Tore Sager Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway
Planning Theory 2015, Vol. 14(3) 268– 295.
Abstract
The aim is to study how ideologies come through in urban regeneration plans. Neo-liberalism, participatory democracy and environmentalism are systems of ideas competing for the minds of citizens in large parts of the world. Typical urban policies linked to each ideology are listed to provide a basis for identifying features of development plans that reflect aspirations for an entrepreneurial, green or open and inclusive society. A case study from Trondheim, Norway, maps ideological traces in waterfront development plans. The central question to be addressed is whether the internationally widespread allegations of neo-liberal hegemony over urban plans are reasonable. In light of the case data, it can be questioned whether neo-liberal ideology, although influential, is hegemonic in the plans. This doubt lingers, even if the chosen case Nedre Elvehavn is the kind of large-scale transformation of former dockyards close to the central business district that is often regarded as prototypical neo-liberal development in academic planning literature.
Keywords
case study, communicative planning theory, hegemony, ideology, neo-liberalism, planning theory, sustainable development, waterfront development
Introduction
There is an ongoing discussion in urban geography and planning about the status of neo-liberalism as a determinant of the physical and economic realities in cities. One camp sees neo-liberalism as hegemonic or dominant and regards indications of alternative ideologies just as stabilizing complements to neo-liberal capital accumulation (Béal, 2012; Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Cahill, 2007; Farhat, 2014; Goonewardena, 2003; Jessop, 2002; Long, 2012; Perkins, 2013; Purcell, 2009). The other camp questions the view that changes to the regulation and governance of cities throughout the world can be adequately understood by models featuring neo-liberalism as the one central explanatory variable (Baeten, 2012b: 25; Baptista, 2013; Barnett, 2005; Collier, 2012; Leitner et al., 2007; Parnell and Robinson, 2012; Raco, 2005; Thurbon, 2012). In the words of McGuirk (2005), ‘to cast planning as having been neoliberalised is an over-simplification’ (p. 67). This debate has great bearing on planning theory. One reason is that the outcome determines how the academic planning community will conceive the multitude of critical bottom-up planning initiatives on all continents. Are they predetermined to unintentionally serve neo-liberal interests, or do at least some of them have the potential to engender real political change?
This article takes as its starting point three ideologies prevalent among democratic states and uses an urban regeneration case to study how they – neo-liberalism, participatory democracy and environmentalism (the nature protection part of sustainable development) – appear in planning for a more compact city. Similarly to Tasan-Kok and Baeten (2012), it reports on a detailed study of ‘how planners respond to the overruling profit principle in land allocation and what is left of non-profit driven development’ (Tasan- Kok and Baeten, 2012: 206). The analysis reveals several difficulties in judging about the hegemony of neo-liberalism in urban planning. Such hegemony can be hypothesized because of neo-liberalism’s strong backing in the business community, and the support given to this ideology by the government reform movement, new public management (Lane, 2000), which has adherents from the political right to the social democrats.
The research questions (RQs) addressed in this study are quite general, although answers are sought within the framework of a Norwegian case.
RQ1: How are the ideologies of neo-liberalism, participatory democracy and environmentalism revealed in planning documents and plans for a more compact city?The second question is pertinent, as an increasing share of development plans is made by private developers motivated by the profit that can be made on the project. The trend of more private initiatives is observed both in Norway and several other countries (Mäntysalo and Saglie, 2010; Shatkin, 2008).
RQ2: Do neo-liberal policies hegemonically overshadow other concerns in the implementation of plans for urban regeneration?
In the early 21st century, it is common in most countries that plans for the city are influenced by business-minded economic growth ideology. But they may also be formed to a certain extent by ‘green’ ideology and by democratic ideology of an open, participatory and inclusive society. The article suggests one way of finding indications of different ideologies in planning documents at the municipal and more local level. A case study of comprehensive regeneration of an urban waterfront area shows how all three ideologies can shine through in plans for a compact city (Jenks et al., 1996).
The meaning given to ideology and hegemony in this article will now be explained, while the concept of neo-liberalism and the other ideologies are clarified in the next section. The concept of ideology is applied here without any connotation to false consciousness and other mechanisms sustaining relationships of domination, a meaning which is attributed to the notion in the Marxist tradition (Thompson, 1984). In this analysis, ideology takes on the philosophically neutral interpretation of a system of coherent images and ideas about the world, equal to the Oxford dictionary meaning of a set of ideas or beliefs that form the basis of an economic or political theory or that are held by a particular group or person.
Adhering to the Marxist conceptualization of ideology, or the Lacanian reformulation applied by Gunder (2010), one easily ends up with a position that makes the RQs of this study uninteresting. Planning has an ideological component, and according to Marxist and Lacanian views, it ‘largely reflects the dominant ideology of the time, which in much of the world continues to be defined by the evolving capitalist market’ (Gunder, 2010: 309). Gunder (2010) concludes that ‘(p)lanning is the ideology of contemporary neoliberal space’ (p. 308). Should this be a preset assumption in this study, consistency would require that the development plan regulations in line with neo-liberal and pro-business ideology be seen as clearly more important than regulations reflecting other ideologies. With a Marxist starting point, the conclusion would thus be predetermined, and the study would be superfluous.
Just as ideology, the concept of hegemony is given quite different meanings in the social science literature, and it is therefore equally much in need of clarification. One ambiguity was introduced in political philosophy by Gramsci (1971), who, according to Adamson (1980: 10), had not one but two concepts of hegemony. In the following, the interpretation of hegemony as a stage in the political moment when the proletariat unites ideologically and politically (Adamson, 1980: 161) is set aside. Instead, this study treats hegemony as consensual civil society acceptance of policies that are in line with a particular ideology (Adamson, 1980: 141, 170). In this lies the attraction of the concept of hegemony; it broadens the ways in which political power is seen to operate – through consent as well as coercion. Peet (2002) follows Gramsci and defines a hegemonic level of consciousness in society, ‘harmonizing the interests of the leading and subordinate classes into an ideology expressed universalistically’ (p. 56). Even though neo-liberal ideology serves the class interests of capital by stressing that private property and capital accumulation through market transactions are essential to economic growth, hegemony and a sense of harmony can be built, as economic growth is seen by other classes as indispensable for the increased material well-being of the entire population (Peet, 2002: 56–57). Hegemony is a political type of relation maintained by an ideology able to embrace what opposes it (Laclau and Mouffe, 2001: 139).
Hegemony denotes general tacit or active support rather than domination by the use of force. A hegemonic ideology has no serious rival in the formation of public opinion. It has established itself as a cultural norm that is appropriate in most spheres of life and is exercised ‘via human mediation: policies, political leaders, parties, as also a good many intellectuals and experts’ (Lefebvre, 1991: 10). As a simplification, one can say that neoliberalism is hegemonic to the extent that it has succeeded in establishing a view of society that emphasizes the appropriateness of business logic in all spheres of public life. Hegemonic ideology affects the production of space and place, and its policies consistently determine planned physical realities at the expense of alternative policies. The meaning of hegemony outlined here seems to be in accordance with the use of the concept by most scholars contending that neo-liberalism is a hegemonic influence on planning. Such congruence is necessary to shed light on RQ2 above.
The steps of the argument can now be outlined. The following section clarifies the ideologies, providing necessary reference points when looking for manifestations of ideology in local plans. Before we turn to this search, however, methodological problems of subjectivity, ideological overlap and delimitation of neo-liberalism are discussed. Then the case area is presented, both the Norwegian city of Trondheim and the centrally located waterfront redevelopment of Nedre Elvehavn. The search for ideological traces requires a study of ownership and finances, the goals and intentions of strategic municipal plans and the provisions of numerous development plans for the regeneration area. The conclusion positions this research in the international discussion about the allegedly hegemonic status of the neo-liberal ideology in the city planning of many countries.
Three ideologies
This section briefly outlines the main ideas of neo-liberalism, participative democracy and environmentalism (the nature protection part of sustainable development). The purpose is to deduce from these main ideas some policies that may be traced in the regulations of urban development plans.
Neo-liberalism
Neo-liberalism refers to the repudiation of welfare state economics and the ascendance of market liberalization. The neo-liberal doctrine is that virtually all economic and social problems have a market solution (Peck and Tickell, 2002). The welfare policies of the state need to be restructured on the basis of personal responsibility and sound economic housekeeping principles. The border between public and private must be redrawn to support this restructuring and to ensure that state regulation promotes competition and strives for the implementation of market solutions (Saad-Filho and Johnston, 2005). The market should discipline politics, which is contrary to the social democratic view that politics should discipline the market.
New public management is a set of ideas applying neo-liberalism to public sector management (Lane, 2000). Public agencies should be organized and managed in accordance with the same logic of competition and economic efficiency as private companies. State failure is typically regarded as worse than market failure, and this lies at the bottom of the neo-liberal critique of planning. Much of urban public planning is seen as distortion of market mechanisms, and thus as a threat to private motivation and efficient allocation of resources (Tasan-Kok and Baeten, 2012).
Internationally, the current neo-liberalization is partly shaped by economic globalization and international capital mobility and is characterized by fewer restrictions on business operations, extended property rights, privatization, public–private partnerships, deregulation, devolution of central government, uneven economic development and – in many societies – increasing social polarization (Harvey, 2005). The discourse of political geography has nevertheless shown that no country – not even Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom or the United States – has implemented a prototype of neoliberalism featuring all its theoretical characteristics in pure form (Peck et al., 2009). Some neo-liberal regimes try to roll back the state, limiting its role to providing the basic framework of rules required for market actors to operate freely. Others use marketoriented means for strategic purposes, that is, to influence economic activity for broader social or economic goals, even if this will inevitably distort allocative efficiency and should be avoided according to neo-liberal ideology. Strategic purposes could be full employment, promoting cornerstone industries or facilitating compact cities (Thurbon, 2012: 183).
Individualism, entrepreneurialism and freedom of choice are among the values of neo-liberalism. It supports consumers’ voice and choice in the public sector, that is, ‘consumer sovereignty’. A case can also be made that neo-liberal reforms of local government in many countries approve efforts to strengthen consumers’ interests by widespread consultation (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2001). There is a potential overlap with the ideology of participative democracy on this point. But the individualism behind neo-liberal values might give room for display of selfishness, which stands in contrast to the empathy and mutual understanding encouraged by communicative planning theory.
A total of 14 neo-liberal policies for urban planning are described by Sager (2011). Those that are most relevant for this case study are listed below:
- City marketing
- Economic development incentives
- Competitive bidding
- Public–private partnerships
- Property-led urban regeneration
- Privatization of public space and sales-boosting exclusion
- Privately governed and secured neighbourhoods
The policies on the list reflect a cluster of recurring features and family resemblances associated with neo-liberalism. They are part of the same economizing mode of market rationality insisting on the primacy of the private. Some of the neo-liberal policies expand the use of private solutions to urban problems, some aim for more competition and freer use of private property, while still others put emphasis on serving developers and their favoured customers.
Participatory democracy
Participatory democracy is given a meaning similar to deliberative democracy (Bohman and Rehg, 1997). The term participatory democracy is preferred here, as the development plans that are examined express the need for participation in the various activities of urban society more clearly than they articulate the desirability of deliberation. Easily accessible places for meeting indoors as well as outdoors stimulate both participation and deliberation, though. Communicative planning is an integral part of deliberative and participatory democracy (Sager, 2013: 3–33). Requirements for citizen participation are incorporated in the planning legislation of many countries (OECD, 2001). Moreover, the participatory ideology enters urban planning through a concern for places and designs that stimulate inclusion, public access, interaction, deliberation, identity formation and a sense of belonging. In this research, participatory democracy points more to possibilities for taking part in society’s many activities, than to involvement in planning processes.
Ideally, communicative planning is an open and deliberative enterprise involving a broad range of affected groups in socially oriented and/or fairness-seeking developments of land, infrastructure or public services. It is guided by a process exploring the potential for co-operative ways of settling planning disputes. Development efforts are socially oriented when they aim to further the interests of large segments of society rather than the interests of a few stakeholders only. Furthermore, development is fairness-seeking when it aims to improve the living conditions of deprived groups and when its substantive results observe the rights of all groups. Empowerment, fairness, inclusiveness and toleration are among the values of participatory democracy.
Substantive policies bear upon the outcome of the planning, the substance rather than the process. A set of policies is needed which suggests how values of participatory democracy can be translated into practical efforts to change the physical structure of the city. The idea is to identify policies leading to better living conditions in the form of an open and inclusive society. These substantive policies should explicitly point back to – and be closely associated with – the procedural values that are the basis of planning process design and desirable planner conduct according to communicative planning theory.
The list of policies in Box 1 makes no claim to be exhaustive, but taken together the policies are associated with most procedural values of communicative planning theory. The listed policies are substantive, as they can have direct bearing on the physical outcome. They are nevertheless process-dependent in that the likelihood of their fulfilment depends on the design of the planning process. Not only urban planning but also the city itself should be inclusive. In many planning cases, this would give rise to substantive policies such as keeping urban space public, safe and open to a wide range of activities.
A closer relationship between process and substance has long been requested in communicative planning theory, but few examples exist of policy formulations that bridge the gap between planned outcome and procedural values. The list in Box 1 is included because the link between process values and product qualities has been particularly diffuse on the planning side of participatory democratic ideology.
Environmentalism
Concerning green ideology, I follow the Brundtland Commission and regard sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (United Nations (UN), 1987). Environmental protection is paramount in order to ensure good future living conditions and social equity between generations. The Commission also points to the importance of a sound economy and meeting the essential needs of the poor today. It is, however, the environmental perspective that most clearly sets the sustainability ideology apart from participatory democracy and neo-liberalism, so an emphasis here on the natural environment gives less overlap with the other ideologies. It also avoids obscuring environmental justice ‘under the primacy of the economic imperative within dominant institutional interpretations of the sustainable development narrative’ (Gunder, 2006: 208). In this research, environmentalism is seen in relation to urban planning, which suggests that climate change and reuse of resources, for example, warrant more attention than protection of pristine nature and endangered species. Green policies have filtered into local plans through, for example, Local Agenda 21 (UN, 1993).
Box 1. Urban policies corresponding to the values of participatory democracy (and communicative planning theory).
|
There is no lack of political goal formulations concerning sustainable development, and they all articulate values more or less explicitly (Earth Charter Commission, 2000). Several UN documents deal with the matter, for example, the Millennium Declaration (UN, 2000: Chapter 4). Depletion of resources and destruction of natural habitats are among the most severe threats to the living standard of future generations. Among the green values are inter-generational fairness, stewardship for nature and ecological integrity (acknowledging ecological balance of human needs and resilient habitats).
Fairness is linked to environmental protection in the green ideology, as people living in the near future can improve their economic welfare at the expense of later generations by more intense exploitation of nature. The concern for inter-generational equity logically leads to concern for intra-generational equity, as there is no reason why poverty in the future should be considered more intolerable than the degrading living conditions of the seriously deprived of today. In an urban planning context, it is important to note that equity concerns are not limited to income but can be extended, for example, to safety and health, as argued by the environmental justice movement (Mohai et al., 2009). The more intra-generational equity is accentuated, the more significant will be the overlap between environmental and participatory ideologies.
The focus of this article is on compact city development, and attention is given to policies for the central city rather than suburbs and peripheral transitions zones. A set of green urban policies is shown below. Most of the policies leave their mark directly on the urban physical structure, indicating an emphasis here on infrastructure and urban development rather than service provision:
- Urban intensification and high-density, mixed-use development to avoid sprawl and superfluous motorized travelling
- Infrastructure and facilities for environmentally friendly vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians
- Restrictions on energy use and car parking in new housing projects
- Energy-efficient and climate-friendly heating (district heating)
- Green lungs, parks and planting
- Clean-up or removal of polluted soil and sediments before building on a site
- Waste collection systems designed for recycling, recovery and pre-separation at source
The set of policies has a bias towards technical sectors that are of great importance to land use, for example, transport. Moreover, the set contains policies that are likely to be described in development plans and municipal plans, which were both examined in the case study. Altogether, we now have three lists of policies that will prove helpful in identifying traces of neo-liberal, participatory and environmental ideologies in different development plans.
Methodological issues
Some types of information can only be elicited by studying the planning and decisionmaking process as it evolves. Neo-liberal thinking could be more accurately pinpointed by following closely the unfolding of the argumentation between the actors. For selected parts of the planning process, such a method of study would be feasible and fruitful. But it is hardly possible with participant observation during the entire process when it, as in the present case, stretches over nearly three decades. I contend that there are traces of ideologies in the development plans, and they are identified and listed. But I did no participant observation and must merely assume that these features of the plans follow from ideological work; I do not show how they actually came to be included. That is, I do not know that development plan regulations came into place as a conscious effort to comply with particular ideologies.
Only tentative judgment about neo-liberal hegemony can be made from a single case. In light of the international debate on hegemony mentioned at the outset, it is nonetheless of interest to demonstrate that there is no straightforward answer to the question of neoliberal hegemony in urban planning. Competing ideologies can be overshadowed to various degrees in different urban contexts, and there is no objective criterion for deciding whether neo-liberal hegemony is present.
The necessary use of subjective judgment to arrive at a conclusion regarding neoliberal hegemony may be troubling, but the problem is very familiar also in other areas of planning theory. Neither urban planning nor its theorizing can do without judgment. What is paramount is to establish a basis for the judgment which can be scrutinized. The analysis must be transparent, and the case description credible and thus sufficiently detailed. In the research at hand, the case study results in construction of three lists of regulations – one for each ideology – derived from more than 20 detailed development plans. These lists are helpful in judging the relative influence of neo-liberalism compared to the other ideologies. This makes the lists a tool for the reader wanting to check whether the judgment and conclusion of the author are reasonable or not.
There can be great discrepancies between the goals and intentions of the strategic plans encompassing the whole municipality (structure plans) and the actual implementation of improvements. Such gaps between written plans and built reality are insignificant at the level of smaller areas and individual properties, as development plans are legally binding in Norway. To avoid doubt on this point, I have inspected the entire case area repeatedly over the period 2011–2013, comparing regulation details with physical outcome. Observation of the case area after completion gives the necessary overall impression of the place. It reveals what kinds of firms are actually moving into the area, and it shows the physical consequences of changes and revisions of plans that might have been overlooked in the reading. The lists of planning provisions corresponding to the three ideologies are based on area development plans and detailed development plans, not the structure plans.
We now turn to some problems that are peculiar to the research at hand and increase the uncertainty of what is a sound judgment on neo-liberal hegemony. The most serious difficulty is the overlaps between neo-liberalism and other thought systems. Two sides of this problem can be distinguished. The first arises because of elements and policies that neo-liberalism shares with the two other ideologies dealt with here, that is, participatory democracy and environmentalism. The other arises because neo-liberalism, as it appears in development plans and built urban structures, can hardly be distinguished from general pro-business policies and economic growth strategies. For convenience, I call the first situation the ‘overlap problem’, while the second is denoted the ‘demarcation problem’.
The demarcation problem is evident also in other studies of neo-liberal planning. Baeten (2012a), for example, see planning attempts at contesting neo-liberalism as resisting or tempering ‘the revival of profit-driven changes in land use’ (p. 206). He treats neo-liberalization as emerging market triumphalism. Planners’ fight against neoliberalism is studied by observing their response ‘to the overruling profit principle in land allocation’ (Baeten, 2012a: 206). The demarcation problem is less vexing than the overlap problem in the present piece of research. Some of the regulations from detailed development plans that have been listed as neo-liberal might not really deserve that label, although they are pro-business and promote economic growth. Even so, the demarcation problem is not destructive if profit motive, growth ambition and neo-liberalism taken together are not found to clearly overshadow other ideologies. A conclusion could then be reached, as it is even less likely in such a situation that neo-liberalism alone is hegemonic.
Surely, some aspects of neo-liberalism are only indirectly linked to investor interests, such as austere financial policies (public budget cuts and saving by rolling back the welfare state, see Callinicos, 2012), and more personally responsible and less welfaredependent citizens (Howell, 2008; Raco, 2012). These sides of neo-liberalism which go beyond pro-business policies and urban growth strategies do not cause problems in the present context, as they do not affect urban regeneration in ways recognizable in the urban fabric or development plan regulations.
The difficulties with discovering and identifying traces of neo-liberal ideology are partly due to its economism. The aim for efficiency and economic growth is often articulated as calls for expanding labour markets, innovation, stimulation of the creation of new firms and anxiety-raising reports on the improved economic achievements of rival cities. Ambitions and worries of this sort are not brought to light in development plans. Changes that do come to light, for example, the appearance of a new block for office and trade, are not necessarily in themselves indications of neo-liberalism at play, as buildings with a commercial purpose are required under any economic–political regime. A further difficulty is that both process and plan are of interest when searching for traces of ideological influence. Neo-liberalists aim to change the relationships between private and public actors to restructure co-operation on the terms of the market, so it is relevant to study how the municipality co-operates with private developers. Changing terms of cooperation may concern the possibility of obtaining municipal loan warrants, the representation in steering committees, the conditions for raising objections to municipal plans and so on. Such changes are usually not brought to the public’s attention in planning documents to the same extent as, for instance, citizen participation initiatives or construction of bicycle lanes. All in all, clear evidence of neo-liberalism is harder to discern from the plans than most signs of green ideology and participatory democracy.
The overlap problem is potentially devastating to the study at hand. This is especially so in the eyes of critics who see the three ideologies as so intermingled with each other that they cannot be meaningfully separated. However, such a position might just reveal that the critic has already taken a stand in the hegemony debate, regarding neo-liberalism as dominant. Other critics hold that the three ideologies have similar views in some policy areas, without giving primacy to neo-liberalism. To the extent that such overlap exists, it weakens the logic of this research. It should be noted that the rationale of the entire hegemony debate would also be undermined. It makes no sense to discuss the relative strength and thrust of three ideologies that in reality are one.
It seems to be a more common position to acknowledge some overlap between the ideologies, but nevertheless regard the hegemony debate as meaningful. The admission that a clear conclusion concerning neo-liberal hegemony cannot be reached may well follow from this position. We now look briefly at a few arguments for overlap before turning to other problems of method.
Social democratic parties in several Nordic countries were inspired by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ideas about a Third Way when modernizing their ideologies (Green-Pedersen and Van Kersbergen, 2002; Kuisma and Ryner, 2012). This was also the case with the Norwegian Labour Party (Sitter, 2006: 573, 577). The Third Way is, at least partly, an attempt at compromise between neo-liberalism and social democratic ideas about the welfare state (Giddens, 1999), retaining a commitment to human emancipation and social justice. Under Third Way regimes, one would expect that elements of neo-liberalism, environmentalism and participatory democracy could all come to the surface in development plan regulations.
The claim for overlap between neo-liberalism and participatory democracy is often couched in terms of a critique of communicative planning theory. Already the observation that the political rise of neo-liberalism and the breakthrough of communicative planning theory in the United States both took place in the early 1980s is enough to make critics suspicious (Fainstein and Fainstein, 2013; Purcell, 2008). The main argument is, however, that the flexibility of negotiable land use plans will legitimize property-led development and necessarily serve investor and real estate interests (Gunder, 2010; Tasan-Kok, 2008). Norman and Susan Fainstein (2013) put it like this:
As development planning became increasingly privatized and a product of individual deals between private firms and the public sector, the planner as mediator among politicians, business executives, and affected community groups essentially became a facilitator of market processes. (p. 41)The policy overlap mainly consists in both ideologies preferring locally negotiated solutions to top-down initiatives sanctioned in a closed political–bureaucratic process. The critics do not pay much attention to the very different intentions, values and views on equity, fairness, inclusiveness and empowerment of ordinary people that set neoliberalism and communicative planning theory apart.
It should be noted that the question of whether one ideology serves another is different from the question of ideological overlap. Pushed to the extreme, capitalism serves Marxism very well, as there would be no Marxism without capitalism. Adherents of different ideologies can in some matters have common interests and support the same policy. None of this implies that the value content of the ideologies overlaps. The distinction between serving and overlapping is relevant to the critique above, as well as to the following remarks on policies that environmentalism and neo-liberalism have in common.
Contentions about overlap between green and neo-liberal policies are common in planning theory. Developers gain from compact cities and high densities around transit nodes, which are also green policies. As Tretter (2013) states, ‘The compatibility between an agenda for sustainable urban development and the neoliberal economic restructuring of urban space has been observed within cities in developed countries across the globe’ (p. 297). Urban entrepreneurs take advantage of the active remaking of urban environments and ecologies, and the economic support that is provided in many cities to local green industries:
(A)ctive environmental policies and interventions such as river restoration, the cleaning up of old industrial sites, or ‘eco-investment’ in public transport have been significant not only in re-imagining cities, but have also been important in opening up actual urban spaces for new waves of investment and bringing back the middle classes in the city or stabilizing workingclass communities …. Similarly, investment in energy and waste management schemes not only offers incentives in terms of a green image, but also cost savings for residents and businesses. (While et al., 2004: 550)The environmental justice movement (Gibson-Wood and Wakefield, 2013; Mohai et al., 2009) is a strong indication that the value of fairness is held in high regard both in green and participatory ideology. However, overlaps between these ideologies do not aggravate the problem of judging on neo-liberal hegemony. The support for each of the three ideologies would have been easier to pin down if it could be assumed that neoliberals have no interest in promoting any of the other ideologies out of a belief that this indirectly supports neo-liberalism. That is, if the ideology of neo-liberalism could be seen as independent of the other two in the sense that neo-liberalism and the others cannot be mutually reinforcing. The more there are of overlapping interests, the higher the risk of underestimating the influence of neo-liberalism.
It is not possible to give a general answer to the question of whether the stronger ideology or the one with less support will gain the most from policy overlap. The weaker ideology will probably seem less threatening or offensive to the majority when they recognize in it some of their own ideas and policies. On the other hand, overlap advances the stronger ideology’s striving for hegemony. Hegemonic ideology is not forced upon people. It must be compatible with their everyday life, so that it becomes lived rather than imposed (Perkins, 2013: 316). Common ground with rival ideologies increases the chances that this will happen, and that people will generally acquiesce in neo-liberalism. Overlap with policies of participatory democracy increases the legitimizing value of acquiescence, as acceptance of market solutions to social problems is obtained despite the opportunities for protest and mobilization of opposition that are offered in participatory and communicative planning. The obscure ideological fronts further the formation of coalitions among different interests which is a characteristic of hegemony (Barnett, 2005).
Despite the methodological problems mentioned, it is a fact that many contributions to the planning literature contend that urban plans are dominated by capitalism, that they almost exclusively serve investor interests or demonstrate neo-liberal hegemony in planning. Such conclusions are in most cases drawn without addressing the difficulties dealt with in this section. It is all the more important to examine the question of neo-liberal hegemony on the basis of case studies explicitly recognizing the problems of ideological demarcation and overlap.
Context of the empirical study
The case study on waterfront development in Trondheim, Norway, connects well with international planning literature. Within the wider field of urban regeneration, there is a voluminous literature on waterfront development. Gordon (1996) studies London Docklands and North American cases, while Galland and Hansen (2012) analyse a Scandinavian case. However, examples are not just restricted to post-industrial cities in the West but are also seen in the fast-developing economies of Latin America, the Gulf States and South East Asia (Brownill, 2013: 45). Many of the emblematic projects needed substantial government subsidies to get started (Gordon, 1997). Even so, largescale urban regeneration on the waterfront is often associated with neo-liberal policy (Brownill, 2013; Desfor and Jørgensen, 2004; Lehrer and Laidley, 2008; Murphy, 2008; Oakley, 2011; O’Callaghan and Linehan, 2007; Scharenberg and Bader, 2009; Swyngedouw et al., 2002). When selecting the waterfront regeneration area of Nedre Elvehavn for closer study, the idea was that if neo-liberal economic interests are not shown to dominate planning there, they are even less likely to be hegemonic in other kinds of large-scale urban development projects in Norway.
There are several reasons why flagship waterfront projects are so often, almost on reflex, described as neo-liberal in the planning literature. The considerable size of many waterfront redevelopment areas and their high visibility in the cityscape make them strategically important sites for demonstrating the neo-liberal competitiveness of the city, and its ambition to please the creative class. Moreover, the potential value of localities that can be turned into attractive meeting points between the shopping and entertainment of the central city and the recreational possibilities of the water creates a huge difference in rental income between the up-scale housing and office in demand today, and the derelict or worn-down maritime industry of yesterday.
Similarities between large-scale waterfront projects have repeatedly been pointed out. Cook and Ward (2012) ask, ‘(H)ow is it that so many geographically discrete cities have “chosen” to redevelop their waterfront, often along remarkably similar lines?’ (p. 778). Architects, planners and policy actors in different cities and countries may have kindred ideas of urbanism, aesthetics and good city life. They may learn from each other about how to manage and finance the projects and how to organize the co-operation between local government and private actors. If so, successful neo-liberal regeneration in one city may well promote neo-liberalism in other cities.
Single firms usually find it unprofitable to locate in derelict districts, as it would be difficult to attract customers, especially when rivers, railways and the like set the area off from the busiest quarters. Wholesale transformation of districts that the public tends to see as the backyard of the city is considered risky by private investors and developers. A period of economic upswing is normally required in order to make big expansion of space for office, retail and service lucrative, but economic peaks and troughs are unpredictable. Investors’ capital costs accumulate over a number of years before income is generated, and this is especially so when implementation of plans is postponed due to an economic downturn, as in the case at hand.
Private investors often see it as an advantage that the municipality becomes economically involved. This can mean extra investment funds or guarantees and assistance with assembling the properties needed. The risk of municipal loss provides local politicians with a solid motive for implementing the plans and not causing delay. In some cases, it can motivate a stricter enforcement of policies against peripheral shopping centres and temper political enthusiasm for developing other residential areas that might threaten the demand for dwellings in the urban transformation project. The municipality receives less taxes and fees during economic slumps, while social challenges and concomitant expenses increase. Large-scale regeneration can stimulate influx of tax-paying firms and residents, but the municipality cannot handle investments in the billion dollar class alone. The situation then invites public–private partnership (Hodge et al., 2010) and sometimes – as in the case of Nedre Elvehavn – rethinking of the terms of public–private co-operation.
Several types of planning documents have been examined for the planning and construction period of the case Nedre Elvehavn, that is, from about 1983 to 2013. Strategic plans encompassing the whole municipality of Trondheim (structure plans) consist of the land use part and the part for social strategies. At a more local level, there are development plans, which are legally binding. These plans can regulate the land use of an entire development area or regulate the use of a single plot in detail. The area development plan is of particular importance because it determines the overall use of the land, the mix of functions and the future character of the place. Different ideologies also put their marks on detailed plans regulating the utilization of each plot, however. I have also looked into the development agreements between the municipality and the development company. Goals and objectives related to land use will be reflected in the provisions of development plans and agreements. But the decisive moves concerning the development of the city are made at the structure plan level. Documents at both planning levels must be studied to gain adequate information about policies (Falleth and Saglie, 2011; Leknes et al., 2005).
The study of planning documents was supplemented by newspaper articles complementing and commenting on the information found in the plans. In addition, I interviewed the central architect working on the area development plan and the former managing director of the development company Nedre Elvehavn A/S in order to gain more knowledge about the relationships between the public and private sectors.
The case and the area development plan
The case area is situated in Trondheim, the third biggest city in Norway, with a registered population of 177,000 in 2012. Students enrolled in institutions of higher education bring the number of people living in the city up to 200,000. Trondheim is located on the fiord and has a longstanding tradition of maritime industry. However, land transport gradually replaced much coastal shipping, the service-providing sector expanded and the maritime production industry met fierce competition from abroad throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Several central localities along the waterfront suffered loss of viable industry and became candidate sites for large-scale urban transformation.
The case for this study is Nedre Elvehavn (Lower River Harbour) on the eastern riverbank, separated from the central business district (CBD) of Trondheim only by the river Nidelven (Figure 1). The regeneration area is connected to the city centre by road bridges at its southern and northern borders and by a new bridge for pedestrians and cyclists with one bridgehead in the centre of the renewal area. The urban development transformed docks, former shipyards and other maritime industry equal to the size of about 20% of downtown Trondheim.
The shipbuilding yards in Nedre Elvehavn were no longer in operation by 1983. The architectural competition for redevelopment was organized in 1985 and resulted in two contributions sharing the prize. Their idea was to fill the area with flats of various sizes, shops and offices, restaurants, small-scale industry, kindergarten and social meeting places and ample space for cultural activities. Maritime industry was to be replaced by service and knowledge industry similar to current transformations in many other cities worldwide (Bunce and Desfor, 2007; Mann, 1988). Remembrances of the shipbuilding era, such as production buildings, docks and conspicuous equipment, were meant to give character to the modernized district (Westerberg, 2004: 243).
 |
| Figure 1. The central parts of Trondheim. The town square is marked A. Nedre Elvehavn is the area between the river and the two main roads meeting at the roundabout to the northeast. |
The regeneration of former industrial land close to downtown cannot in itself be seen as a neo-liberal policy. The development strategy for Trondheim insists that ‘Even if reuse of old industrial sites – that is, demolish, change, and rebuild – is costly as well as challenging with regard to environmental clean-up, the value of preserving farmland and green areas is very high’ (Trondheim kommune, 2000: 7). Agriculture and outdoor life have strong political support, and there is broad agreement on the densification policy. Consequently, the transformation of central waterfront districts is not caused only by pressure from the business lobby.
Moreover, when shopping centre and a considerable number of new housing units are located near CBD instead of in a suburb, it can mean shorter trips in daily travelling and less car driving. The conditions offered to the private investors may still reflect neoliberal ideology, but this kind of urban densification also points to sustainability goals (Westerink et al., 2013). It can even serve inclusion and the general public’s right to the city to some extent, as it revitalizes nearly abandoned places. Worn-down areas of former maritime industry exclude nearly all the city’s inhabitants and are, in this case, a barrier for people’s access to the river. There is very little to attract the general public, and there are no gathering places. The outdated industrial design that is suitable only for fit workers discourages anybody with a mobility handicap, and nobody has any errands there. This stands in stark contrast to already modernized waterfronts in other cities and the potential in Trondheim.
National and international economic fluctuations were of great importance to the schedule of planning and implementation after the architectural competition. The area development plan was drawn up during a period of economic growth and optimism. However, reacting to an international slump, the market for housing and office space collapsed in 1988, and all buildings in Nedre Elvehavn were postponed until 1996. Westerberg (2004) (architect working for the municipality of Trondheim) writes,
At that point in time, the district could easily have been re-regulated to obtain more marketoriented development, for example, by pure residential use. Long-term goals are apt to be lost from sight when the times are difficult … Fortunately for the city and the project, the developers stuck to the vision of a diverse area guided by the comprehensive development plan. The subsequent rehabilitation and new construction was in all important aspects based on the plans from 1986-87. (p. 243)Conformity with the plans from the 1980s gave the developers some advantages, as construction could start much faster when new detailed development plans neither triggered new rounds in the bureaucracy nor invited political replays. Thus, with one notable exception, the revision of the plans around the turn of the millennium did not significantly change the character of Nedre Elvehavn in a neo-liberal direction. The immediate revisions made after the crisis were the scrapping of a big, underground parking garage and a considerable transfer of planned office space to housing. This was seen merely as an adjustment to changing demand, and it was not politically controversial.
The one exception alluded to is ‘TMV-odden’, the central plot in Nedre Elvehavn consisting of a tongue of land pointing to the river between two wharfdocks (see Figure 2). TMV-odden was regulated for non-profit purposes and the public benefit in 1987 because of its prominent location. The intention was to erect a cultural building serving the entire city on a conspicuous place on the riverbank (Clausen, 2010). The detailed development plan from 2001 regulates for the purposes of trade, office and public benefit. However, the plot was bought by the insurance company Vital, which insisted on erecting a 20,560-m2 office block. To some architects, the 6-floor building is beautiful and features many fine details (Westerberg, 2004: 246). But it gives a looming impression from most angles, it makes a stretch of the wharfside very narrow and uninviting, and until 2013, it excluded the general public even from the ground floor. The city council finally bowed to Vital’s plan for the plot, when the company threatened to move its headquarters out of Trondheim (Clausen, 2010). The shift in the plans for TMV-odden is a strong indication of neo-liberal influence in the planning history of Nedre Elvehavn.
 |
| Figure 2. Nedre Elvehavn before the northern part to the left in the picture was completed. The triangular insurance building (Vital) on TMV-odden is in the centre, with the shopping centre in the old buildings of TMV next to it on the right. At the other side of the dock, to the right in the picture, are the first housing blocks that were built in Nedre Elvehavn. Just behind Vital are the housing blocks with the roof garden. The photograph was taken towards the east from Trondheim CBD. |
Solsiden shopping centre opened in 2000, in a complex of new and old buildings which also contained offices and a row of restaurants. The subsequent construction of blocks for housing, office and commerce continued in several stages, and in 2013 only two plots remain undeveloped. Nedre Elvehavn now contains 1200 housing units, 102,500 m2 business space, kindergarten, outdoor recreation and parking garages. About 2700 people are living in the renewed area, and 3000 are working there. Nedre Elvehavn receives 12–15,000 visitors on a daily basis (Figure 3).
Results and discussion
Goals and other statements of an ideological character are especially prominent in the municipal plans dealing with social strategies. This is the planning level where good intentions can be freely aired. The strategic municipal plans do not suggest that neoliberalism has a strong position among politicians and planners in Trondheim. They do show, however, that the longstanding goal of pursuing economic growth as a road to prosperity has been coupled to newer ideas that are common elements of neo-liberal urban policy, according to international planning literature (Sager, 2011). Examples are public–private co-operation, city marketing, attracting the ‘creative class’, encouraging individual responsibility and emphasizing participation as consumers and clients instead of as citizens. Accordingly, ‘(t)he goal of residents’ participation is better use of resources’ (Trondheim kommune, 1987: 33). Nevertheless, the ideologies of participatory democracy and environmentalism are also easily recognizable in the goals and objectives of the strategic municipal plans for Trondheim.
 |
| Figure 3. The rows of high-density housing blocks in the northern part of Nedre Elvehavn have small outdoor areas at the ground level and lack space for recreation, play and practical functions. Many outdoor spaces are narrow and let in too little sun and light. |
Neo-liberal renewal would mean that the owners abandon traditional maritime activity from land that has alternative and more profitable use because of proximity to the city centre, and that the private interests get to direct joint regeneration efforts toward the use of ground space and floor space that yields the highest possible rental income. It was an indication of changing public–private relationships when the company Trondheim Byfornyelse (‘Trondheim Urban Renewal’) was founded in 1983 with Trondheim municipality as the major shareholder, but with local finance institutions and a private development company as co-owners. Trondheim Byfornyelse planned the further development of Nedre Elvehavn in common with private interests. The local newspaper Adresseavisen (28 November 1986) wrote that the arrangement was in many ways unique, as it was the first time in Norway that a municipality played such an active part in a regeneration project of this huge size.
As a consequence of the economic downturn, Trondheim Byfornyelse had to take severe losses in 1988 and was liquidated 2 years later. Nedre Elvehavn A/S became a wholly private development enterprise in 1997. The new owners paid half of what was the stipulated market value of Nedre Elvehavn A/S 10 years earlier, indicating loss to previous owners during the recession.
The market-oriented reforms in urban renewal in the 1990s led to extensive use of development agreements and construction contracts, for example, about sharing the cost of infrastructure (Mäntysalo and Saglie, 2010). The development agreement is based on the detailed development plan and specifies the terms and conditions drawn up in the plan, and how they should be fulfilled. In principle, the development agreement is a public–private partnership contract. The general principle of cost sharing which is used by the municipality of Trondheim says that all construction costs that are consequences of the development project should be covered by the developer, except social infrastructure such as schools and kindergartens.
Nedre Elvehavn A/S had to pay in full for public roads with parking space, public paths for bicyclists and pedestrians, quays with public access, street lighting and public recreation areas (park). At least in some cases, land that is owned by the developer, but regulated for public traffic, is to be transferred free of compensation to the municipality. Trondheim municipality negotiated the right to re-purchase ground after completed construction process. The development company agreed to 50% re-purchase of ground used for housing or regulated for public purposes. These clauses do not point towards neo-liberalism.
Surely, there were some neo-liberal traits of the financial arrangements. For example, bidding rounds in housing projects with an initially set price per flat were used for the first time in Trondheim in 2001. This is a neo-liberal trading practice that fully exploits people’s willingness to pay. Besides, in 2004, Nedre Elvehavn A/S sold the shopping centre building and some other properties to a bank, which raised capital by syndication (Freshman, 2006). By syndication of real estate is meant sale of limited partnership interests in a property. The investors purchase shares of ownership. Under economic upswing, risk is decreasing and expected profit increasing, making syndication more popular. The gain comes from the flow of rental income and the increased property price capitalized at the date of sale. Syndication fits well with neo-liberal capitalism, as the investors are not interested in following up ownership with use of the property, but only in the cash flow generated. In the case of Solsiden, syndicated shares doubled their value in 16 months.
Detailed development plans in Nedre Elvehavn
The area development plan was followed up by around 20 detailed development plans in the period 1987–2010. Below are listed some issues that are mentioned in some of the detailed development plans and that reflect the business-oriented (neo-liberal), participatory and green ideologies. Then follow brief comments on some conflicts that highlight the tensions between the profit motive of investors (neo-liberalism) on the one hand, and the ideologies of environmentalism and participation/inclusion on the other.
The following are planning regulations that can be associated with participation, inclusion and interaction:
- At least 50% of the flats should have universal design
- There should be a mix of different kinds of residents, facilitated by flats of various sizes, some fit for families with children
- Parking should be available for handicapped people
- Identity-forming buildings and memorials of the past should be preserved
- There should be small open places that offer possibilities for recreation and conversation (hence, no parking in courtyards)
- The entire length of the wharfside should be accessible to the general public for walking and relaxation
Complaints from neighbours of a small art gallery point to a tension between highdensity use of plots and lost opportunities for human interaction. When the municipality expanded the gallery by building on the small gathering place outside it, neighbours got passing bicyclists and pedestrians closer to their properties and felt a greater need to screen them off. High density can lead to more shielded private space.
It is relevant from the participation and inclusion perspective that an involvement process with nine families was run from November 2002 to June 2003. Active participation was seen as a tool for developing social relations between future residents.
The ideology of environmentalism is reflected in several planning regulations:
- Internal network for cyclists and pedestrians was required, also connections to external networks
- There must be facilities for parking, storing and safeguarding bicycles
- Requirement for noise-deflection wall
- Requirement for green patches and planting
- Mandatory clean-up of contaminated soil
- Green energy is demanded, with heating from a central heating plant
- The pedestrian bridge across the river reduces the need for motorized transport between Nedre Elvehavn and the CBD
The pedestrian bridge has the effect of bringing more customers to Nedre Elvehavn and may thus be to the liking of neo-liberalists as well as environmentalists. Some of the local plans have additional demands for measures towards parking and driving. Underground parking allows more outdoor space for greenery and gathering, curb parking space should instead be used for improving the accessibility of bicyclists and pedestrians and physical obstacles should guarantee car-free zones. Moreover, resilience is pursued by ordering analyses of risks and vulnerability. The issues are, for example, slope failure, river flooding and spring tide.
A number of planning regulations directly affect the profit of investors, and among the most important are functional mix, height of structures, building density and the sequence in which elements of the plan are to be completed. The municipality demanded, for instance, that the new pedestrian bridge across the river should be finished by the time the construction of the Vital office building on TMV-odden was to be completed. The following regulations are to the benefit of developers:
- Re-regulation from industry to functions that yield higher rental income
- Garden on roof instead of on the ground. A card is required to enter such a recreation area common to four blocks which, in this respect, take on the character of a gated community
- Clusters of high-density housing blocks. The Municipal Director of Urban Conservation comments that: ‘Surprisingly little consideration is shown for the overall problematic of heights and lines of sight in the cityscape near the waterfront. The chosen development design can separate the city from the fiord’ (Trondheim kommune, 1995, p. 5 of the Director’s comments)
- Weakening the policy of giving the general public access to the wharfside
- Some buildings have closed and unattractive façades towards the street, with parking inside. This is because the developer wanted to avoid the expenses of constructing a parking cellar under sea level. The closed and uninviting façades are, however, contrary to guidelines in the municipal plan for the central parts of Trondheim, and they detract from the qualities of local streets as public space
- Investor-friendly interpretation of by-laws: A plot to the northeast contains 8000 m2 of commercial floor space, although the building is located outside the CBD, that is, outside the area in which centres above 3000 m2 are generally allowed. The chief municipal executive accepted the centre, as he thought it concurred with the spirit of the national political guidelines
The fact that some planning regulations have been to the advantage of investors does not imply that we are faced with a case of predominantly neo-liberal urban regeneration. Some examples balance the pro-developer points above:
- Provisions on the preservation and use of old buildings: in the southern half of Nedre Elvehavn, it is not permitted to use the buildings worthy of preservation for department stores.
- The last two business/residence blocks to be built both got their height cut against the wishes of the investors. To the northeast, a tower of 17 floors was first drawn up, but the final result was a block of six floors. The height of the last block to the northwest was reduced from 10 to 7 floors.
- In negotiations with the municipality, the developer agreed to lay out a park and playground just outside the border of the development area, mainly to compensate for inadequate outdoor space in the northern housing projects of Nedre Elvehavn.
- In some places, the clear width between wharfside and building was increased from 6 to 10 m.
- The developers had to pay in full for the new pedestrian bridge across the river.
- River and docks are for general passage, for example to and from small-craft harbours, and are so far not utilized directly for commercial purposes, such as serving beer on floating stages.
The flats at Nedre Elvehavn are of various sizes, from two rooms to four rooms and more. Some of the biggest flats are in the absolute top stratum demanding a price above US $1.2 million in 2012, while 60 of the smallest are meant for youth, with several inhabitants sharing kitchen and some other facilities. Comparing flats of similar size, Nedre Elvehavn is the most expensive residential part of Trondheim.
Conclusion
The purpose of this article is to investigate how ideologies prevalent in democratic societies leave their marks on plans for comprehensive urban regeneration. A specific aim was to examine whether neo-liberalism exerts hegemonic influence on the plans. To come up with an answer, it was imperative to map the traces of the most popular alternatives to market-oriented ideology, namely, environmental thinking and ideas of inclusive, participatory democracy.
Newspaper cuttings and political documents suggest a wide agreement that the area development plan for Nedre Elvehavn from 1987 served the city well and did not make too heavy concessions to capital. Several elements of the actual construction have been controversial though. The central architect behind the area development plan characterizes the development as not following a plan (interview with Sverre Clausen, 23 May 2013). Another prominent architect involved in the regeneration states that ‘we rarely find examples of such big development plans being implemented with less discrepancy between the original intentions of the architects and the built environment which is now approaching completion’ (Per Knudsen in the leaflet Nedre Elvehavn. Mot mål …, produced by Nedre Elvehavn A/S around 2004). It was therefore necessary to study in detail the later development plans for single plots in Nedre Elvehavn to track down changes made in accordance with neo-liberalism and business interests.
Many scholars underline the significant differences between neo-liberal policies in countries around the world (Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Peck et al., 2009; Wilson, 2004). Neo-liberalism does not exist in pure form, ‘but must be grafted onto extant urban institutional structures in ways highly dependent on … local political and economic contexts’ (Perkins, 2013: 315). The postulated geographical variation in neo-liberal policies is not visible in the neo-liberal and pro-business aspects of the plans at Nedre Elvehavn. The regulations benefitting developers could have been issued anywhere. They are not peculiar to urban policies endemic to Norway. If any of the policies implemented in the case area can be said to be remnants of Scandinavian social democratic legacy (compare Baeten, 2012b), they are found among the planning provisions associated with participation, inclusion and interaction. Examples could be universal design and housing stock encouraging a mixture of families across economic divides.
Private developers are expected to create a surplus regardless of the ideology of the regime. A project or a plan is not neo-liberal just because a private company makes a profit on the development. Neither is it sufficient that the appearance of the built structure and the activities establishing themselves in the regenerated area are similar to new developments elsewhere that have been described as neo-liberal. A certain combination of coffee shops, restaurants, financial headquarters and shopping centre does not define an area as the product of neo-liberal planning. One has to study the balance between policies, regulations and detailed changes of the physical urban fabric reinforcing neo-liberal values on the one hand, and those strengthening environmentalism, inclusiveness and participatory democracy on the other.
It is evident not only at the municipal level but even at the levels of district and plot, that the need for a clean environment and protection of nature makes an impact on the plans. The same is the case for the policy of stimulating interaction, inclusion and participation of as many as possible in social and economic life. Besides, the need to make the regeneration project attractive to private investors left an obvious mark on development plans for the area and for single properties. The share of floor space allotted to housing, office and trade as well as the building density in Nedre Elvehavn bear witness to this. Nevertheless, it can be seriously questioned whether neo-liberal interests are hegemonic in Trondheim considering the explicit concessions to alternative ideologies. Developers won a few important ‘battles’, such as the construction of an oversized insurance ‘palace’ on ‘the best plot in town’, but they had to compromise on several other questions. Waterfront regeneration is often associated with neo-liberal urban planning. If detailed case studies indicate that there are reasons for questioning neo-liberal hegemony in the planning of large-scale dockland development, then there might be all the more reason for reconsidering claims to neo-liberal hegemony in other sectors of city planning.
Taking a broader outlook than the single case study of this research, it can be asked if one is not too easily alarmed when worrying about neo-liberal hegemony under the seemingly relatively strict development regimes of some countries, for example, Norway. After all, investors have to pay for archaeological excavations, technical infrastructure and clean-up or seal-up of polluted ground. They must also deal with regulations or requirements concerning building density, designated categories of land use, number of floors, apartment sizes, universal design and the use of buildings deserving of preservation. However, several requirements are not absolute, but based on negotiations. Local governments with a strong entrepreneurial drive can be more accommodating towards developer wishes. Similar planning regimes prevail in the other Nordic countries.
Those who consider neo-liberalism as hegemonic since the Reagan and Thatcher period (Overbeek and Van der Pijl, 1993) typically see it as a tool for consolidating capitalist class power through an expanding set of relationships between public sector agencies and civil society organizations on a platform of business logic. Should even public planning be an arena of neo-liberal hegemony, it would mean another step away from public-collective values to private-individualistic values. What are the implications if neo-liberalism does not gain hegemony in urban planning? In that case, there is no broad consensus on neo-liberal market solutions to problems of allocating common resources and public money. Oppositional, critical planning is more realistic and politically feasible when no ideology is hegemonic. Planning would then remain a tool that can be used to fulfil the goals of other ideologies than neo-liberalism.
When an ideology becomes hegemonic, it changes what is generally accepted as truth and common-sense knowledge. The relationship between knowledge and action will be affected, indicating that a new mode of planning might emerge (Friedmann, 1987). In the case of neo-liberal hegemony, public planning’s archetypal subject areas – such as externalities, common goods provision, information deficiencies and equity concerns – will be handled by more market-oriented means.
In the discussion about the alleged hegemony of neo-liberalism in urban planning, this article sides with the view that neo-liberalism is an important influence, but finds reason to question its hegemony. The case study indicates that understanding of changes to the regulation and governance of cities requires models that include several other explanatory variables in addition to neo-liberalism. This modest study cannot provide definite results, but it illustrates the troublesome problems haunting the international debate on neo-liberal hegemony in planning.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Tor Medalen at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and to Inger-Lise Saglie at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences for commenting on this article. I also want to thank the participants at the SUSPLAN seminar at the London School of Economics (18–19 November 2013), especially Karina Sehested, for critical and constructive remarks.
References
Adamson WL (1980) Hegemony and Revolution: A Study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural Theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Baeten G (2012a) Neoliberal planning: Does it really exist? In: Tasan-Kok T and Baeten G (eds) Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning. Berlin: Springer, 205–211.
Baeten G (2012b) Normalising neoliberal planning: The case of Malmö, Sweden. In: Tasan-Kok T and Baeten G (eds) Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning. Berlin: Springer, 21–42.
Baptista I (2013) The travels of critiques of neoliberalism: Urban experiences from the ‘borderlands’. Urban Geography 34(5): 590–611.
Barnett C (2005) The consolations of ‘neoliberalism’. Geoforum 36(1): 7–12.
Béal V (2012) Urban governance, sustainability and environmental movements: Post-democracy in French and British cities. European Urban and Regional Studies 19(4): 404–419.
Bohman J and Rehg W (eds) (1997) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brenner N and Theodore N (2002) Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode 34(3): 349–379.
Brownill S (2013) Just add water. In: Leary ME and McCarthy J (eds) The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration. London: Routledge, 45–55.
Bunce S and Desfor G (2007) Introduction to ‘Political ecologies of urban waterfront transformations’. Cities 24(4): 251–258.
Cahill D (2007) The contours of neoliberal hegemony in Australia. Rethinking Marxism 19(2): 221–233.
Callinicos A (2012) Contradictions of austerity. Cambridge Journal of Economics 36(1): 65–77.
Clausen S (2010) Løpet kjørt på Nedre Elvehavn – eller et eksempel til etterfølgelse? Adresseavisen, 16 January, 49.
Collier SJ (2012) Neoliberalism as big Leviathan, or …? A response to Wacquant and Hilgers. Social Anthropology 20(2): 186–195.
Cook IR and Ward K (2012) Relational comparisons: The assembling of Cleveland’s waterfront plan. Urban Geography 33(6): 774–795.
Desfor G and Jørgensen J (2004) Flexible urban governance. The case of Copenhagen’s recent waterfront development. European Planning Studies 12(4): 479–496.
Earth Charter Commission (2000) The Earth Charter. Available at: http://www.earthcharterinaction. org/invent/images/uploads/echarter_english.pdf (accessed 27 October 2012).
Fainstein N and Fainstein SS (2013) Restoring just outcomes to planning concerns. In: Carmon N and Fainstein SS (eds) Policy, Planning and People: Promoting Justice in Urban Development. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 32–53.
Falleth E and Saglie I-L (2011) Democracy or efficiency: Contradictory national guidelines in urban planning in Norway. Urban Research and Practice 4(1): 58–71.
Farhat R (2014) Progressive planning, biased discourse, and critique: An agentic perspective. Planning Theory 13(1): 82–98.
Freshman SK (2006) Principles of Real Estate Syndication. 3rd edn. Los Angeles, CA: Straightline.
Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Galland D and Hansen CJ (2012) The roles of planning in waterfront redevelopment: From planled and market-driven styles to hybrid planning?. Planning Practice and Research 27(2): 203–225.
Gibson-Wood H and Wakefield S (2013) ‘Participation’, white privilege and environmental justice: Understanding environmentalism among Hispanics in Toronto. Antipode 45(3): 641– 662.
Giddens A (1999) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goonewardena K (2003) The future of planning at the ‘end of history’. Planning Theory 2(3): 183–224.
Gordon DLA (1996) Planning, design and managing change in urban waterfront redevelopment. Town Planning Review 67(3): 261–290.
Gordon DLA (1997) Financing urban waterfront redevelopment. Journal of the American Planning Association 63(2): 244–265.
Gramsci A (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers. Green-Pedersen C and Van Kersbergen K (2002) The politics of the ‘Third Way’. The transformation of social democracy in Denmark and the Netherlands. Party Politics 8(5): 507–524.
Gunder M (2006) Sustainability: Planning’s saving grace or road to perdition. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(2): 208–221.
Gunder M (2010) Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory 9(4): 298–314.
Harvey D (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hodge GA, Greve C and Boardman A (eds) (2010) International Handbook on Public Private Partnerships. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Howell O (2008) Urban governance, recreation space, and the cultivation of personal responsibility. Space and Culture 11(4): 475–496.
Jenks M, Burton E and Williams K (eds) (1996) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? London: Routledge.
Jessop B (2002) Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state-theoretical perspective. Antipode 34(3): 452–472.
Kuisma M and Ryner M (2012) ‘Third Way’ decomposition and the rightward shift in Finnish and Swedish politics. Contemporary Politics 18(3): 325–342.
Laclau E and Mouffe C (2001) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. 2nd edn. London: Verso.
Lane J-E (2000) New Public Management. London: Routledge.
Lefebvre H (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lehrer U and Laidley J (2008) Old mega-projects newly packaged? Waterfront redevelopment in Toronto. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32(4): 786–803.
Leitner H, Sheppard ES, Sziarto K, et al. (2007) Contesting urban futures: Decentering neoliberalism. In: Leitner H, Peck J and Sheppard ES (eds) Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. London: Guilford Press, pp. 1–25.
Leknes E, Farsund AA and Holmen AKT (2005) Kommuneplan som styringsredskap i norske storbyer (Report RF-2005/191). Stavanger: Rogalandsforskning.
Long JA (2012) Overcoming neoliberal hegemony in community development: Law, planning, and selected Lamarckism. Urban Lawyer 44(2): 345–398.
McGuirk PM (2005) Neoliberalist planning? Re-thinking and re-casting Sydney’s metropolitan planning. Geographical Research 43(1): 59–70.
Mann RB (1988) Ten trends in the continuing renaissance of urban waterfronts. Landscape and Urban Planning 16(1–2): 177–199.
Mäntysalo R and 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 and Practice 11(3): 317–338.
Mohai P, Pellow D and Roberts JT (2009) Environmental justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34: 405–430.
Murphy L (2008) Third-wave gentrification in New Zealand: The case of Auckland. Urban Studies 45(12): 2521–2540.
Oakley S (2011) Re-imagining city waterfronts: A comparative analysis of governing renewal in Adelaide, Darwin and Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research 29(3): 221–238.
O’Callaghan C and Linehan D (2007) Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: European Capital of Culture 2005. Cities 24(4): 311–323.
OECD (2001) Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy Making. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Overbeek H and Van der Pijl K (1993) Restructuring capital and restructuring hegemony: Neoliberalism and the unmaking of the post-war order. In: Overbeek H (ed.) Restructuring Hegemony in the Global Political Economy: The Rise of Transnational Neo-liberalism in the 1980s. London: Routledge, 1–27.
Parnell S and Robinson J (2012) (Re)theorizing cities from the global south: Looking beyond neoliberalism. Urban Geography 33(4): 593–617.
Peck J and Tickell A (2002) Neoliberalizing space. In: Brenner N and Theodore N (eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 33–57.
Peck J, Theodore N and Brenner N (2009) Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments, mutations. SAIS Review 29(1): 49–66.
Peet R (2002) Ideology, discourse, and the geography of hegemony: From socialist to neoliberal development in postapartheid South Africa. Antipode 34(1): 54–84.
Perkins HA (2013) Consent to neoliberal hegemony through coercive urban environmental governance. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(1): 311–327.
Purcell M (2008) Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. London: Routledge.
Purcell M (2009) Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory 8(2): 140–165.
Raco M (2005) Sustainable development, rolled-out neo-liberalism and sustainable communities. Antipode 37(2): 324–347.
Raco M (2012) Neoliberal urban policy, aspirational citizenship and the uses of cultural distinction. In: Tasan-Kok T and Baeten G (eds) Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning. Berlin: Springer, 43–60.
Saad-Filho A and Johnston D (eds) (2005) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press.
Sager T (2011) Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning 76(4): 147–199.
Sager T (2013) Reviving Critical Planning Theory. London: Routledge.
Scharenberg A and Bader I (2009) Berlin’s waterfront site struggle. City 13(2–3): 325–335.
Shatkin G (2008) The city and the bottom line: Urban megaprojects and the privatization of planning in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning A 40(2): 383–401.
Sitter N (2006) Norway’s Storting election of September 2005: Back to the left? West European Politics 29(3): 573–580.
Swyngedouw E, Moulart F and Rodriguez A (2002) Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Largescale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode 34(3): 542–577.
Tasan-Kok T (2008) Changing interpretations of ‘flexibility’ in the planning literature: From opportunism to creativity? International Planning Studies 13(3): 183–195.
Tasan-Kok T and Baeten G (eds) (2012) Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning. Berlin: Springer.
Thompson JB (1984) Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Thurbon E (2012) Ideas and industrial governance: Has the influence of neoliberalism been overstated? In: Cahill D, Edwards L and Stilwell F (eds) Neoliberalism: Beyond the Free Market. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 180–203.
Tretter EM (2013) Contesting sustainability: ‘SMART growth’ and the redevelopment of Austin’s Eastside. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(1): 297–310.
Trondheim kommune (1987) Kommuneplan for Trondheim 1987–1997. Trondheim: Trondheim kommune.
Trondheim kommune (1995) Møtebok for formannskapet (Minute Book of the Executive Committee of the City Council, meeting of 8 July 1995, issue number FBR 0103/95, the comments of the Director of Urban Conservation). Trondheim: Trondheim kommune.
Trondheim kommune (2000) Kommuneplanmelding. Strategier for en langsiktig byutvikling i Trondheim fram mot 2030. Trondheim: Byplankontoret.
United Nations (UN) (1987) Our Common Future (Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development). Available at: conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future- Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf (accessed 26 October 2012).
United Nations (UN) (1993) Agenda 21. The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio (Earth Summit). New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
United Nations (UN) (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration. Available at: http://www. un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf (accessed 27 October 2012).
Westerberg MH (2004) Nedre Elvehavn, Trondheims nyeste bydel! (Nedre Elvehavn, the newest city district of Trondheim). Byplan 56(6): 242–247.
Westerink J, Haase D, Bauer A, et al. (2013) Dealing with sustainability trade-offs of the compact city in peri-urban planning across European city regions. European Planning Studies 21(4): 473–497.
While A, Jonas A and Gibbs D (2004) The environment and the entrepreneurial city: Searching for the urban ‘sustainability fix’ in Manchester and Leeds. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(3): 549–569.
Wilson D (2004) Toward a contingent urban neoliberalism. Urban Geography 25(8): 771–783.
Tore Sager is Professor in the Department of Civil and Transport Engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, where he teaches transport economics and strategic transport planning. His research is mostly directed at the interfaces between institutional economics, decision processes in transport, and planning theory. Sager has authored books on “Communicative Planning Theory” (Ashgate 1994), “Democratic Planning and Social Choice Dilemmas” (Ashgate 2002), and “Reviving Critical Planning Theory” (Routledge 2013), and has published on communicative planning theory in a dozen international academic journals.
Corresponding author:
Tore Sager, Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Email: tore.sager@ntnu.no.
--- --- --- --- ---
Post By Urban Planning Journals
No comments:
Post a Comment