Best Practices and Policy Transfer in Spatial Planning

Abstract

Numerous European programs and initiatives have been instrumental in identifying a large and increasing number of examples of best practice (or good practice) in the field of spatial planning. In fact, there is now a profligacy of best practice, which means that many researchers and policy-makers are often confronted with too much information when trying to identify examples of policy and practice in other places. The identification and dissemination of best practices has become a growing industry in many areas of European policy, including spatial planning and urban environmental issues. In many cases, an underlying assumption of best practices is that they are equally applicable and effective in another setting, and that the development and dissemination of best practice will help to lead to improvements in policy and practice in other countries, regions or cities. However, the reality is that best practices have a more limited role in policy-making processes: other influences are frequently more important. The value of exchanging European best practices is limited since there are huge differences in the economic, political or social situation between countries in the European Union. This is particularly true when considering the transfer of best practices between ‘new’ and ‘old’ member states, where the social and economic situation, as well as the institutional frameworks, are often very different in ‘borrowing’ and ‘lending’ countries.

Notes

Contrary to the OECD's classification, it could also be argued that policy ideas and principles may in fact be some of the most transferable components of exchange in relation to policy transfer processes. The UNECE report on spatial planning is premised on the idea that, while spatial practices may substantially differ between countries, there are core principles of spatial planning that apply in all cases (UNECE, 2008).

Wolman and Page (2002) also discuss the lack of evaluation of best practice. They argue that both receivers and producers of best practices have virtually no means of assessing the validity of the information they receive, and that most do not even recognize this as a problem.

See note 1.