International Planning Frameworks Much Depend on the Context - Coursework Example

International planning frameworks Architecture 1.Introduction The UN Habitat Global Report on Human Settlements (2009: 47) report argues: “An important lesson from the experience of modern planning is that planning approaches which have been shaped by a particular context, should not be considered as models and imposed uncritically on very different contexts. While planning has common purposes, tasks and types of tools throughout the world, the form take will always be shaped by the social and cultural norms of particular places”  It is true that context is everything. Planning and execution varies according to every demography, geography and climate is different for implementing a plan. There are no magic bullets or universal solutions for any plan. The United Nations Development Program has proved this many times while developing a plan in a geographical area. The tasks and the types of tools are different in every area. The social and cultural norms of a particular place decide modes of execution for a plan. Many problems arise while managing the funds in cross national projects. These problems are usually linked with accessing comparable data sets as well as in achieving agreement over functional equivalence in research parameters. When it comes to the interpretation many problems arise. Any shift in orientation dependent on an interpretation of the policies usually gives rise to a conflict. The cross national comparative planning studies are generally perceived as flexible. The common notion exists that they do not have distinct features and comparative planning is different from holistic planning only when the factor of cross national dimension is considered (Masser et al., 2005). This idea agrees with that quote under discussion. When the same plan is executed in different areas needs to comply to different work schedules, tools and other modes of execution only when the same plan is executed in different countries. This notion should not give the impression that a plan goes wayward when it is applied in different countries. The very definition of comparative planning research emphasizes the link between planning problems and execution in different regions, and there connection with their regional institutional context (Masser et al., 2005). The emphasis on such a relationship between the matter of the investigation and the context stems from Friedmann’s paper on institutional context (Masser et al., 2005). Despite simple variations the general agreement is different styles of national planning dependent on a combination of system variables. They also depend on the level of economic development already attained, the nature of politics and culture. 2. Conceptual concerns about researching planning systems, the role of path dependency, planning culture, as well as institutions in the design and evolution of planning systems in countries The culturally confined approach indicates linguistic and cultural factors. Wherever the planning is deployed their research traditions and administrative structures are the imperative tools. For instance if such problems are ignored and they keep on lingering unresolved they will most likely impact the quality of the results. In this case the whole project can be effected because the researcher might probably lose control over the construction of key variables. The context plays a crucial role in executing the plans. For instance even if the mix of countries is selected for comparative studies it affects the quality and compatibility of the data. It also impacts the nature of collaboration. An ideal scenario in this regard would be the project manager selecting those countries that can be included in the study and research. So that appropriate body of knowledge and expertise can be used for planning and execution. Within small-scale bilateral studies this might be feasible but in reality this is only an idealistic case. The participation of people is determined by other factors. Sometimes these factors are political and territorial. And when they come in the equation there are no easy relationships between the project participants. Europe is a classic case because the European programs usually include all EU members, despite the fact that there is a huge difference among European countries from social and economic perspective. A lot of literature exists on planning that focuses on planning system on the whole. Many researchers suggest that to make a few changes in the economies and societies the administration needs to be concerned about planning systems (Hillier & Healey, 2010). The planners need to do this because if they want to free the possibilities of broad thinking and realistic transformations then they need to step out of the comfort of conceptual planning. In the same regards path dependence plays a crucial role. Path dependence is an idea that originated as a small advantage among the historical path that could alter it. But today path dependence has taken many different forms because of the changes in the nature of scope. There is a dynamic systems framework offering two broad classes; the decision theory and the dynamics system (Page, 2006). The conceptual concerns do not end there, culture is also a decisive factor in it. Culture is used in planning literature in three broad areas; civic activity, arts and the social events (Abram, 2012). For instance the visual arts and media are a form of public activity that dictates its own bureaucracy. Sometimes people call it the planning of culture. When it dictates its own terms it only means customization of planning. This is the core of conceptual concerns surrounding planning and framework. Through such concerns institutions of design have emerged. The evolution of planning and execution has been dictated through such concerns. It is a misconception that rules are crafted through centralized dictation (Schubert & Wangenheim, 2006). In fact the majority of rules and system involve design and evolution. To understand the evolution of planning rules suffice is to say that evolution of species follow a different path from evolution of rules, especially in the context of culture. 3. The strengths and weaknesses of the major design principles of different planning systems (regulatory, discretionary, hybrid) and how they potentially impact planning outcomes The bureaucratic organizational form has two basic strengths. The first one is obvious because the bureaucratic form of organization was the first model of design development (Thakur, 1998). Despite the modifications and evolution in the rules it still offers the basic foundation for understanding the design approaches. The second point of strength is despite technological innovation, operational efficiency can still be gauged and improved by applying bureaucratic tools like managing hierarchy, consistency in procedures and the division of labour (Thakur, 1998). In Australia for instance there is a difference culture and system of governance. There are six states and two territories. Each region has their own environmental planning laws (Thompson & Maginn, 2012). An approach that works well in one state cannot be applied in the other state without modification. Here are different system of planning in land management (Thompson & Maginn, 2012). In a state where the bureaucracy rules offers its own strengths and weaknesses. In an attempt to generalize the different planning systems to major categories have been recognized; regulatory and discretionary (Gallent & Carmona, 2003). The regulatory system is based on zoning system. But there is also another category where planning systems show a fusion of both regulatory and discretionary planning systems. These systems are called hybrid systems (Gallent & Carmona, 2003). The execution of these systems depends on the nature and context of the plan. The regulatory systems are rigid in nature. Fixed legal frameworks and administrative decision-making governs the systems. Discretionary systems on the other hand distinguished law and policy and our other based on principles not rules. Guiding plans and political decision-making go earn discretionary systems (Gallent & Carmona, 2003). Each system offers its own strengths and weaknesses. Throughout history the system has become increasingly sophisticated however, it has not been fundamentally changed (Booth, 1996). One example can explain the evolutionary process in planning and development in the United States. The experiment of the health networks exemplifies the change in the use of different planning techniques. A balance arrangement is adjusted to improve the conditions of the US health system than only following the government's autonomy. The bureaucratic approach or the government take over for the US health system cannot be the solution to the problems. A balance between market-driven forces and government supervision can produce the desired results. The Arizona Medicaid program shows an ingenious way how the state government can regulate competitive forces in public interest (Weil, 2001). Government’s overall policy rests on granting more discretionary authority to the states. Therefore hybrid policy features that strike a balance between complete autonomy of an institution and accommodating the competitive forces can help the system. In history urban planning and development has gone through many changes. There has been criticism on focusing on physical aspect of development. The physical aspect of development is highly relevant in the United States because in the past the engineering and architecture were constrained by politics and economical factors (Angotti, 2013). Engineers and architects finally started to cooperate with urban planners and is developed in new form of development. The social scientists were also a crucial part of this teamwork as they were trained in rational methods of citizen participation. They would construct a pathway that would need to legitimation and plan approvals. It is for such reasons that urban planning emerged as a distinct profession which was separate from architecture or engineering in North America. It is noteworthy that traditional master planning was the weakest in this region because of the power of FIRE sector (Angotti, 2013). 4. Potential barriers to the transfer of planning practice internationally A lot of talk goes on about globalization and how it affects urban planning. Planning educators specifically focus on this phenomenon. Their need is to develop an international comparison for improving planning scholarship. This comparison can take two forms: comparing practice in the context or comparing research. The planning scholars usually delve in isolation from the people that they might get help from. Such isolation is also brought on to language differences geographical and cultural circumstances as well as context of distinctions in planning practice systems. Such factors create barriers in cross national application of planning principles (Stiftel, et al., 2006). The major barriers in transferring planning practice internationally are amorphous and demotivated social environment, legal shortcomings, gaps and credibility of governance, that community relations, corruption, long-term budget deficits and accountability at the local administrative level (Adams et al., 2012). To discuss these barriers a meeting of heads of schools of planning in Europe in Leuven in 2007 discussed the value of establishing it, platform for recognizing planning profession at the European Union level (Duhr, 2010). The objective was to develop a common platform referring to minimum standards and competencies needed for practicing in specific countries (Duhr, 2010). In theory when this platform is adopted it will become a mandatory requirement for all member states. The European Union may not have defined any professional standards but it looks forward to reducing barriers to mobility. These matters are important because there are some European countries that require anyone desiring to practice spatial planning profession should be registered as an architect (Duhr, 2010). Therefore the ECTP has pointed out these barriers. It has been observed that once an organization commits to international practices the mayor commitment offers a new set of challenges for meeting the required guidelines. International practice is different from country especially in the US (Architects, 2007). Other than the differences in procedures, planning in an international context demand entry and endorsement by community leaders for planning process (Netting et al., 2008). As mentioned in the introduction the context plays a crucial role here because it defines the planner’s actions. Public participation in planning is an aspect that is usually overlooked. Spatial planning practices exhibit inexorable barriers to participation (Klun, Decman & Jukic, 2011). Spatial planning systems show a high degree of complexity there is few commonalities and significant variations in the contexts. International companies who advertise to international audiences face these barriers head-on. They successfully face cultural barriers by committing to international advertising (O’Guinn et al., 2008). The context is also the dominant force here. However, engaging read international audiences cannot snatch away the power from the central authority. It offers another barrier in executing the plan as planning is only possible way or a central authority monitors it (Borkenau, 2013). 5. Individual country examples In Canada there are different provinces with different regulatory systems. However, some of them also operate under discretionary zones therefore operating under hybrid systems (Gallent & Carmona, 2003). Hong Kong also shows similar planning systems (Gallent & Carmona, 2003). The US has zoning systems in majority of the states. Separate and discretionary design planning systems also manifest themselves according to the context. In Australian states, the territories bear the responsibility for designing the legal framework that governs urban policies and oversees land-use planning (Gurran, 2007). The frameworks designed by these territories define parameters for regional, strategic and urban planning (Gurran, 2007). They also have some autonomy over addressing legal land usage plans. It would be more helpful to understand different planning systems when a comparison is drawn between operational planning systems in different countries. A study analyzes the regulatory approach of planning in South Korea and discretionary system used in the UK. The difference between these two systems is enormous because in Korea the central government creates master plans (Gallent & Carmona, 2003). And hence they have a rigid legal standing. The nature and type of development is dictated by the government’s policy. In South Korea national zoning is prevalent. This bifurcation governs the developmental status between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas (Gallent & Carmona, 2003). National zoning is the premise of each development. The rigidity does not hamper every developmental project. Development can proceed if it is nine with the government's policies in a specific zone. The building code issued by the government also needs to be followed. Local administrators are the ones that finally approve a project. But they only approve it after matching it with the fixed law. The system is based on legalities. The administrative officers make decisions but they do not make it independently, they have to comply with the legal skeleton setup to govern such developmental projects. This process has in advantage of certainty but very little flexibility. There is no difference between law and policy guidance because the system only issuers certainty. The case of UK is different as it follows discretionary systems. It offers a flexible response for future developments. In Britain the common notion held by almost all governments and political parties is it is improbable to foresee all circumstances and therefore respected policy law. With this premise they dislike any rigid or legally binding plans. In 1947 all private development rights were nationalized after the Town and Country Planning Act (Gallent & Carmona, 2003). The very essence of such a system rests on preserving the right to develop. As explained earlier, rules and regulations are evolutionary. They keep changing and modifying according to times and circumstances. The hybrid planning system in Hong Kong appears to be evolving and becoming an odd mixture of regulatory plans. But surprisingly this system offers greater discretion to planners (Seabrooke & How, 2008). This discretion grants them the use rights. The previous Town Planning Bill was different in distributing power and control. Hong Kong's previous bill managed density control and managed planning provisions by transferring them to Planning Authority from The Building Authority (Searbrooke & How, 2008). A look at the history shows different planning systems in action according to different contexts. Sometimes an old framework becomes helpful in executing modern methodologies and techniques. The professional planning networks that emerged from the Soviet planning systems have proven really helpful in applying new techniques, strategies and other modes of planning (Adams et al., 2012). If the notion is that new communities and networks need to emerge then current networks need some time and space to evolve according to different contexts. According to this theory Russia is in a very good position to apply such techniques by cooperating with other Russian speaking CEE countries (Adams et al., 2012). Sometimes the context does not differentiate between planning practices to a great extent. In comparing Poland, Hungary and Turkey certain differences in urban spatial control organizations and institutions exist. The case of Budapest tells that the city went under rapid shift from centralized to decentralized (Tasan-Kok, 2006). The evolution of this system was brought on in an attempt to remove institutional barriers (for example the RRT system). The case of Turkey is significant. The country is going through a transformational phase. Evaluating planning systems in Turkey indicate a shift towards re-centralization and decentralization simultaneously (Reimer et al. 2014). The factors that are accelerating these changes include neoliberal intervention of the central government at several scales, Europeanization and globalization (Reimer et al. 2014). A stumble in particular offers an example of a hybrid form of tribute you should've plans where different practices including statutory planning, strategic planning and project planning a practiced (Reimer et al. 2014). A similar shift in planning systems have been seen in India which is now moving from highly centralized planning system to market oriented economic reforms (Menipaz & Menipaz, 2011). Similarly the planning success stories that involve participatory budgeting in Porto Algre, Brazil, or outstanding infrastructure planning a European economic Union are sufficient to reflect on the hybrid planning process (Sanyal, 2006). 6. Conclusion There is no universal solution for any planning and development. Design and planning progress through time and cultures. Context dictates all planning process. The modern trend of planning is moving away from centralized and rigid control. However without central monitoring there cannot be any plan at all. The discussion in this paper makes it clear that planning and design is constantly going through modification and evolution. The factors such as culture, history and political influences govern planning and their executional modes. One plan successfully working in Canada cannot implemented in India or any other demography. The trends have shown that international planning does not mean one-size-fits-all design and development. It has also been observed that culture and political factors do not remain the same. They're changing impacts the planning and development process in that region. The 20th century saw strategic planning in the 21st century is observing hybrid planning in action. At the time progresses the world will see even different forms and variations of planning and development. Suitability aside each planning process has its weaknesses and strengths. There is no perfect plan, design or development. 7. References 1. Abram, S. 2012. Culture and planning. Burlington: Ashgate publishing. 2. Adams, N., Cotella, G. and Nunes, R. 2012. Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning: Building on EU enlargement. London: Routledge. 3. Angotti, T. 2013. The new century of the metropolis: urban enclaves and orientalism. London: Routledge. 4. Architects, P. E. 2007. International practice for architects. John Wiley & Sons. 5. Booth, P. 1996. Controlling development: Certainty and discretion in Europe the USA and Hong Kong. London: Routledge. 6. Borkenau, F. 2013. Socialism: National or international. London: Routledge. 7. Duhr, S. Colomb, C. & Nadin, V. 2010. European spatial planning and territorial cooperation. London: Routledge. 8. Gallant, N. & Carmona, S. 2003. Delivering new homes: Planning, processes and providers. Routledge. 9. Gurran, N. 2007. Australian urban land use planning: introducing statutory planning practice in New South Wales. Sydney University Press. 10. Hillier, J. & Healey, P. 2010. The Ashgate research companion to planning: Conceptual challenges for spatial planning. Ashgate Publishing. 11. Klun, M., Decman, M. & Jukic, T. 2011. The proceedings of the 11th European conference on EGovernment: faculty the administration, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Academic Conferences Limited. 12. Masser, I., Williams, B. and Williams, R. 2005. Learning from other countries: the cross national dimension in urban policymaking. London: Routledge. 13. Menipaz, E. & Menipaz, A. 2011. International business: Theory and practice. SAGE Publications. 14. Netting et al. 2008. Comparative approaches to program planning. John Wiley & Sons. 15. O’Guinn, T., Allen, C. Semenik, R. 2008. Advertising and integrated brand promotion. Cengage Learning. 16. Page, S. E. 2006. Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 1: 87-115. 17. Reimer, M. Getimis, P. & Blotevogel, H. 2014. Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: A comparative perspective on continuity and changes. London: Routledge. 18. Sanyal, B. 2005. Comparative planning cultures. London: Routledge. 19. Schubert, C. & Wangenheim, G. V. 2006. Evolution and design of institutions. Routledge. 20. Seabrooke, W., Kent, P. & How, H. H. 2008. International real estate: An institutional approach. John Wiley & Sons. 21. Stiftel, B., Watson, V. & Acselrad. H. 2006. Dialogues in urban and regional planning. London: Routledge. 22. Tasan-Kok, T. 2004. Budapest, Istanbul, and Warsaw: Institutional and spatial change. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers. 23. Thakur, G. B. M. 1998. Management today: Principles and practice. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. 24. Thompson, S. & Maginn, P. 2012. Planning Australia: An overview of urban and regional planning. Cambridge University Press. 25. Weil, T. P. 2001. Health networks: candidate the solution? University of Michigan Press. Read More