Planners' Role: Torn between Dialogical Ideals and Neo-liberal Realities

Abstract

Planners are inclined to be in favour of public involvement and open processes and opposed to manipulation and lenient control of developers. The hypothesis here is that the attitudes of the typical Nordic planner, in particular, are much closer to communicative planning theory than to New Public Management. The planner role is currently under cross pressure from conflicting values and expectations held by educators and part of the professional community influenced by communicative planning theory on the one hand, and politicians and administrators promoting New Public Management on the other hand. However, patches of common ground are also identified and analysed, in particular the concern for user influence, service quality, and client satisfaction.

Notes

Nalbandian (2005) has observed a similar tension in the role of local government professionals. They “find themselves in the middle of two dynamic forces: administrative modernization and citizen engagement. Attention to one without recognition of the other renders governance ineffective” (p. 311). Related tensions caused by the neo-liberal agenda in Britain are analysed by Campbell and Marshall (2000).

Van Wart (1998) offers a comprehensive discussion of values in public administration, presenting the major schools of thought. Scott (2002) applies content analysis to identify five organizational moral values: honest communication, respect for property, respect for life, respect for religion, and justice.

Value differences between NPM and communicative or collaborative processes for planning and decision-making do not prevent governments from embracing both modes of governance. For example, New Labour under Prime Minister Blair was widely held to institutionalize neo-liberal ideas (Bevir, 2003; Fyfe, 2005), yet simultaneously initiated a range of participatory policies (Barnes et al., 2004; Newman et al., 2004).

Abram (2004) studies ethical problems of planning servants in a Norwegian municipality. She shows that in public administrations and agencies, the typical values of planners might easily place them in conflict between loyalty to budgetary limitations and loyalty to political decisions. Professionalism may be difficult to pair with loyalty to politicians' criteria for service distribution (p. 29).