Spatial Development in Luxembourg: Mimetic Evolution or Emergence of a New Planning Culture?

Abstract

Luxembourg's planning system is currently undergoing a fundamental reform with the establishment of completely new structures in some parts of it. The present paper reflects these developments in the following steps: We start by proposing a heuristic based on the planning culture perspective originally developed by Frank Othengrafen and colleagues, taking into account (a) planning artefacts, (b) the planning environment, and (c) the societal environment. Before we subsume the contemporary developments of the planning system we provide a brief description of Luxembourg's spatial context which, due to the country's small size and the high growth rates of its economy and population in the past years, displays a number of peculiar features. Applying the planning culture perspective on the planning system and its societal context reveals not only hybrid characteristics with regard to neighbouring systems. It also provides the important characteristics of the small state and shows the limits of the planning culture perspective.

Notes

1. See last section of this paper for the potential impact of the recently approved spatial planning law (Loi du 30 juillet 2013 concernant l'aménagement du territoire.

2. It might be worth reminding here that the international composition of Luxembourg's population with about 45% of the residents not holding a Luxembourg citizenship (despite the recent gradual liberalization of citizenship regulation, e.g. double nationality, naturalization after seven years of period of residentship and successful examination—has an effect on the political representation. It can be assumed that the interests and aspirations of the population are much more diverse than those represented by the voters. Moreover, a majority of these voters are either working in the public sector or are retired, which might favour a certain political bias.

3. As the results for Luxembourg of the last Global Corruption Barometer (Transparency International, 2013) show, there is (a) a relevant share of the residents considering corruption in the public sector as a very serious problem and (b) some evidence that the situation rather got worse since the last survey (2011).