The role and significance of planning consultants as intermediary-actors: between and amongst government, civic society and the market

References

• Barry, J., and C. Legacy. 2022. “Between Virtue and Profession: Theorising the Rise of Professionalised Public Participation Practitioners.” Planning Theory 22 (1): 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221107148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessant, J., and H. Rush. 1995. “Building Bridges for Innovation: The Role of Consultants in Technology Transfer.” Research Policy 24 (1): 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00751-E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besussi, E. 2018. “Localism and Neighbourhood Planning.” In Planning Practice. Critical Perspectives from the UK, edited by J. Ferm and J. Tomaney, 138–157. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bherer, L., M. Gauthier, and L. Simard. 2021. “Developing the Public Participation Field: The Role of Independent Bodies for Public Participation.” Administration & Society 53 (5): 680–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720957606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boddy, M., and H. Hickman. 2018. “‘Between a Rock and a Hard Place’: Planning Reform, Localism and the Role of the Planning Inspectorate in England.” Planning Theory & Practice 19 (2): 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1456083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boelens, L. 2010. “Theorizing Practice and Practising Theory: Outlines for an Actor-Relational-Approach in Planning.” Planning Theory 9 (1): 28–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209346499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bragaglia, F. 2021. “Social Innovation as a ‘Magic Concept’ for Policy-Makers and Its Implications for Urban Governance.” Planning Theory 20 (2): 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220934832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bragaglia, F., O. Caldarice, and U. Janin Rivolin. 2023. “Outside-In: Co-Production and the Spatial Planning Systems in Italy and England.” Planning Theory: 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brill, F., and M. Raco. 2023. “Sourcing and Commodifying Knowledge for Investment and Development in Cities.” Urban Geography 44 (6): 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownill, S., and Q. Bradley, eds. 2017. Localism and Neighbourhood Planning: Power to the People? Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burchell, G., C. Gordon, and P. Miller, eds. 1991. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. 1991. “Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility.” In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by J. Law, 132–161. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Castell, P. 2016. “Institutional Framing of Citizen Initiatives: A Challenge for Advancing Public Participation in Sweden.” International Planning Studies 21 (4): 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2015.1124756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean, C. 1994. “The Productive Hypothesis: Foucault, Gender, and the History of Sexuality.” History and Theory 33 (3): 271–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/2505475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demszky, A., and A. Nassehi. 2012. “Perpetual Loss and Gain: Translation, Estrangement and Cyclical Recurrence of Experience Based Knowledges in Public Action.” Policy and Society 31 (2): 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2012.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobson, M., and G. Parker. 2023. “The Moral Economy of Localism in England: Neighbourhood Planning as Neoliberal ‘Apprentice Piece’.” Territory, Politics, Governance, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2023.2184856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elling, B. 2017. “Communicative Planning as Counter-Power.” International Planning Studies 22 (3): 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2016.1253458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, E., A. Fredriksson, and J. Syssner. 2022. “Opening the Black Box of Participatory Planning: A Study of How Planners Handle Citizens’ Input.” European Planning Studies 30 (6): 994–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1895974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fehren, O. 2010. “Who Organises the Community? The University as an Intermediary Actor.” Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement 3: 104–119. https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v3i0.1544
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. 1987. “Planning in the Face of Conflict: Negotiation and Mediation Strategies in Local Land Use Regulation.” Journal of the American Planning Association 53 (3): 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368708976450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry 8 (4): 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1086/448181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1987. Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Foye, C. 2022. “Framing the Housing Crisis: How Think-Tanks Frame Politics and Science to Advance Policy Agendas.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 134: 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.05.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fung, A. 2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.” Public Administration Review 66 (s1): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guy, S., S. Marvin, and W. Medd, eds. 2011. Shaping Urban Infrastructures: Intermediaries and the Governance of Socio-Technical Networks. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, T., S. Hielscher, G. Seyfang, and A. Smith. 2013. “Grassroots Innovations in Community Energy: The Role of Intermediaries in Niche Development.” Global Environmental Change 23 (5): 868–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haugaard, M. 2020. The Four Dimensions of Power. Understanding Domination, Empowerment and Democracy. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haughton, G., and P. Allmendinger. 2016. “Think Tanks and the Pressures for Planning Reform in England.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 34 (8): 1676–1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16629677
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Howells, J. 2006. “Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation.” Research Policy 35 (5): 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyysalo, S., J. Juntunen, and M. Martiskainen. 2018. “Energy Internet Forums as Acceleration Phase Transition Intermediaries.” Research Policy 47 (5): 872–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inch, A., M. Wargent, and M. Tait. 2023. “Serving the Public Interest? Towards a History of Private Sector Planning Expertise in England.” Planning Perspectives 38 (2): 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2022.2063165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. 1995. “Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 14 (3): 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanda, W., M. Kuisma, P. Kivimaa, and O. Hjelm. 2020. “Conceptualising the Systemic Activities of Intermediaries in Sustainability Transitions.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 36: 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinder, K. 2011. “Planning by Intermediaries: Making Cities Make Nature in Amsterdam.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 43 (10): 2435–2451. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4464
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C., G. Parker, S. Buckner, C. Mattocks, A. Barnes, E.J. Oliver, A. Cowan, and L. Lafortune 2022. Neighbourhood Planning, Rural Ageing and Public Health Policy in England: A Sase of Policy Myopia?. Town Planning Review 93(3): 275–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linovski, O. 2019. “Shifting Agendas: Private Consultants and Public Planning Policy.” Urban Affairs Review 55 (6): 1666–1701. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417752475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linovski, O. 2021. “The Value of Planning: Views from Management Consultants.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Local Trust. 2022. Trusting People, Shifting Power. London: Local Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Locality. 2022. “Neighbourhood Planning Support.” Accessed March 22, 2023. https://neighbourhoodplanning.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Loh, C., and R. Norton. 2013. “Planning Consultants and Local Planning: Roles and Values.” Journal of the American Planning Association 79 (2): 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2013.883251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loh, C., and R. Norton. 2015. “Planning Consultants’ Influence on Local Comprehensive Plans.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 35 (2): 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X14566868
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maranghi, E. 2022. “From a Community of Practice to a Community of Planning: The Case of the Sansheroes Network in the San Siro Neighbourhood in Milan.” In Urban Living Lab for Local Regeneration: Beyond Participation in Large-Scale Social Housing Estates, edited by N. Aernouts, F. Cognetti, and E. Maranghi, 127–138. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, E. 2011. “Urban Policy Mobilities and Global Circuits of Knowledge: Toward a Research Agenda.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (1): 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2010.520219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuirk, P. 2001. “Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 33 (2): 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medd, W., and S. Marvin. 2008. “Making Water Work: Intermediating Between Regional Strategy and Local Practice.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26 (2): 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1068/d3205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, J., L. Soneryd, and S. Linke. 2017. “The Legitimization of Concern: A Flexible Framework for Investigating the Enactment of Stakeholders in Environmental Planning and Governance Processes.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 49 (11): 2517–2535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17727284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, J., L. Soneryd, and K. Tamm Hallström. 2017. “‘Power’ is That Which Remains to be Explained: Dispelling the Ominous Dark Matter of Critical Planning Studies.” Planning Theory 16 (2): 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215622502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MHCLG [Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government]. 2020. “Notes on Neighbourhood Planning #25 October 2020.” Accessed March 22, 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notes-on-neighbourhood-planning-edition-25.
   Google Scholar
• Monno, V., and A. Khakee. 2012. “Tokenism or Political Activism? Some Reflections on Participatory Planning.” International Planning Studies 17 (1): 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2011.638181
   Google Scholar
• Moss, T. 2009. “Intermediaries and the Governance of Sociotechnical Networks in Transition.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 41 (6): 1480–1495. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, D. 2021. “Private Facilitators of Public Regulation: A Study of the Environmental Consulting Industry.” Regulation & Governance 15 (1): 226–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, G., T. Lynn, and M. Wargent. 2015a. “Sticking to the Script? The Co-Production of Neighbourhood Planning in England.” Town Planning Review 86 (5): 519–536. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2015.31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, G., T. Lynn, and M. Wargent. 2015b. User Experience of Neighbourhood Planning in England research. London: Locality.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, G., T. Lynn, and M. Wargent. 2017. “Contestation and Conservatism in Neighbourhood Planning in England: Reconciling Agonism and Collaboration?” Planning Theory & Practice 18 (3): 446–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2017.1316514
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, G., K. Salter, and H. Hickman. 2016. “Caution: Examinations in Progress – The Operation of Neighbourhood Plan Examinations in England.” Town and Country Planning 85 (12): 516–522.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, G., M. Wargent, K. Salter, T. Lynn, M. Dobson, and A. Yuille. 2020. Impacts of Neighbourhood Planning in England. London: MHCLG.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, G., M. Wargent, K. Salter, and A. Yuille. 2023. “Neighbourhood Planning in England: A Decade of Institutional Learning.” Progress in Planning 174: 100749, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2023.100749
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Race, K. 2020. “What Possibilities Would a Queer ANT Generate?” In The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory, edited by A. Blok, I. Farias, and C. Roberts, 168–180. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Raco, M., F. Brill, and J. Ferm. 2021. “Intermediary Organisations and the Liquid Regulation of Urban Planning in England.” In Regulation and Planning: Practices, Institutions, Agency, edited by Y. Rydin, R. Beauregard, M. Cremaschi, and L. Lieto, 149–162. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Raco, M., and F. Savini, eds. 2019. Planning and Knowledge: How New Forms of Technocracy Are Shaping Contemporary Cities. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raco, M., E. Street, and S. Trigo. 2016. “The New Localism, Anti-Political Development Machines, and the Role of Planning Consultants: Lessons from London’s South Bank.” Territory, Politics, Governance 4 (2): 216–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2015.1036912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse, J. 1994. “Power/Knowledge.” In The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, edited by G. Gutting, 92–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• RTPI [Royal Town Planning Institute]. 2022. “Independent Consultants Network 2021. Chairman’s Annual Report to Board 2021.” Accessed March 22, 2023. https://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/10933/2021-icn-annual-report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y. 2010. “Actor-Network Theory and Planning Theory: A Response to Boelens.” Planning Theory 9 (3): 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210368772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y., and L. Tate. 2016. Actor Networks of Planning. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Saint-Martin, D. 1998. “The New Managerialism and the Policy Influence of Consultants in Government: An Historical–Institutionalist Analysis of Britain, Canada and France.” Governance 11 (3): 319–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter, K. 2022. “Emergent Practices of Localism: The Role and Response of Local Planning Authorities to Neighbourhood Planning in England.” Town Planning Review 93 (1): 37–59. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2021.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandercock, L. 2010. “From the Campfire to the Computer: An Epistemology of Multiplicity and the Story Turn in Planning.” In Multimedia Explorations in Urban Policy and Planning, edited by L. Sandercock and G. Attili, 17–37. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Somerville, P., and N. Haines. 2008. “Prospects for Local Co-Governance.” Local Government Studies 34 (1): 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930701770488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanton, J. 2014. “The Big Society and Community Development: Neighbourhood Planning Under the Localism Act.” Environmental Law Review 16 (4): 262–276.
   Google Scholar
• Stapper, E., M. Van der Veen, and L. Janssen-Jansen. 2020. “Consultants as Intermediaries: Their Perceptions on Citizen Involvement in Urban Development.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38 (1): 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654419853583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, P., and N. Gallent. 2023. “Returning to the Intermediary Turn: Rethinking the Significance of Estate Agents for Housing Markets.” Housing Studies 38 (5): 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Herzele, A. 2004. “Local Knowledge in Action: Valuing Nonprofessional Reasoning in the Planning Process.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 24 (2): 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04267723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lente, H., M. Hekkert, R. Smits, and B. van Waveren. 2012. “Systemic Intermediaries and Transition Processes.” In Shaping Urban Infrastructures. Intermediaries and the Governance of Socio-Technical Networks, edited by S. Guy, S. Marvin, and W. Medd, 50–66. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Veelen, B. 2020. “Caught in the Middle? Creating and Contesting Intermediary Spaces in low-Carbon Transitions.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38 (1): 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654419856020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wargent, M. 2021. “Localism, Governmentality and Failing Technologies: The Case of Neighbourhood Planning in England.” Territory, Politics, Governance 9 (4): 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1737209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wargent, M., G. Parker, and E. Street. 2020. “Public-Private Entanglements: Consultant Use by Local Planning Authorities in England.” European Planning Studies 28 (1): 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1677565
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuille, A. 2020. “Performing Legitimacy in Neighbourhood Planning: Conflicting Identities and Hybrid Governance.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38 (7-8): 1367–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654420925823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar