford & Patricia Canelas & Nicola Livingstone, 2021. "Emerging problematics of deregulating the urban: The case of permitted development in England," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(10), pages 2040-2058, August.
    6. Mace, Alan & Holman, Nancy & Paccoud, Antoine & Sundaresan, Jayaraj, 2015. "Coordinating density; working through conviction, suspicion and pragmatism," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 56768, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Carlo J Morelli & Paul T. Seaman, 2010. "Devolution as a Policy Crucible: The Case of Universal Free School Meals," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 139-161, January.
    8. Morelli, Carlo & Seaman, Paul, 2009. "Devolution & Entrenched Household Poverty: Is Scotland less mobile?," SIRE Discussion Papers 2009-06, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    9. Van Assche, Kristof & Gruezmacher, Monica & Granzow, Michael, 2021. "From trauma to fantasy and policy. The past in the futures of mining communities; the case of Crowsnest Pass, Alberta," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    10. Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    11. Bernardino Romano & Francesco Zullo & Alessandro Marucci & Lorena Fiorini, 2018. "Vintage Urban Planning in Italy: Land Management with the Tools of the Mid-Twentieth Century," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, November.
    12. Johan Colding & Karl Samuelsson & Lars Marcus & Åsa Gren & Ann Legeby & Meta Berghauser Pont & Stephan Barthel, 2022. "Frontiers in Social–Ecological Urbanism," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    13. Bernardino Romano & Francesco Zullo & Lorena Fiorini & Cristina Montaldi, 2022. "Micromunicipality (MM) and Inner Areas in Italy: A Challenge for National Land Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    14. Peter Matthews, 2013. "The return of place in Scottish social policy," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 28(1), pages 9-16, February.
    15. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Beunen, Raoul, 2019. "The risky business of planning reform – The evolution of local spatial planning in Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 11-20.
    16. Dominic Stead & Jochem de Vries & Tuna Tasan-Kok, 2015. "Planning Cultures and Histories: Influences on the Evolution of Planning Systems and Spatial Development Patterns," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(11), pages 2127-2132, November.
    17. Kristina Grange, 2014. "In Search of Radical Democracy: The Ideological Character of Current Political Advocacies for Culture Change in Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(11), pages 2670-2685, November.
    18. Nancy Holman & Gabriel M Ahlfeldt, 2015. "No Escape? The Coordination Problem in Heritage Preservation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 172-187, January.
    19. Graham Haughton & Phil Allmendinger, 2016. "Think tanks and the pressures for planning reform in England," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1676-1692, December.
    20. Phil Allmendinger & Graham Haughton & Edward Shepherd, 2016. "Where is planning to be found? Material practices and the multiple spaces of planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(1), pages 38-51, February.

    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:urbstu:v:55:y:2018:i:5:p:1076-1092. 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: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    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.