Dialectics of Power: The Case of Tulihta Land-use Agreement

Abstract

Case studies of planning which involve criminal corruption are rare. The article presents a Finnish court case known as “Tulihta”, concerning the breach of a land purchase contract and treachery in the preparation of the detailed plan for the land property in question, during 1989–1993. The case is analysed from the power perspective by using a framework developed by Mäntysalo and Rajaniemi (2003). In the framework, two sets of binary characteristics of power, namely power as control and as ability, and explicit and implicit power, are combined into a horizontal-vertical field. The case analysis is aimed to test the applicability of the framework, as well as to reveal the manifold aspects of power at play in a land-use planning process.

Keywords:

• Power
• development
• regulation
• land-use planning
• corruption

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to the editorial process of Planning Theory & Practice, through which I received valuable help in developing my argument.

Notes

1. By “testing”, I do not refer to the use of the concept in the strict sense of positive empirical research.

2. Kaleva, 2003a; 2003b; 2004; 2005a; 2005b.

3. Lukes indicates this type of power with the terms “capacity”, “facility” and “ability” (Lukes, 1988, p. 31).

4. Dichotomies of power similar to that of control and ability have been presented by, for example, Arendt (1958) (violence/power), Carse (1986) (power/strength), Bateson (1987) (power/power) and Lukes (1988) (power over/power to). An excellent theoretical analysis of explicit and implicit control has been made by Lukes (1988) who, while identifying explicit control as the “first dimension of power”, divided implicit control further into “second” and “third dimensions of power”. Foucault's power analytics is well known in its concentration on the implicit aspects of power (Foucault, 1975), as well as Bourdieu's social field theory with its implicit power-laden distinctions (Bourdieu, 1987). A classic on explicit control is Dahl's book “Who Governs?” (Dahl, 1961).

5. The power orientated planning theories can be divided into Habermasian (e.g. Forester, 1989; Healey, 1997; Sager, 1994) and Foucauldian (e.g. Rabinow, 1984; Flyvbjerg, 1998), the first making a clear distinction between control (“systemic distortions”) and ability (“lifeworld communicative action”) and the second seeing productive ability as an aspect inherent in control (“discipline”) itself. Hillier provides an attempt to combine the two approaches (Hillier, 2002).

6. Koillissanomat, 1990a; Koillissanomat, 1990b; RHO, 1998, p. 121.

7. RHO, 1998, pp. 75-76; Kuusamon KO, 1996, p. 129.

8. Kuusamon KO, 1996, pp. 144-153; RHO, 1998, p. 100.

9. This level corresponds roughly with Lukes' “third dimension of power” (Lukes, 1988).