The “deliberative bureaucrat”: deliberative democracy and institutional trust in the jurisdiction of the Finnish planner

References

• Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. An essay on the division on expert labour. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2013). The evolution and trajectories of English spatial governance: ‘Neoliberal’ episodes in planning. Planning Practice & Research, 28, 6–26. 10.1080/02697459.2012.699223
   Google Scholar
• Annanpalo, H. (2014). Toteutuuko kuntalaisen oikeus osallistua kaavoitukseen? [Does citizens’ right for participation in planning come true?] Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu (The Finnish Journal of Urban Studies), 4(52), 53–69.
   Google Scholar
• Bäcklund, P., Häkli, J., & Schulman, H. (eds.) (2002). Osalliset ja osaajat. Kansalaiset kaupungin suunnittelussa [Stakeholders and experts. Residents participating city planning]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
   Google Scholar
• Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978-1-349-21599-7
   Google Scholar
• Bengs, C. (2005). Planning theory for the Naïve? European Journal of Spatial Development, July (Debate), 1–12. Retrieved May 30, 2013, from http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A. (2002). Political legitimacy and democracy. Ethics, 112, 689–719. 10.1086/340313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burrage, M. (1990). The professions in sociology and history. In M. Burrage & R. Torstendahl (Eds.), Professions in theory and in history. Rethinking the study of the professions (pp. 1–12). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Elstub, S. (2006). A double-edged sword: The increasing diversity of deliberative democracy. Contemporary Politics, 12, 301–319. 10.1080/13569770601086204
   Google Scholar
• Elstub, S. (2010). The third generation of deliberative democracy. Political Studies Review, 8, 291–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eranti, V. (2014). Oma etu ja yhteinen hyvä paikallisessa kiistassa tilasta [Private Interest and Common Good in a Local Spatial Conflict]. Sosiologia, 1, 21–38.
   Google Scholar
• Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism. Occupational change in the modern world. International Sociology, 18, 395–415. 10.1177/0268580903018002005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8, 247–266. 10.1163/156913309X421655
   Google Scholar
• Evetts, J. (2011). Sociological analysis of professionalism: Past, present and future. Comparative Sociology, 10(1), 1–37. 10.1163/156913310X522633
   Google Scholar
• Evetts, J. (2013). Professionalism: Value and ideology. Current Sociology Review, 61, 778–796. 10.1177/0011392113479316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fainstein, N., & Fainstein, S. (2013). Restoring just outcomes to planning concerns. In N. Carmon & S. Fainstein (Eds.), City in the twenty-first century: Policy, planning and people: promoting justice in urban development (pp. 43–64). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Encouraging participatory planning processes. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences. Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12, 5–22. 10.1177/1473095212448750
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J., Susskind, L., Umemoto, K., Matsuura, M., Paba, G., Perrone, C., & Mäntysalo, R. (2011). Learning from practice in the face of conflict and integrating technical expertise with participatory planning: Critical commentaries on the practice of planner-architect. Planning Theory & Practice, 12, 287–310. 10.1080/14649357.2011.586810
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grange, K. (2013). Shaping acting space: In search of a new political awareness among local authority planners. Planning Theory, 12, 225–243. 10.1177/1473095212459740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grange, K. (2016). Planners – a silenced profession? The politicisation of planning and the need for fearless speech. Planning Theory , 1–21. (published online January 25, 2016. doi:10.1177/1473095215626465).
   Google Scholar
• Gunder, M. (2010). Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory, 9, 298–314. 10.1177/1473095210368878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutman, A. & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400826339
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M., & Hoppe, R. (1993). Reframing policy discourse. In F. Fischer, & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 145–166). London: UCL Press. 10.1215/9780822381815
   Google Scholar
• Hardin, R. (1999). Do we want to trust in government? In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 22–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511659959
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2004). Creativity and urban governance. Policy Studies, 25, 87–102. 10.1080/0144287042000262189
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54, 486–508. 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirvonen-Kantola, S., & Mäntysalo, R. (2014). The recent development of the finnish planning system - The city of vantaa as an executor, fighter and independent actor. In M. Reimer, P. Getimis, & H. Blotevogel (Eds.), Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. A comparative perspective on continuity and changes (pp. 42–60). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Husa, J. (2011). the stories we tell ourselves ‒ about nordic law in specific. Helsinki: EDILEX Edita Publishing Oy. Retrieved January 9, 2014, from http://www.edilex.fi/artikkelit/8060.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Husa, J., Nuotio, K., & Pihlajamäki, H. (2008). Nordic law – between tradition and dynamism. Ticom Tilburg institute of comparative and transnational law, working paper No. 2008/10. Faculty of Law, Tilburg University. Retrieved January 9, 2014, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1287088.
   Google Scholar
• Hytönen, J. (2016a). Kuntien ja valtion välinen vastuiden ja vallan jako yhdyskuntapolitiikassa [Central and local government relationship in urban and regional politics]. Helsinki, online publication of the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. Retrieved from http://shop.kunnat.net/download.php?filename=uploads/1781yhdyskuntapol_vastuutjavalta_ebook.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hytönen, J. (2016b). The problematic relationship of communicative planning theory and nordic legal culture. Planning Theory, 15, 223–238. 10.1177/1473095214549618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hytönen, J., Mäntysalo, R., Peltonen, L., Kanninen, V., Niemi, P., & Simanainen, M. (2016). Defensive Routines in Land Use Policy Steering in Finnish Urban Regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(1), 40–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilmonen, M., & Peltonen, L. (2004). Suunnittelu on toivon järjestämistä. John Forester haastattelussa [Planning is the organisation of hope. An Interview with John Forester]. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu [Finnish journal of urban studies], 42, 3–4, pp. 106-125.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183–189. 10.1177/0739456X9501400307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. (1995). Governmentality and the institutionalization of expertise. In T. Johnson, G. Larkin, & M. Saks (Eds.), Health professions and the state in Europe (pp. 7–24). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kithiia, J., & Dowling, R. (2010). An integrated city-level planning process to address the impacts of climate change in Kenya: The case of Mombasa. Cities, 27, 466–475. 10.1016/j.cities.2010.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konttinen, E.(1991). Perinteisesti moderniin. Professioiden yhteiskunnallinen synty Suomessa [A social birth of professions in Finland]. Doctoral thesis. Vastapaino, Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• Koskiaho, B., Leino, H., & Mäkelä, T. (eds.) (2000). Urbaani Osallisuus [Urban engagement]. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto, Civil Society Papers 2, sosiaalipolitiikan laitos).
   Google Scholar
• Kouvo, A. (2014). Luottamuksen lähteet. Vertaileva tutkimus yleistynyttä luottamusta synnyttävistä mekanismeista [The sources of trust. A comparative study on mechanisms generating generalized trust]. Turku: University of Turku. C 31. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/96378/AnnalesC381Kouvo.pdf?sequence=2.
   Google Scholar
• Laurian, L. (2009). Trust in planning: Theoretical and practical considerations for participatory and deliberative planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 10, 369–391. 10.1080/14649350903229810
   Google Scholar
• Leino, H. (2006). Kansalaisosallistuminen ja kaupunkisuunnittelun dynamiikka [Citizen participation and the dynamics of town planning]. Tampere: Universitatis Tamperensis; 1134, University of Tampere.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (1974/1988 first edition). Power: A radical view. London: MacMillan Education.
   Google Scholar
• Lyles, Lindsey Ward, Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2014). Do planners matter? Examining factors driving the incorporation of land use approaches into hazard mitigation plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57, 792–811. 10.1080/09640568.2013.768973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Määttä, T. (1999). Maanomistusoikeus. Tutkimus omistusoikeusparadigmoista maaomaisuuden käytön ympäristöoikeudellisen sääntelyn näkökulmasta [Landownership. A study on paradigms of ownership from the point of view of environmental regulation of the use of property in land]. Jyväskylä: Suomalaisen Lakimiesyhdistyksen Julkaisuja A-sarja N:o 220).
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependency in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29, 507–548. 10.1023/A:1007113830879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., Fung, A., … Martí, J. L. (2010). The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18, 64–100. 10.1111/jopp.2010.18.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R. (1999). Learning from the UK: Towards market-oriented land-use planning in Finland. Housing, Theory and Society, 16, 179–191. 10.1080/14036099950149901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R. (2000). Land-use planning as inter-organizational learning. Oulu: Acta Universitatis Ouluensis Technica, C 155.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R. (2008). Dialectics of power: The Tulihta land-use agreement. Planning Theory & Practice, 9, 81–96. 10.1080/14649350701843887
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R. (2015). Revising finnish planning legislation: more agonism? Nordregio News 2, pp. 12–15. Retrieved September 18, 2016, from http://www.nordregio.se/Global/Publications/Publications%202015/NN%20Issue%202%202015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., & Jarenko, K. (2014). Communicative planning theory following deliberative democracy theory: Critical pragmatism and the trading zone concept. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3, 38–50. 10.4018/IJEPR
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., & Mattila, H. (2016). Elinkeinoelämän kilpailunäkökulman huomioiminen kunnan maankäyttöpolitiikassa. [The perspective of economic competition in the land use politics of a municipality] In S. Puustinen, R. Mäntysalo & K. Ilari (Eds.) (2016) Strateginen eheyttäminen kaupunkiseuduilla. Näkökulmia kestävän maankäytön ja julkisen talouden kysymyksiin [Strategic integration in urban regions. Approaches to sustainable land use and public economy] (pp. 62–73). Helsinki: Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 4/2016.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., & Saglie, I.-L. (2010). Private influence preceding public involvement: Strategies for legitimizing preliminary partnership arrangements in urban housing planning in Norway and Finland. Planning Theory & Practice, 11, 317–338. 10.1080/14649357.2010.500123
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Saglie, I.-L., & Cars, G. (2011). Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: Defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in nordic land-use planning. European Planning Studies, 19, 2109–2126. 10.1080/09654313.2011.632906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Jarenko, K., Nilsson, K. L., & Saglie, I. L. (2015a). Legitimacy of informal strategic urban planning – observations from Finland, Sweden and Norway. European Planning Studies, 23, 349–366. 10.1080/09654313.2013.861808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Kangasoja, J. K., & Kanninen, V. (2015b). The paradox of strategic spatial planning: A theoretical outline with a view on Finland. Planning Theory and Practice, 16, 257–272.
   Google Scholar
• Möttönen, S. (1997). Tulosjohtaminen ja valta poliittisten päätöksentekijöiden ja viranhaltijoiden välisissä suhteissa [Management by results and power in the interrelations between political decision-makers and public administrators]. Helsinki: Suomen kuntaliitto.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems and planning projects. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203427941
   Google Scholar
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 97–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyman, K. (2000). Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki: henki vai kirjain. Yhteiskuntasuunnittelu [The finnish journal of urban studies], 38, 6–16.
   Google Scholar
• Nyman, K., & Mäntysalo, R. (2014). Patologisia piirteitä maakäyttö- ja rakennuslain sovelluksissa. Tapaus Savonlinnan Kasinonsaari [Pathological features in the applications of Land Use and Building Act. The case of Kasinonsaari, Savonlinna]. Kunnallistieteellinen aikakauskirja, 42, 324–339.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Offe, Claus (1999). How can we trust our fellow citizens? In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 42–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511659959
   Google Scholar
• Pakarinen, T. (1992). Kohti moniarvoista yhdyskuntasuunnittelua [Towards pluralistic urban planning]. In S. Aura & P. Siitonen (Eds.), Kunta, kuntalainen ja ympäristö – ympäristön kehittämisen haasteet (pp. 119–131). Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, O. (1999). Liberty against the democratic state: On the historical and contemporary sources of American distrust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 151–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511659959
   Google Scholar
• Peltonen, L. (2008). Nimby-kiistojen ratkaisumallit. [Models of conflict resolution in nimby disputes] In Kopomaa, T. et al. (Eds.), ( 2008): Ei meidän pihallemme! Paikalliset kiistat tilasta [Not in our backyard! local disputes over space]. (pp. 237–265). Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
   Google Scholar
• Peltonen, L. & Villanen, S. (2004). Maankäytön konfliktit ja niiden ratkaisumahdollisuudet kaavoituksessa – Osa I: katsaus käsitteisiin ja kirjallisuuteen. [Land use conflicts and their resolution in urban planning – Part I: a review of concepts and literature]. Suomen ympäristö 723. Ministry of Environment, Helsinki. Electronic publication at. Retrieved from http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=111442&lan=fi
   Google Scholar
• Pierre, J. (1999). Models of urban governance. The institutional dimension of urban politics. Urban Affairs Review, 34, 372–396. 10.1177/10780879922183988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251–267. 10.2307/2586011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory, 8, 140–165. 10.1177/1473095209102232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puustinen, S. (2002). Suunnittelijat yleisen edun takaajina? [Planners as Guarantors of Public I+nterest?] In P. Bäcklund & J. Häkli & H. Schulman (Eds.) (2002) Osalliset ja osaajat. Kansalaiset kaupungin suunnittelussa. [Stakeholders and experts. Residents participating city planning] (pp. 218–243). Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
   Google Scholar
• Puustinen, S. (2006). Suomalainen kaavoittajaprofessio ja suunnittelun kommunikatiivinen käänne. Vuorovaikutuksen liittyvät ongelmat ja mahdollisuudet suurten kaupunkien kaavoittajien näkökulmasta [The finnish planning profession and the communicative turn in planning]. Espoo: Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja A 34. Teknillinen korkeakoulu.
   Google Scholar
• Puustinen, S., Hirvonen, J., Niemi, P., & Mäntysalo, R. (2013). Selvitys alueidenkäytön suunnittelun ja ohjauksen voimavaroista [Report on the resources available for land use planning and guidance]. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 22.
   Google Scholar
• Puustinen, S., Mäntysalo, R., & Karppi, I. (eds.) (2016). Strateginen eheyttäminen kaupunkiseuduilla. Näkökulmia kestävän maankäytön ja julkisen talouden kysymyksiin [Strategic integration in urban regions. approaches to sustainable land use and public economy]. Helsinki: Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 4/2016.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, V. (1990). The evolution of reflective teaching and teacher education. In R. T. Clift; W. R. Houston & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education. An analysis of issues and programs, 3–19. New York, NY: Teachers College Press).
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot: Avebury.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2005). Communicative planners as naïve mandarins of the neo-liberal state? European Journal of Spatial Development, Dec. (Debate), pp. 1–9. Retrieved May 30, 2013, from http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/debate051208.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2009). Planners’ role: Torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities. European Planning Studies, 17, 65–84. 10.1080/09654310802513948
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2013). Reviving critical planning theory. Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Staffans, A. (2004). Vaikuttavat asukkaat. Vuorovaikutus ja paikallinen tieto kaupunkisuunnittelun haasteina [Influential residents. Interaction and local knowledge challenging urban planning and design]. Espoo: Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus. ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja A 29. Teknillinen korkeakoulu
   Google Scholar
• Stenius, H. (2012). Paradoxes of the finnish political culture. In J. P. Árnason & B. Wittrock (Eds.), Nordic paths to modernity (pp. 207–228). New York NY: Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Svallfors, S. (2013). Government quality, egalitarianism, and attitudes to taxes and social spending: A European comparison. European Political Science Review, 5, 363–380. 10.1017/S175577391200015X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, C. & Tait, M. (2007). The crisis of trust and planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 8, 229–247. 10.1080/14649350701324458
   Google Scholar
• Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust. A sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tait, M. (2011). Trust and the public interest in the micropolitics of planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31, 157–171. 10.1177/0739456X11402628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tulkki, K. (1994). Murtumia. Kaupunkisuunnittelu taitekohdassa. Keravan keskustan suunnittelu 1990-91 [Fractures. Urban planning in a turning point. The planning of Kerava city centre 1990–91]. Espoo: Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun täydennyskoulutuskeskus, julkaisu C 34).
   Google Scholar
• Uslaner, E. M. (1999). Democracy and Social Capital. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 121–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511659959
   Google Scholar
• Vigar, G. (2012). Planning and professionalism: Knowledge, judgement and expertise in English planning. Planning Theory, 11, 361–378. 10.1177/1473095212439993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. (1999a). Democracy theory and trust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 310–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511659959
   Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. (1999b). Introduction. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 1–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511659959
   Google Scholar
• Yanar, A. (1999). The silenced complexity of architectural design studio tradition. Pedagogy, epistemology and the question of power. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.
   Google Scholar