A
QUEST
IN
MULT
I-STAKEHOLDER
DEC
IS
ION-MAK
ING
PROCESS
IN
SUSTA
INABLE
DEVELOPMENT
PLANN
ING
–
A
PRACT
ICAL
APPROACH
ON
THE
ROLE
OF
THE
PLANNER
–
BY
M. SINAN ÖZDEN
SUPERVISOR ALECH CHERP
SUBMITTED TO
BLEKINGE TEKNISKA HÖGSKOLA FOR THE MASTER OF
EUROPEAN SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER 2009
Table of contents: I.Introduction
II. Theoretical Background
II. 1. Strolling through Theories of Planning with a view on planner’s self -esteem
II. 2. Mapping the multi-stakeholder decision making process: III. Case Studies
III. 1. Redefining Boundaries While PlanningIstanbul: Need For A Regional Policy-Making With Local Authorities (An Exercise Of Governance).
III. 2. Stepwise Policy Development with the People while Planning Thrace: Incorporating Crowdsinto Planning (An Exercise of Public Participation) III. 2.a. The Tripartite Protocol(An Exercisein AdministrativeInterplay for Cooperation)
III.2. b.Planning, Public Participation, Democracy, Agony IV. Conclusion
I.Introduction
WhenI was unsure what athesis workI would prepare, Aleh Cherp, my supervisorin thisthesis work,advised meto reflect upon my own work as a professional planner. Following hisideaI startedtothink about my own work experience andthe pointsI was emphasizing when approachingto a planning problem. Apparently,itis notthe productthat comes atthe end of planning, butthe decision-making processitself what shapes my professional experience. The participants in a planning process, their relations with each other andtheir decisions reflectedinthe plans happento be thefocus of my work. Accordingly,the rolethe planner assumesin such a multi -stakeholder planning processformsthe central question ofthe study here. The paperis composed oftwo main parts. Thefirst partis discussing various planningtheories and howthey positionthe plannerin a planning problem. The discussion ontheseinfluentialtheoriesthat shapedthe planning disciplinefollows loosely a historical pathto contemporary discussions. Communicative planning shapedthetheoreticalframeworkforthe case studiesI am presenting. The work of Hillier on agonismin planning (Hillier, 2002.Direct action and agonismin democratic planning practice) constitutedthe backbonefor reflecting on and evaluatingthe case studies.
Inthe second part ofthe study, whereI presentthe cases,I havetriedto develop a participationlandscape with participation andinstitutionalization axes based on Hillier’s diagramfrom her aforementioned work. Thethree case-studies presented here are mapped onthislandscape. Theinstitutionalframeworkforinvolvinginto a planning process andthe participants’ attitudestowards each other andtowardsthe planning processitself are mirrored onthese simple maps. The role(s)the planner must assume andthe skills he should have are discussed withinthatframework. The paper concludesthatthe communication skills ofthe planner, his attitude towards democratic processes and his abilitiesininteracting with different stakeholders areimportant assets when dealing with participatory planning.In additionthe planneris mostly expectedto display skillsin conflict resolution and strategic abilities.
WhenI regard this paper as a reflection on my professional work,I have hadthe chancetothink on my understanding and approachto planning duringthe extensive readingsforthetheoreticalframework, as well as during recollecting and evaluating
the case-studies, and I haveidentified myself as a planner practicing betweentraits of communicative and agonistic approaches of planning.
II. Theoretical Background
II. 1. Strolling through Theories of Planning with a view on planner’s self-esteem
This brief dissertationistryingto provide an account onthe role ofthe planning expert whois actinginthe “new” planning paradigm by displayingthree case studies in Turkey. Although everfromthe start of my professional experienceI have been actinginthis participatory/ political/ communicative/ collaborative planning,I am callingit “new (hencethe multiplicity of names),fortheliterature,including Healey, 1997; Feinstein 2009/2000, Hillier, 2002, and others)is callingit “new” given a one and a half centurylong history of urban planninginthe modern sense and startthe transformationfromthe 1980’s. “thetraditional spatial plannerisin many cases being transformedinto a kind of knowledge mediator and broker, using an understanding of the dynamics ofthe governance situationto drawin knowledge resources and work out howto makethem availablein a digestiblefashiontothe dialogical process of policy development.” (Healey, citedin Harris 2002, 39).
The planning processis a political processforthefollower of a collaborative/
communicative planning approach whileitis more of atechnical-scientific naturefor the conventional (rational) planner. The conventional planneris usedtofollow a technical rationality andis normally confronted withthetaskto draft a vision offuture, recommend a set of development proposals, and submitthesetotheimplementing authority. For him “planningis a meansto arrive at certainfixed goals” (Woltjer, 2000, 18).Issueslike participation, governance, views ofthe stakeholders (and
stakeholdersthemselves!) are not necessarilythe central concern ofthe conventional physical planner. Theseissues are part of a greater administrative problematic and can be solved politically, bythose political bodies. Through scientific analysis and evaluation, however,the rational plannerthinks of himself being ableto make better decisions. The conventional plannerthinksthat planningis differentfrom politics, and is convincedthatitis scientifically superior. He believes he possessesthe power of “knowledge and analyticaltechniques” (Sager, 1994, 76).In a sensethisistrue:the rational conventional plannerinfact possessesthosetechniques, buttheir poweris over estimated. The power has rather beenthat ofthe governing apparatus.
Characteristically rational planner had a “comprehensive view on reality and decision making, a mechanistic view on control, and an ambitiontowardstechnical, scientific logic” (Woltjer, 2000, 18). He should be ableto understand complex social and political processes and structures andfurthermore show “the abilityto develop plans, policies, and strategiesforthefutureto meet specified goals” (Evans & Rydin, 1997, 57). Planners equippedthemselves with approaches and methodslike rational
comprehensive planning. “However,it soon became apparentthatthis approach was impossibly ambitious and naïveinits attempttotechnicise complex social and
political processes” (Healey citedin Evans & Rydin, 1997, 57).
The physical planner’s clientisthe public authority,in broader sensethe government, as a rule. Heis usually nottheimplementer nor sees he himself as part ofthe society whoselives areto be affected bythe plan. Politically, his claim of
comprehensiveness and objectivity hasfirst been criticized bytheinitiator of
advocacy planning, Paul Davidoff (2003/ 1965), arguingthat “… planners were not value-free,that a plan prepared by a public agency did not representtheinterests of all, andthatthefocus on physical planningin comprehensive plans was a disaster”. The planning schoolsteach students history of planning includingthose various approachesto physical planning and moreimportantlyfeedthem with a code of ethics statingthat “the planner hasthe responsibilityto careforthe common public benefit and nobody’sindividualinterests”. Thatis atleast whatI have beentaughtin thefirst half ofthe 90’s. But, strange enough, whenIleftthe schoolI have seenthat the mainstream public planning practiceis not much differentthanthat Davidoff was critically describinginthe 60’s.
In advocacy planningthe planneris supposedto act as an autonomous agentforthe benefit ofthe poor, structurally weak groups ofthe society and become advocates of thelay (Sager, 1994). Davidoff wasinviting, moreover urgingthe plannersto move awayfrom animagined objectivity of rational and scientific method,forcingthemto realizethattheir actionis political. He believedinthe knowledge-power ofthe
planners and wantedthemtotake sidesforthose who cannot defendtheirinterests. Sager (1994, 76-77) explainsthis power of planner: “… the authority ofthe expertis based on “model power”,i.e. knowledge of causal relationships and analytic
techniques.[…] Whenthe planners have model monopoly or are model-strong, while thelocallay participants are model-weak, anyinformationfromthelay public can be
processed and used bythe planner.[ …] This would equipthe planners with powerto even simulatethe simulations carried out bythelay participants.”
The mainstream planner working as a civil servantisinclined to believethatthe publicinterest and public benefitis best served whentheinterests ofthe public authorityis served. And heis notinterestedthatthisidea haslong been challenged andlargely abandoned. Another group of planners claimto offerthe outstanding comprehensive abilitiestothe benefit ofthe people, such asinthe advocacy
planning approach. Sager (1994) referstothistype of physical planners as “mode l-strong” groups who aim “directly at strengtheningthe negotiation power of he model -weak groups”. A group of urban and regional plannersin Turkey who are actively organized aroundthe Chamber of City Planners are ratherfollowers and reproducers of such a pro-people advocacy planning approach and politically positionthemselves onthe left-wing oppositiontothe government.
This year – 2009 – the 33rdNational Planners’ Colloquium organized bythe
Chamber of City Planners gathers underthe headline “Protecting/ Defendingthe Cities”. Themes ofthe sessionsinclude: “Defendingthe spaces ofthe poor (weak), defendingthe coast andtheforest, defendingthe city centre, protectingthe historical centre, defending planning …”. Theytake side onthe powerless andthe mute,they defend and protectthose who are opentothreats of unjustifiedindividualinterests andthose cannot defendthemselves.
Their position, as well as,that ofthe advocacy planningis based onthe assumption thatlay people cannot makeit withoutthe expert. Regardless of his being onthe government side orthe opposition,I have always had a problem withthis mighty planning‘expert’image whois ableto understandthe reality and processes better than any ordinary man by applying his rational and comprehensivetechniques. Evenif weforgetfor a momentthat public decision-makingis a political process and that planningis closelyintertwined with public decision-making,the claimthat we are ableto analyze, understand andimprovethings by using our comprehensive
approach,technical knowledge and analytical methods has been repeatedly disproven.I do not meanto discreditthose skillstotally. They are certainly needed and essentially usedin planning processes, butthey very often disjointthe planner fromthe complex real-life reality byletting himto generate solutionsfor a simplified constructed reality. Solutions ofthe constructed reality do not necessarilyfitintothe
real-life reality, asthere are many neglectedfactors. Hillier (2002)toothinksinline with Davidoffinthatthe planningis not a politically neutral activity, but opposestothe argumentthatthe planner’s ability/ capacityto recognize everyinterest; planningis notjust andfairto all parties. “There will always belosersfrom planning decisions.” We needto “realize situationsin whichitis not usuallythe powerless and
marginalized wholose.” (Hillier, 2002, 133).
Charles Lindblom (1973/ 1959) has criticizedthis comprehensive approach and proposed an alternative as early as 1959in his article “the science of muddling through”.Instead of a grandiose comprehensiveness, he has proposed an
“incremental method”: Small and objective-near oriented steps, easytotranslateto action and swiftly repeatedin endlessiterations. The decision-making method here relies on practical experience and knowledge and also someintuition. Lindblom called his methodthe “successivelimited comparisons method”, becausethe decisionto be madeisin a sense short sighted, “limited” andforimmediate action, howeverit demands a new decisionto be made right afterthefirst oneis done – many small steps, each dealing with another primary objective. Lindblom’s
contributionto planningisimportant because he gave backthe dignity of our daily-life decision-making process. Bythis, “muddlingthrough” has contributedto a more open policy development and planning process. Thereforetheliterature on participatory/ political/ collaborative planningtheoryis citing him alot.
Lindblom (1973/1959)is explainingthe method by usingthe analogy oftwo
administrators, where oneis usingthe rational-comprehensive method andthe other “successivelimited comparisons” method.Ithinkthisis meaningful, when we are discussingthe role andthe abilities ofthe planner. We planners often askfor atime for our research, analysis, synthesis, development of alternatives andthe proposed plan. While doingthis, we askthe administratorsto halt every possible structural physical developmentinthe area.In cases ofinsufficient data and documentation we take upthetaskof producingthosefromthe scratch; andI have never witnessed a case wherethere were satisfactory basisinformation enoughto start directly with plan production. Larger physical planslike regional plans or urban master planstake uptotwo yearsto be completed.Inthe meantimethe administrators – mayors,inthe case of city planning – who have afive yearstime betweentwo elections, are
the administratoris squeezed between pressures of variousinterest groups who want to undertakeinvestmentsinthe city, criticisms ofthe opposition who arguethatthe mayoris blockingthe development, protests ofthe activists and citizen groups who askfor extension oflet’s say publictransport services and ofthe environmentalists who demandimmediateimprovement ofthe waste water discharge system. The mayor, who has commissioned a group of plannersfor production of a
comprehensive development scheme can only saythat “the planis under way!”. Lindblom’s article did nottalk ofthe political processes nor of participation, but offered a more practical (and pragmatic)techniquetothe administrator as well asto the planner.Instead of waitingfor a grand “blueprint”, all parties can deal withthe problems at hand.
I believeI have displayed a negating positiontowardsideas and approaches where the planneris believedto have a knowledge-power andis expectedto useitfor betterfutures. My concernis not about planner’s self-image.IfI may putitinthe most naïve and simple way,the central concernthat shaped my approachto planningisthe people’s ability andtheir rightto shapetheir own environment. We find most successful environmentally sound settlementsin examples of vernacular architecture. Wefacelowest social conflictsin organically developed neighborhoods ortraditional cities. Evenillegal squatter neighborhoods (gecekondu) withoutformal, official planningin Turkish cities display a codex of values and a shared common-knowledge of building and physical development (Duyar-Kienast, 2005).
People are ableto organizethemselves and shapetheir environment. People have their own visions, demands, needs, wants andinterests.Ifinditimportantthatthe people’s wishes are realized,instead ofthose of a planner, an administrator or a leader. Likewise,itisimportantto seekfor ways,in whichthe peoplefeelthattheir ideas andinput‘matters’. But,ifthe people can organizethemselves and shapetheir own environment, asthey have donefor millennia,than whatisthe point of planning? Sager (1994, 2)is discussingthe communicative planningtheory and starts his
discussion with a has collection of different definitions by different authors, which might be helpful to answerthe question asked above:
1. Planningis “a set of proceduresforfinding out and assuring appropriatefuture action” (Davidoff and Reiner)
2. Planningis “foresightinformulating andimplementing programs and policies” (Hudson)
3. Planningis “the application of scientific method– however crude – to policy making” (Faludi)
4. Planningis “the bridgefromideology and knowledgeto collective action” (Friedmann and Hudson)
Mintzberg’s (1994) discussion onthe definition of planningisinteresting. Accordingto him “integrated decision making”is differentthanjust “decision making”inthatthe decision processin planningis a systematic process.If planningis plainly “a set of (integrated) decisionsfor controllingfuture actions and events”than the needfor a planis still questionable. But heintroduces a veryfundamental elementtothe
definition: “Planningis aformalized procedureto produce an articulated resultinthe form of anintegrated system of decisions.”
Clearlythisis a broad definition of planning, butit differentiates planning as a profession,let’s say public planningfor our purposes,fromthe ordinary daily-life arrangements.It moreover contrasts planning with arbitrary decisions or some sort of mystical divine visions.
The accent on “formalized procedure”,the definition ofthe goal as “articulated result” andthe understanding of decision making process as an “integrated system of decisions” guises planning as a profession.
Steiner (1969; citedin Mintzberg 1994, 13) has very high expectationsfrom planning: “Plans can and should betothefullest possible extent objective,factual,logical and realisticin establishing objectives and devising meansto obtainthem”. We
understandthat planningis a professional discipline and some expectthe plansto fulfillthose expectations. Butin a social and political environment howisthis
possible?In a multi-stakeholder planning processthere arethe participants who do the decision makingfortheirfuture, what doesthe plannerdo? What skills must he have?
In Sager’s (1994, 2) definition of planning, whichis aimed at defining planning as a communicative action, we seethatthe planneris not necessarilythe producer of a plan, but rather organizer of a processfor policy making: Planningis “atechnique
and communication aiming at organizing knowledgeto provide a basisfor decis ion-making onfuture collective action.”
When we approachto planning as a democratic process andtry notto compromise Steiner’s expectationsfromit, solutions seemsto bein governance and participatory planning. With participationthe planner acquires newtasks and requires new skills otherthanthose scientific,technical (architectural, engineering) skills. The planneris no moreforimposing plans butfor makingthe participantsto plan. The planner
becomes more of a moderator, enabler of action, mediator andless of an author. The planner, of course retains histechnical skilltotranslatethe policy options proposed bythe participantsinto a plan – the concrete document;the object upon which discussion and subsequently agreement can be settled.
Sager (1994, 24-25) cites Firedmann’sthoughts aboutthe abilities of an action planner. The same abilities are also requiredfor creating dialoguein participatory planning. The action planneris askedto have additional skillslike “empathy and readinesstolisten, …”. His personal abilities and skills “in managinginterpersonal relations” are decisivefor a successful process (citedin Sager, 1994, 24-25). The planner cannot stayin his office ontop of maps and statistical data and conduct planning.
In a multi stakeholder planning process,i.e.a participatory planning process, each and every actoris expectedtoinfluencethe decision.In a previous paper presented atthe 12thNational Congress on Regional Science and Regional PlanningI
explainedthe multi-actor decision making processin analogytothe vectorsin physics (Özden et al., 2007). Decision-makingis an event. Every participant influencesthe decisionin accordance with his wills andinterests.If we had a calculational basisfortheinfluences ofthe participants, we were ableto represent everyinfluence by a vector,i.e. everyinfluence would have a magnitude and
direction.In a public debate, regardless ofits beingformally organized or not, every participant wouldimpose aninfluence onthe decisionto betaken. The sum of all influences (vectors) would representthe decision.
Clearlythe decision wouldfall somewherein between of allinfluences, and no one actor wouldfully attain accomplish hisinterests. Atthe sametimeitis also clearthat every actor wouldfeelthat his views andinterests are representedinthe decision.
Itis alsotruethatthe more powerful a partyisthe moreit hasinfluence onthe decision. Thisis wherethe advocacy planners build uptheir arguments;
strengtheningthe weak,the disadvantaged. By doingthis,theytake an active partin the decision making debate. However withouttheirinfluenceinthe social counter playthe decision should be assumed balanced and validfor all participants. Otherwise, some participants would keepfighting untiltheyfeel sufficiently representedinthe decision.
The momentthe decisionistakenisthe moment whenthe socialtension (agony)is thelowest. Eventhoughthe agreed decision may seemthat one party’sinterests are more satisfiedthanthe others,the satisfactionformthe resultis outbalancingthe tension of dislikes of any other solution by all parties. Soisthe common-sense generated,the consensusis reached.
Figure 1: Vectoral representation of decision-making with multiple actors. Every actorinfluencesthe decision with a magnitude and direction;the struggle and social interplay betweenthe participants end upin a commonly accepted (-able) decision. (Source: Özden et al. 2007)
Yetthe process continues virtually endlessly. As Lindblom explainedit, when a
decisionistaken orlatest whenitisimplemented, a newinitial situationis established. the new stateis not only a state of consensus ofthe “past” discussion butitisthe starting point of a “new” conflict amongthe participants. The new power-play of pulls and pushesin every possible directions will resultin a new balanceforthe matter, where a new publicly established decisionistaken.
As opposedto a claimed generalized objectivity,the subjectivity ofthe particular case creates a more satisfying decision, and higher degrees of ownership bythe
participants, and as a result betterimplementation chancesforthe plan. Hillier (2002, 131) goesfurther and claimsthatthe only wayto reach a good andjust resultisthe debate: “…without someform of agreement or consentto an outcome ofthe debate, itisimpossibleto be surethatthe[planning] decision will be good andjust.”
In such process,ifthe planner decidestotake sides, asin advocacy planning or entersin a corporatist coalition withthe government or one orthe otherinterest group, he would disturbtheinternal power relations amongthe participants. His direct and activeinvolvementintothe decision-making process as an actoris not desirable. His task and roleinthe processisto enable as much communication betweenthe actors as possible.In Hillier’s (2002, 110) words: “[Planning] has recognizedtheimportance of communicationin planning decision-making andthe role of collaboration between as many actors as possiblein workingtowards a political democratization”. The Mayor of Lüleburgaz, one ofthe key participants ofthe second case studyI am presenting here had once commentedthat “this (planning) process were valuable as a‘democracy undertaking’ and as an exercise of activeinvolvementforthe people, evenifitfailsto produce aformal physical plan document”.
Susan Fainstein (2009, 106) gives a very concise and almost encyclopedic definition of communicative planning: “Within communicativetheory,the planner’s primary functionistolistento people’s stories and assistinforging consensus among differing viewpoints. Ratherthan providingtechnocraticleadership,the planneris an experientiallearner, at most providinginformationto participants but primarily being sensitiveto points of convergence. Leadership consists noin bringing stakeholders aroundto a particular planning content butin getting peopleto agree andin ensuring that, whateverthe position of participants withinthe social-economic hierarchy, no group’sinterest will dominate”.
The definitionisinfact very accurate, butthe assessmentthat “… no group’sinterest will dominate” can be misunderstood.Itis notthat an external powerisimposed on the participants sothat‘no group’sinterest will dominate’; butitis ratherthe social dynamics and power struggle between membersthatleadto a consensual
agreement. Hillier’s (2002, 122) positionfavoring agonism could be explanatory: “… a pluralist democracy must allowthe expression of dissent and conflictinginterests and values. Since we cannot eliminate antagonism, we needto domesticateitto a condition of agonism, … towardsthe promotion of democratic decisions which are partly consensual, but which also respectfully accept unresolvable disagreements”. Democracy,forms of representation and power,its usefor control are naturally
centralissuesin communicative planning. Therefore public participationis very crucial. The planner’sfundamental roleisthan orchestrating participation and achieving a sort of citizen controlin decision-making. Hillier (2002, 131) seesthe planning practice as a “field whereinterests and social groups meet and clash”. Therefore planners should understandthemselves not as eliminators of power, neutralizers of group domination but deal withthe question “howto constituteforms of powerthat are compatible with democratic values” (Mouffe, 1999, citedin Hillier 2002)
If every single actoris shoutingfor his owninterest, andif consensus or compromise cannot achieve anideal stateforthe participants, butjust a mediocre satisfaction, thatthey could retaintheirintereststo some extentthrough bargaining or
argumentation how doesthe planner perform? Any planner who acceptsthese as precondition, asthe world welivein, should recognizethelocal and also general political processes;thatis, should acceptthelocal social and political dynamics as a starting point. Thefirst role of a plannerin a planning process shouldthan beto open upthe political communication channels; andifthey do not exist he should establish them. All ofthe case studiesinthis paper are examples of establishing mutually agreed communication channels which did not exist before. Theterm‘political communication’indicates a dialogue process amongthe participants where all possible views andthought are exchanged by using every possible means of media. Itis a non-violent struggle and conflict arena. Howthe planner establishesthis arena is closelylinkedtothe practicalities ofthe project:the dimensions ofthe planning project, resources available, duration, etc.
The second role ofthe planneristo watchthe debate carefully andto sensethe social energyin discussions. He should be abletotrackthe “consensus point” where thetension between partiesfades.In moreformal planning exercises, where
communicative rationalis more evidentthisis easier, since parties gatherfor
reaching a collectively rational solution (thethird case studyis an exampleforthat). Howeverin planning exercises where social groups areinvolved,the planner should tryto extractthe point wherethe most contradicting groupsfeelthe other one’s position atleast bearable. Since no one party would admitthatthere has been a consensus between each other or no one would politically admitthat he has agreed to a compromise,it would bethe planner’s abilityto pinpointthe decision.
Thethird role ofthe planneristo safeguardtransparency ofthe planning process. Every proposal and demand must be reflected backtothe parties. No single
information should be kept bythe planner; otherwisethere emergesthe danger of manipulation. No hidden agendas or no distortion of communicationis permissible. Sincethe parties would be willing to gain morefromthe process,they would be willingto hold backinformation. The public administrationisin no way an exception onthe contrarythe most manipulative actor among others. Public authoritiestendto understand participation as “informing” the public or “consulting” abouttheirideas;in fewer casestheytendto establish partnerships withthe moreinfluential parties. Therefore Planner’s responsibilityisto openly disseminate every piece ofinformation tothe participants– atleast make publicly available. Thusthe planneris responsible to keep alevel playingfield.
Afourth rolethe planner assumesin a collaborative planning processistechnica l-scientific. This most original role ofthe planner should not be undermined. Planning is atechnical profession.Infact,the whole debate on‘planning beingintertwined with politics, butitis not being politics’ originatesin planning’stechnical nature. The
planneris responsibletotranslate all ofthe proposals ofthe participants, andthe political decisionsintotechnicalterms. These proposals and would-be-decisions are thus screenedthroughtechnical, ecological, economicalfilters andtheirfeasibility, attainability, andtheirfiscal as well as social and ecological costs should be tested by the planner.Inits most plainterms,implementation ofthe proposals and would -be-decisions needto be simulated andthe results displayedtothe participants. Aslong asthe parties accepttotake onthe burdens associated withthe decisions,they
become definite asformalized outcomes ofthe planning process. Otherwise a new debate starts; butthistime participants are part of a more concrete planning
discussionin comparisontotheinitial discussion on visions and goals. Atthis stage thetechnicalleadership ofthe planneris required. Finallythe planner (infact
planningteam) comes up with a plan as a product.
The planneris supposedto aim at not only aformal approval ofthe product, but atits acceptance as a commonly approved document, as a “Charta”. There are countless examples, atleastin Turkey, wherethe physical plans (proposed development policies ofthe plans) never get recognized bythe general public, nor bythe official authorities. Physical development plans are conducted mainly because ofthelegal requirement and not because of “formal decision-makingforfuture action”;in most casesthe people consider planning as a costly but useless documentforthe sel f-interest ofthe bureaucracy. The municipalitiesthattakethe rules and regulations seriously,they recognizethe physical development plans.Intheir case, however,the planis part ofthe agenda of almost every municipal assemblyfor amendment. There, day-to-day power relations and short-terminterests on urban rentare usually more effectivethan athoroughlythought comprehensive development plan. Atthe endthe plan gets so much amendedthatitloses anyintegrity. Turkey has beentryingto protectits planning systemthrough a set oflegal regulations, which make arbitrary amendment of plans ever harder. But every control regulation generatesits by-pass methods andits effectiveness reducesimmediately. Onthe other hand planning as a democracy undertaking, “conducting debatein public spheres” (Melucciin Hillier 2002, 117) would produce a wider acceptance and a sense of ownership onthe commonly agreedterms of development. Thereforethe planneris supposedto work astransparent – knowledge sharing as possible, and should valuethe political decision-making processesthat alsoincludes elements of‘direct action’.
II. 2. Mapping the multi-stakeholder decision making process: The case studiesI am presenting here are planning exercises of different size and content. Thefirst exampleis a governance attempt with mayors of various
municipalitiesin alarger region,the second oneis a regional planning exercise with involvementofthe general public, andthethird oneis a national policy-development proposal withinvolvement of highlevel governmentinstitutions. Despitethe
differencesin character and scale, allthree examples representthe efforttoinvolve as many actors as possible withintheframework ofthe respective project. Otherwise, the normal (andformal) decision-making process wouldfunction based onthe official competences andjurisdiction ofthe authorities. The examples are representations of effortsin communicative planning model. Furthermore allthree projects are
comparableintheir participatory processes and organizational structure. This can be represented with a diagrammaticlandscape asin Figure 2.
FIGURE 2: Participationtopographyin a planning process. Participation of stakeholders cantake differentforms. The messyinteraction ofthe parties can be plotted onthis basic map.. Source: modifiedfrom Hillier (2002, 127).
The participationtopography enablesto plotthe projects accordingtotheir decision making process. Thusthe projects are comparableintheirlevel of participation and
theirlevel ofinstitutionalization. The horizontal axis representing‘participation’ shows the participants’ social and politicalinteraction. Whetherthe decisions aretaken through agreementtothe matterin a more orless common-sense approval bythe participants or whetherthe participants arein dispute or disagreement onthe matter but havefound a sort of reconciliation, and reached a decision. The vertical axis showsthelevel ofinstitutionalization. Decisions may be results ofinstitutionalized processes orinformal political processes. Whether stakeholders (participants) are interactinginformatted ways, wherethe rules are set andinput can only be
recognizedthroughfollowing certain order. For example a most widelyimposedform ofinteraction with governmentinstitutionsin Turkeyisthe petition. Citizen’s requests, ideas or anytype ofinteraction withthe stateis only recognized with a petition,if there aren’t more sophisticatedformalities.
In planningterms,there exist strict rulesfor making of physical plans, sincethey constitutetheinterventioninterface onthe private property rights. There have been court cases,in which plans were cancelled, annulled notfortheir content butforthe planning process was notin order withthe governing rules. Thelatest most
sensational oneisthe cancellation ofthe regional plan ofIstanbulin 2008, wherethe commissioning process/ assignment ofthe planners wasfound contrary. Later, after conducting aformally appropriate process,in 2009,the same plan content with minor changes hadto be approved again. The planning process onthe other handis not regulatedthat strictly. Duringthe planning processthe planneris relativelyfreeto use any suitabletechnique and decision-making process. Thereforethe planning process itself mayinclude and recognize veryinformal ways of participation. Hillier’s (2002, 117) question seemsto havethe answer buriedinit as a guidingthoughtfor
planners:
“if we wantto movetowards more consensual planning decision-making, or atleast decisions with which most stakeholders canlive, do we want toimpose someformalinstitutional structure on whatis essentially a largelyinterpersonalframework? Can planners really notfeel comfortable (less vulnerable?) unlessthereis‘an awesome andincontestable
authority hanging over everything? ”
Theinitialideato plotthe projects on a participationtopography and see how the planner hasinteracted withinthose projectsis developed as a product of our
discussions with Alech Cherp. Planner’sinfluencein cases offormal andinformal forms of participation was merely atthe center ofthat discussion. Hillier’s (2002, 116, 126) diagrams depicting “participationin planning activity” have helped meto develop theideafurther. Hillier’s discussionis concentrated on howtoinclude agonism and direct actioninto planning.I am howevertryingto reflect onthe role ofthe plannerin the case studiesI am discussing. Nevertheless Hillier’s work has heavilyinfluenced my diagram.
Throughthe diagrams andthe participants’ behavior andinteractionI amtryingto understand and discussthe planner’sinput and roleinthat particular planning
process.In some casesthe plannerisforcedto establish,initiate,the process,ligh t-upthe powder keg,in others helistens carefullyto arguments, andin some other case waits untilthefurious high-water has passed and collectsthe remains what could not be swept bytheflood.In any casethe planneris supposedtofollowthe dialogue betweenthe parties very carefully withfull attention.
III. Case Studies
I am presenting herethree different case studies. Theseare differentfrom each other not onlyintheir content but alsointheir dimension. Nevertheless allthree are
examplesin which multi-stakeholder decision-making mechanisms have been
functional. The participation process of each projectis reflected onthe participation landscape,I have explainedinthe previous chapter.
Thefirst exampleis a governance attemptinthe Marmara region. The north-west region ofthe countryisthe richest and most developed part of Turkey, accordingto statistics, however it suffers a severeintra-regional development gap – the wealthis accumulatedinthe metropolitan area. While preparingthe physical development plansforIstanbul planners needed a supra-metropolitan, a regional decision-making mechanism and mobilizedthe municipal administrations ofthe citiesinthe region. The mayors havetriedto develop a consultative regional cooperation board, which had no officially binding power but has beeninfluential.
The second andthird case studies are part of a very ambitious planning practice: Preparation ofthe regional development plans ofthe Thrace region. Thereforethe case studies appear as 2.a. and 2.b.inthis paper. The project is an experimentthat
displays elements of a spectrum reachingfrom consensus planning to agonism. The projectinvolves governance atthe national and regionallevels, and an extensive effortfor direct citizen participationinthree provinces and 27 cities (district centers) of the region.
It should not beforegoneto statethat allthreeprojects are examples of physical planning, butthe products are not necessarily drawn or plotted on maps. The outcomes ofthose processes are deliberately and directly changingthe physical environment. But withinthelimitations ofthis studyI amtrying tolay downthe way howthe planning processitselfis organized, and not howthe physical environment was affected.
III. 1. Redefining Boundaries While PlanningIstanbul: Need For A Regional Policy-Making With Local Authorities (An Exercise Of Governance).
The metropolitan municipality ofIstanbul established alarge, semi-public planning office‘TheIstanbul Metropolitan Planning and Urban Design Center (IMP)”forthe preparation of development plans ofthe metropolis, and employed or hired alarge number of urban and regional planners. Planners have started a conventional comprehensive planning process. First of allinformation hadto be gathered,if not available hadto be produced. Withthe help of universitiesIstanbul has never been studied morein depth before. Physical, geographical, environmental analyses, demographic, sociological studies have been carried out, economical prognoses have been developed. Limited withinthe administrative andlegal boundaries a very thorough work has been going on.
Istanbulis a metropolitan city with a 12 Million population.Itisthe most populated urban and economic center ofthe country. HoweverIstanbulis atthe sametime one ofthe smallest provinces of Turkey. Thetotal urban area reaches uninterrupted beyondthe administrative boundaries ofthe province and encompassesfully or partiallyfour other provinces. Thetotal population ofthe metropolitan-region
regardless ofthe administrative boundariesis about 16 Million people. Furthermore, the metropolitan areaisin close relationship withthe entire Marmara region with a total population of approximately 20 Million people (Istanbulincluded),livingin 150 cities andtowns and several hundred villages. Obviously any planning decisionfor Istanbul wouldfail withouttheinvolvement ofthe other cities and settlementsif ajoint cooperation and coordination mechanism were not established.
The problemthe planners hadto handle was not centeredin regional planning techniques butin developing a decision-making mechanismforthe entire region. Turkish government systemis centralized and a regional government model does not exist1. The regional growth solution proposedforIstanbul can be summarizedin
1 The Turkish administrative system is very similar to the one in Sweden. Turkey is a unitary state and has a centralized government. The country is divided into provinces (in Sweden this is called county – Län). A governor represents the central government in the province; but there co-‐exists a locally elected provincial administration. In the recent years a
substantial part of the governor’s power has been shifted to the provincial administrations. The major difference between Turkish and Swedish administration systems lies in the
decentralization offunctions and regionalintegration strategies; butthis soc io-economic and physical solution does not have an organizational administrative point of reference or counterpart.
The Turkish administrative systemis being reformed as part of negotiationsfor EU membership. One ofthe attempts has been establishment of Regional Development Agencies (RDA), which encompassthe governor’s office, municipalities,
representatives of private sector and civil organizations.In hopeforfinding a counterpart at regionallevelthe plannersfirstlobbied and arguedfor accelerated establishment ofthese RDA’s. Howeverthe process has been stopped abruptly. The centralist government systemis still very popularin Turkey. Discussions on regional administrative bodies or regional collaboration with official characterimmediately spark debates on unitarism versusfederalism, andfederalismis understood as a milestonetowards separation ofthe country. Thelegalframework enabling RDAs has been cancelledfor a while. The establishment of RDAs has been delayed. Thus, chancesto referto aformal regional administration arelost.
Planners neededto seek an alternative, aninstitutionalfocal pointfor regional dialogue – aninformal cooperation and collaboration structurefor policy-making at regionallevel. The Union of Municipalities ofthe Marmara Region (Marmara ve Boğazları Belediyeler Birliği– MBB) offeredto providethe roofframework. MBBis the oldest municipal unionin Turkey, but has not been veryactive andinfluential. Even so, almost all municipalities are members ofthe MBB. The Secretary General of MBB, bythen Mr. Halil Ünlü, wantedthatthe MBB becomes a moreinfluential union andincreaseits activitylevel. A coalition of goals ofthe planners and ofthe union could be establishedthere. Althoughthe provinciallevel was not represented administratively,the MBB was ableto reach and contact all ofthe municipalities, includingthe smallest ones.
Itis worthto mention some ofthe regionaldevelopment strategies proposedfor achieving regional development goals:
municipal system. Turkish municipalities are established in the settlement area – town or city, and have no responsibility or competence in the rural area and villages. They are not contiguous like their Swedish counterparts. Governor’s Office and the provincial
1. Functions concentratedinIstanbul wereto be redistributedtothe rest ofthe region,i.e. TheindustryinIstanbul wasto be decentralized.
This proposal has become highly controversial.IndustriallobbyistsinIstanbul as well as environmentally motivated civil groupsinthe region have positionedthemselves againstit. Business circles such as chambers ofindustry and commerce delightfully welcomedthe proposal. The mayors also embracedtheidea of creation of new workplaces.
Howeverit was clearthatthe mayors hadto coordinatetheir activitiesifthey wanted to be attractivefor possibleinvestments. They were supposedto developjoint strategies. They have never donethis before.
2. Istanbul’s global and national attraction wereto be divertedto suitable centers inthe region,leadingto a polycentric development.
3. New attraction centersIthe region wereto be developedin orderto slow down the contiguous growth ofIstanbul andto achieve a better geographical distribution of wealth as well as population.
These proposals have become publicly known as “creating smallIstanbuls around Istanbul”. Sometookit seriously some not, but everybody were smiling whenthey heardtheidea.
These proposals generated a sense of competition bythe mayors. Without really estimating capacities oftheirtowns many ofthem wantedto become an attraction center.
MBBinvited mayorsto several seminars on cooperation possibilities held bythe regional planners. Cooperation, collaboration and competition have becomethe motivationfor mayorsto answerthe calls of MBB (andthe planners)for coming together. A consensus was reachedthatthe mayors wantedtointeract; whichthey have not done beforein aformatted way.
The maininteraction betweenthe mayors ofthe region was either based ontheir privateinterpersonal relations ortheir activitiesintheir political parties. Apartfrom that,the mayors usually do notfeelthe needto cooperate with each other. One major reasonforthatisthe Turkish administration system; whateveris beyondthe competences ofthe municipalitiesisformallythe responsibility ofthe central
government and respective ministries. Another reason can befoundinthe
geographical distribution ofthe municipalities. Normallythe municipalities have no common borders. They do not have neighborhood relations. Municipal
administrations are responsible onlyforthe urban area andthey have wider
distances with pastorallandscape betweenthem. Until a new regulationimposed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestrythey have not shares resources or service facilitieslike water resources or waste disposal sites either.
Forms of cooperation did not require novelties. MBB holds general assembly
meetings semi-annually.Interested mayorstake partinthose meetings,if not all. The main change has beeninthe agenda ofthose meetings. Although we cannot speak of a radicaltake-offin dynamismtowardsjoint action,issues of active cooperation have become a more prominenttopicinthose meetings. A dialogue process could be started. Furthermore,there have been committees established dealing with, “regional development”, “cooperation ontechnical matters” (such as sharingtechnical staff, engineers, architects, planners, etc.), “committee onjointinfrastructure possibilities”. Itis, however,interestingto notethatthe mayors volunteeringtotake partinthose committees have been predominantlyfrom smallerto medium sized municipalities that werelagging behindinthe development race,i.e. municipalitiesthat hadlimited competition power.
This has been a processin whichthe planners have startedto prepare a regional plan with owninitiative (and out of necessity). Naturallythe plan wasn’t goingto have anyformal and binding status and notargeted counterparttoimplement. Butit has constituted a basisfor policy-making at regionallevel and has been extensively discussed bythe mayors atthe MBB. The mayors have reformulated their municipal development policies with referencetothe regional development proposals. An informal plan production process has been gone handin hand with aninformal regional dialogue process betweenthe policy-makers of singular units withinthe region has startedtoinfluencetheformal urban policy-making processes. When welook atthe planning ofIstanbul, we seethat atechnically mature comprehensive planningforIstanbul has proven notimplementable withoutthe
political dialogue. Thisistrue forthe regionallevel as well. The planners have had no other chancethan organizing political processes. The planner hadto assumethe role
of an “initiator”for governance,they hadto mobilize policy-makers and mediatetheir dialogue.
If we reflectthe regional governance process onthe participationlandscape, we see that mayors were comingtogether willingly and with a positive attitude, very muchin line with Habermassianthought of communicative rationale. The planners also have positionedthemselvestowards a social and politicaljustification oftheir proposals ratherthan staying withinthelegal-administrative domain, giventhe regional scale, whichis virtually not recognized bythe state apparatus. Theinformal nature ofthis cooperation betweentechnical and scientific studies and communicative action shouldlocatethe case study somewhereintheinformal – consensus sector ofthe landscape; andthe politicalidentity and administrative competences ofthe mayors as well asthe roof-frameworkfunction of MBB withitsformalized decision-making procedures (general assembly, committees) would movethe projecttothe edge of theinstitutionalization. Other aspects ofthe case, such as whatthe mayors hadto undertake withintheir municipalities, howthey have decidedto cooperate atthe regionallevel or whetherthey were exposedtolocal opposition, etc. are not handled withinthis case study. Each municipality must have hadits own experienceinthat respect.
FIGURE 3: Case Study 1, Communicative regional policy making plotted onthe participationlandscape. Aninformal process associated with shortcomingsinlegal framework, but accepted bythelocal politicians,the mayorsin consensus.
One closing remarkis, however, significant: The secretary general of MBB, who has been one ofthe key actors enablingthe whole process has been removedfrom his post soon after. Almost all participants and witnesses ofthe process commentthat this happened mainly because of his successinincreasingthe efficacy ofthe MBB. He started heading a relativelyinsignificant organisationin politicalterms, but when MBB got underthe spotlights, desire of stronger municipalities (and political parties) to controltheinstitution hasleadtothe change ofthe executive officer. Thisis probably one ofthe examples affirming Hillier’s (2002, 130) comment on power and democracy: “When we understand power, we seethat we cannot rely solely on democracy based on rationalityto solve our problems. Forthis reasonI prefer a theory of democracy whichincorporates both associative and agonistic aspects.”
III. 2.Planning Activitiesin the Thrace Region
The caseI am presenting hereis composed oftwo consecutive processes: a) Setting upthe planning environment and b) policy development withthe participation ofthe general public. Thefirst partis worthto display and document duetoits
unconventional cooperation dialogue between otherwiseinflexible public
organizations. The second partis atale of a planning activityin which a broad public participationin decision-making was aimed.
Inthe usual Turkish experiencethe plan aslegal andformal documentimposesits own goals and development policies ontothe people and stakeholders. However, these plansfind only alimited number of supporters, such asthe planners
themselves and academic milieuthat represents sociallythe scientific rationality. Thereforethe plans are very oftenfaced with a huge social and political rejection. Inthecase studyI am presenting here,the planners havetriedto achieve a broad based consensus onthe policies and regulations reflected onthe planthrough an open policy-making process. Our aim wasto arriveto a widely accepted Charta ratherthanto draft a utopian but notimplementable plan. The plan was supposedto reflect whateverthe public consensus was and notimpose some external policies – it should reflect and documentthe development goals and sensitivities ofthe people. The setting ofthe case studyisthe Thrace regionin Turkey.It consists ofthree provinces: Edirne, Tekirdag and Kirklareli. WithIstanbul and Gallipolitheytogether form Turkey’slands onthe European continent. Sharingthe same main water basin and plain, Ergene,thethree provinces are geographicallyinterrelatedin geographical terms, andthey are socially and culturallyfairly homogenous. Thraceforms a region ofits own.
There exists a Union ofthelocal administrationsinthe region: TRAKAB (Trakya Kalkınma Birliği– Thrace Development Union)isthe union ofthelocal
administrationsinthe Thrace region. Thethree province administrations and over 70 municipalities are members of TRAKAB. TRAKAB has been establishedinthelate 90’s whenthelocal authorities recognized the difficultiesintackling with
environmental problemsindividually. Althoughthe statute ofthe union enablesit a very broad spectrum of activities,it hasn’t been ableto undertake much activityfor insufficient personnel andfinancial resources.
III.2.a. the Tripartite Protocol(An exercisein administrativeinterplay) Accordingto Turkishlegislation (thelaw establishingthe Ministry of Environment and Forestry andthelaw on province administrations– Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Kanunu, İl ÖzelİDareleri Kanunu)the responsibility and competenceto prepare regional development plansis shared betweenthe Ministry of Environment and Forestry andthe Province Administrations. Preparation of regional plans (sometimes also called sub-regional plans) comprising morethanthe area of one province and having a map scale of 1/250.000to 1/100.000 or aboveisthe responsibility ofthe Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Provincial Development Plans organizethe entire area withinthe administrative boundaries of a province and must be prepared bythe province administrations with a map scale of 1/100.000to 1/25.000. This simple but hierarchical model has not beenfollowedinthe case of Thrace,turningit to a collaborative planning activity.
In 2006,there existed an approved regional plan of Thracefor aboutfive years. The province administrations were requiredto preparethe provincial plans and decidedto undertake ajoint action. The governors ofthethree provinces and some mayors wantedtoincreasethe activity of TRAKAB andthey had concerns aboutthe harmoniousinterplay ofthe provincial plansifthey were prepared separately. The river Ergene runsthrough allthree provinces and getsindustrially polluted onits course disturbing agricultural activity onthe plain. Coupled with such environmental concernsthethree province administrations have delegated TRAKABthe planning competenceforthe entire region.
Meanwhile,theIstanbul Metropolitan Planning Center (IMP), undertook a regional study and promotedfor regional planning as part of planning activities ofIstanbul. Thefirst case study presents a part ofthese activities. TRAKAB officials were interestedinthe regional studies ofIMPand askedfor cooperation.
Afurther, maybe moreinfluential reasonfor TRAKAB’s willingnessto work withIMP wasthe semi-public, non-profit setup ofthelatter. Withthelimitedfinancial resources, the TRAKAB officials couldn’t guarantee an attractivebiddingfor private planning companies, but a cooperation withIMP could also bringin some grant support as part of public-public cooperation. Truetoform, atthe end of negotiations withtheIstanbul
Metropolitan Municipality,the parent organization of IMP,the municipality decidedto grant most ofthe costs ofthe planning activity.
Revision ofthe existing regional plan of Thrace was also a necessity dueto several shortcomings ofthe plan anditslack of cross-border/ cross-regionalinteraction with its neighbors, namelytheIstanbul metropolitan region. The effects oftheindustrial dispersion offromIstanbul were misdiagnosed. A relatively sudden and uncontrolled industrial expansion alreadyfilled upthe designatedindustrial zones and spreadto makeinroadsto poorly protected agricultural areas.Improved planning andland management measures neededto betaken. Asthe regional plans arethe
competence ofthe Ministry of Environment and Forestry,it hadto beinvolvedinto the planning process,becomingthethird official party.
Allthree parties, Ministry, TRAKAB and Metropolitan Municipality ofIstanbul agreed to sign a cooperation protocol, as afirst step. However, agreeing ontheterms ofthe protocol has provedto be alengthy and stressful process of negotiation. Each party threatenedthe others atleast once with retreatfrom cooperation.
Atfirst,the higher officials ofthe metropolitan municipality andthe ministry hadto argue whethertheinstitutions were ableto cooperate at all. Theinitial statement was “ifit could have been doneit would have been done!”. Following athorough
investigation ofthelaws and regulations oftheinstitutionsit could be proventhat cooperation wasinfact possible. Howeverthe bureaucracy oftheIstanbul
Metropolitan Municipality would eventoday arguethat a cooperationinvolving direct support ofthe municipality should not have been realized at all. They have been arguingthat any commitment beyondthe administrative boundaries ofthe
municipality cannot be made. A counter-argument hadto be nurtured by planners: Any activity benevolentforIstanbul, andfurtheringits development policies can be supported bytheIstanbul Metropolitan Municipality regardless of wherethe activityis taking place. Forinstance, direct supportto employment generating activitiesin towns with high out-migration ratio has been an established practice oftheIstanbul Metropolitan Municipalityin orderto slow downthe populationincrease ofthe metropolis. The bureaucracyinIstanbul hadto break up resisting, however unwillingly.
In a normal process,the Ministry of Environment and Forestry hadto open atender for revisingthe regional plan;followingthe approval ofthe revised regional plan,
each province administration hadto openits owntender.Inthis casethe ministry was not willingtotake overthe burden of a new planning activityforthe Thrace region.It was not readyto admitthatthe plan wastoo shortsighted and partly insufficient, but welcomedthe re-planning onthe conditionthatitinvolved no
demands onthe ministerial budget and costs; andthe ministry would not give upits control and approval rights.
TRAKAB,the main beneficiary ofthe cooperation, was expectingtwo major gains out ofthis cooperation: Firstlythey did not wantto spendtoo much on planning, a “soft administrativetool, which causes more questions andtroublesthanthe answers and guidanceit provides”. Secondly,the regional development perspective putforward by IMP did convincethe administrative and political decision-makers sothey wantedto take partinitinstead of starting a process oftheir own with another group of planners. However asthe negotiations extended, TRAKAB startedto get anxious. Their
expectation wastofinalizethe whole planning process within one year, whichis even with a signed protocol very unrealistic. Signing ofthe protocol by all partiesitself has taken alittle shorterthan one year.
Another draw backfromthe point of view of TRAKAB was howthe signing partners treated each other. The ministry considereditself asthe higher approval authority and above ofthe metropolitan municipality and TRAKAB. TheIstanbul Metropolitan Municipality wasthinking ofitself asthe donor organization andits bureaucrats were in manyinstances behaving asifthey were undertaking a charityfortheir poorer neighbors. TRAKAB withits governors and mayors sittinginthe executive board, who are usedto be actedtoward as VIP, was not readyto assume a deprived role. Onthe contrary, TRAKAB sawitself asthe owner andtheinitiator ofthe project. In such a setting,the dialogue betweenthethree partnerstendedto break down beforethe negotiations resultedin an agreement. The planningteamin charge had to mediatebetweenthe participants and enablethe communication. Furthermore every progressin negotiations has been documented bythe plannersthemselves. Startingfromtheinitial drafttothelast signed version ofthe protocolI have written at least a dozen ofprotocols with everyincremental progressin meaning orjust wording. The plannerinthis process went beyondthe point of a neutral mediator or a
facilitator. Hetookinitiative at desired points, especially at bottlenecksin orderto steerthe communicationinto safe waters. Throughoutthe process of negotiationsthe
planner wasforcedtointervene using his model-strong power and assumedthe role of an expert, a consultantinits relations withthe signatory parties ofthe protocol. When we reflectthe process on our participationlandscape (Figure X), we seethat the whole process has run withinformal andinstitutionalized setting. Allthree parties were representedin negotiations mostformally; almost alltalkstook placeinform of meetings withintheframework of pre-defined agenda. The planner has virtually been the only one who had bi-lateraltalksto each one ofthe party.
FIGURE 4: Case Study 2.a.,Aninstitutional cooperation effort disclosingthe discord betweenthe public organizations. The process of signingthetripartite protocolthat enabledthe actual planning phase plotted onthe participationlandscape. A formal process but hard bargaining.
However,the cooperation process was not consensual. A power game betweenthe parties, different, sometimes opposing expectations and dispute were characteristic forthetalks.It may be arguedthatthree public organizationstalkingfor cooperation should be regarded as corporatism where parties support and cover each others insufficiencies. Thereforethere exists aninborn consensus. We have seenthatthisis nottrue. The power struggle between organizationsin comingtogether has provedto
be more decisive. Furthermore unexpectedly conflictinginterests, such asthe ministry doesn’t wantto changethe recently approved butincompetent plan, TRAKAB doesn’t wantto payfor planning but hasto,the metropolitan municipality doesn’t wantto undertake any cross-border activity butthe city has already grown over boundaries, have contributedtothe difficultiesin communication. Althoughthe initial and “courtesy” nodding “yes, we haveto cooperate!” would movethe project towards consensusthe rest ofthe project wasfarless consensual. The signing ofthe tripartite protocol appears onthelandscape of participationinthe‘institutionalized -agony’ quarter.
III.2.b. Stepwise Policy-making with the People:
As soon asthe protocol was signedthe road was clearedfor usto start up withthe planning activitiesinthe region. We preferred and promoted an open process. This meantto raisethe awareness of XXX million peoplelivinginthree provinces and 27 cities andtowns. We have designed a participation scheme as part ofthe planning activity withfour consecutive steps, which we believedtoinvolvethe widest possible number of peopleintothe decision making process:
1.Informingthe general public;
2. Developing collective visions – development goals; 3. Discussingfor policy-making;
4. Displayingthe plan.
1.Informingthe general public:
Projectsthat are willingto participate peopleinto decision-making very often dothe mistake ofinvitingthe peopleto afirst meeting and are askingthemtheirideas, thoughts, wants and demands. Participantsfeel usually uneasy duetothe sudden exposureto question without having had athought onthe subject. We wantedto avoidthat and started anintensive campaignin Thrace. Together withthe governor’s offices andthe municipalitiesthe planningteam has organizedinformation meetings in everytownship of Thrace. The planning process has been explainedin 3 province centers and 27towns.
This has beenthe most communicative step of the planning process. The people haven’t been asked any questions. Original plan ofthe planningteam wasto explain the planning process, preparingthe peopleto an active discussion periodfor policy -making,in a sensefor active political debate. We haveinvitedthe peopleto ask questions withoutlimitations.
A regional planning debate had already been started duringthe planning process of Istanbul. Some oftheideas developedforIstanbul, especiallythe decentralization idea, did causethe most heated discussions which hadfound a considerable placein press and media.In a nutshell,the ones supportingtheidea of decentralization of Istanbul were hopingfor a dispersion of wealth and prosperity, and workplacesfor theirtowns. The ones who were againsttheidea were claimingthatIstanbul never would give upthe profitable sectors, and would “decentralize” (!) only highly polluting, low profit businesses, while retainingthe “lion’s share”. Thustheidea of poly
Especiallythe NGO’s, and amongthem environmentalist groups andthe professional chambers werethe ones whotook a negative attitudetowardstheidea of
decentralization. And nowthe same planningteam who developedthe poly-centric development/regionalintegrationidea was commissionedto plan Thrace – this could not mean any good!
Planningis seen as an official, bureaucratic operation ofthe central orlocal
governments. The Turkish stateis not very reputablein asking its citizens’ opinions.It was suspiciousthat now some officials and planners wereinterestedin public opinion causedfurther suspicion. Didthe government have a hidden agenda, so cruelthat they need a public approval beforehand?
There emerged also supporters ofthe planning activity. They were appreciatingthe participation effort and were arguingthatthis wasthefirsttime a public opinion was asked already beforehand.
Some others were moaningthatthis effort hadto be made several years ago and thatit was a belated undertaking after “everything was alreadylost”.
Theinformation meetings heldinthelargest hall of eachtown has drawn attention.In combination withthe controversial discussions, some of whichI have cited above,the local media showed closeinterest,informingthe rest ofthe population aboutthe planning activity. However,the press was moreinterestedin stirringthings up,thusto alarge portionthe headlines were rather misinforming.
Nevertheless, we were happythatthere was a close attention ofthe general publicin the planning process. Theinformation process achievedto mobilize a substantial part ofthe society. Awareness could be achieved; but people were standing cautious. Apartfrom the meetings organized bythe planningteam, a secondlayer of meetings startedtotake placein every province center. These were organized bythe NGOs and citizen groups. The planners wereinvitedtothose meetingsto answer questions but most ofthetime we weretryingto winthe confidence ofthe people against
accusations of deceivingthe public.
It was veryimportantto convincethe public ofthe neutrality ofthe planners. We had to showthat we are avoiding anyform of clientalism or manipulation.The only
trustworthy way of doingthisistolead an openness policy andtransparency. During this period allinformation relevantfor planning has been kept accessible bythe planners. This provedto be disturbing by some groups who were demanding a privileged position. Forinstance,the previous planningteam ofthe previous plan
composed of mainly academicians or some stronger NGOs claimedto be excluded fromthe process.
This process constitutes an examplefor how agonism cannot be avoided. Despite the effortsto generate a communicative rationale withthe stakeholders of planning, individual groups more orlessinfluential, preferredto positionthemselvesin
oppositiontothe planning process. Each group orindividual hadits own reason; some were politically motivated, some were misinformed; existence of someis based on reaction. Whateverthe reason may be, agonisticinputs have been anintegral part ofthe planning process.I wouldliketo comment onitfurther by statingthat without the “against”factor,the success ofthe participation process would be endangered. Peopletendto raisetheir voice whenever somethingis notfitting withtheir
expectations. Thetensionto protect onesinterests produces a more energetic political process. The social decision-making mechanism seemsto be an agonistic processthan a consensual one.
Duringtheinformation meetingsthe planningteam was askingthe peopletothink abouttheirfuture andtheir cities;the waythey wanttoliveintwenty yearsfrom now. The appeal hasfound repercussion. The second phase could be started.
2. Developing collective visions – development goals;
Followingtheinformation and awareness raising phase,the people could now be invitedto developtheir own development goals. This hasbeen organized withthe municipalities andthe province administrations. The municipalities were askedto organize meetings underthe heading “Vision Forming meetings”. The planners have developed a standardizedinformation sheetto befilled bythe municipalities atthe end ofthe meetings which wereto be signed bythe participants. The signature was importantfor documentingthattheforms werefilled collectively and notindividuallyin the mayor’s office. The returningforms wereto be evaluated bythe planners and transformedinto development-policies. Howeverthe returningformsincluded every sort of demands. We have seenthat withoutthe orientation and guidance ofthe plannerthe process was producing arbitrary results.
Interest groups with economical concerns, such asindustrial entrepreneurs orland developers did not contactthe planners duringtheinformation phase.Inthis second phase, however,they startedto visitthe planning office. They were either askingto includetheir prospectiveinvestmentsintothe plans orthey weretryingtofind out information, apparentlyforland speculation, howthe physical development would
looklike.Inface ofthese demandsthe planners split. One group was assertingthat theinformation wasforindividual gains andtherefore preserved untilthe plans were finalized;the other group was arguingthat under conditions offulltransparency and free accesstoinformation no speculation couldtake place. Eventhoughthe debate was not resolved,the planning office has not kept any planning relatedinformation covert. Someland developersimmediatelyturned againstthe planners.
3. Discussingfor Policy-making:
Thisthird step was designedto show peoplethe accumulated results oftheir wishes and demands. The overall vision,ifit were putforward,forfuture required a set of policiestoimplement. The planners were supposedto usetheirtechnical knowledge inthe classical senseto develop alternative policy proposalsthatleadtothe goals set bythe people; and ask whetherthey were readyto undertakethe costs and burdens associated withtheirfuture visions. We wantedto show people howtheir “unrestricted”imagination offuture would change asthey retreat againstthe
sacrificesthey were supposedto bring about. Whateveris remainingfromthe original imagination (or vision) wouldformthe policyfoundationsforthe plan.
4.Displayingthe Plan
Inthislast public communication phase,the planners wereto displaythe plan,the formalized product ofthe people’sfuturethinking. The planners were expectingto cometo a public consensus and broad acceptance ofthe plan. Theidea wasto produce a publicly recognized document which people would regard astheir own public convention.
***
Whatevertheintensions ofthe planners were,thelasttwo phases have not been realized asforeseen bythe plannerteam.Internal problems withinIMP and changes in working conditions have causedthe planningteamto disintegrate. The process has beeninterrupted.IMP continued the processtofulfillits planning commitment, howeverin a more conventional andless communicative approach.
Althoughinterrupted,the experience can be reflected onthe participationlandscape (Figure 5). The planners designedthe participation processinline with
communicative planningideas, expectingto be ableto reflectthe communicative rationale onthe product. Howeverthe process showedthat conflict and dispute were stronger motivesthan consensus. We have managedto adjustto agonistic
