IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v42y2005i12p2123-2144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Bickerstaff

    (Centre for Environmental Risk (CER), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK, K.Bicker.rtaff@uea.ac.uk)

  • Gordon Walker

    (Department of Geography, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YB, UK, g.p.walker@lancaster.ac.uk)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to bring some critical reflection to bear on the upsurge of participatory rhetoric in local governance. The research discussed investigates two case studies of deliberative exercises used by local authorities to develop their local transport plans. The analysis avoids the rather simplistic 'check list' evaluative models based upon the Habermasian ideals of communicative rationality and instead develops an approach which attends to the power relations embedded in the process of participation. Significantly, the research, across a range of stakeholder groups, reveals a deeply problematic relationship between citizen involvement and established structures of democratic decision-making. Attention is drawn to the institutional constraints which account for the limited realisation of the participatory agenda in local governance. Conclusions are also developed relating to both the process of participation evaluation and the wider consequences of the expansion of public involvement for the renewal of local democracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2005. "Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2123-2144, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:42:y:2005:i:12:p:2123-2144
    DOI: 10.1080/00420980500332098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/00420980500332098
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00420980500332098?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steve Martin & Annette Boaz, 2000. "The Modernization and Improvement of Government and Public Services: Public Participation and Citizen-Centred Local Government: Lessons from the Best Value and Better Government for Older People Pilot," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 47-54, April.
    2. Judith Petts, 2001. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes: Waste Management Case-studies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 207-226.
    3. Susan L. Santos & Caron Chess, 2003. "Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance of Theory and Participant‐Based Criteria and Practical Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 269-279, April.
    4. Dryzek, John S., 1996. "Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 475-487, September.
    5. P M McGuirk, 2001. "Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(2), pages 195-217, February.
    6. Malcolm Tait & Heather Campbell, 2000. "The Politics of Communication between Planning Officers and Politicians: The Exercise of Power through Discourse," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(3), pages 489-506, March.
    7. Steve Rayner, 2003. "Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 163-170, June.
    8. Thomas C. Beierle, 2002. "The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 739-749, August.
    9. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weber, Johann, 2017. "Policy entrepreneurs and opportunities: Establishing a model of policy change through bicycle infrastructure at the municipal level," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 252-263.
    2. Sagaris, Lake, 2018. "Citizen participation for sustainable transport: Lessons for change from Santiago and Temuco, Chile," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 402-410.
    3. Vigar, Geoff, 2017. "The four knowledges of transport planning: Enacting a more communicative, trans-disciplinary policy and decision-making," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 39-45.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Finardi, Corrado & Pellegrini, Giuseppe & Rowe, Gene, 2012. "Food safety issues: From Enlightened Elitism towards Deliberative Democracy? An overview of EFSA’s “Public Consultation” instrument," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 427-438.
    2. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    3. Takeuchi Ayano, 2021. "A survey of methods for evaluating mini-publics," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    5. Amanda P. Rehr & Mitchell J. Small & Paul S. Fischbeck & Patricia Bradley & William S. Fisher, 2014. "The role of scientific studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: a coral reef example," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 60-87, March.
    6. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    7. Giuseppe Di Liddo & Annalisa Vinella, 2021. "Centralized standards and local taxation in municipal waste management," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(4), pages 603-619, December.
    8. Lyall, Catherine & Tait, Joyce, 2019. "Beyond the limits to governance: New rules of engagement for the tentative governance of the life sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1128-1137.
    9. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    10. Timothy C. Earle, 2004. "Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 169-183, February.
    11. Hans Pruijt, 2003. "Is the institutionalization of urban movements inevitable? A comparison of the opportunities for sustained squatting in New York City and Amsterdam," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 133-157, March.
    12. Alexander Walter & Roland Scholz, 2007. "Critical success conditions of collaborative methods: a comparative evaluation of transport planning projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 195-212, March.
    13. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter & Phillips, Richard, 2017. "‘Branching scenarios’ seeking articulated action for regional regeneration – A case study of limited success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 189-202.
    14. Joanna Chataway, 2005. "Introduction: is it possible to create pro-poor agriculture-related biotechnology?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 597-610.
    15. Mark Purcell, 2006. "Urban Democracy and the Local Trap," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(11), pages 1921-1941, October.
    16. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    17. Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    18. Arnaud Bilek & David Carassus & Damien Gardey, 2014. "Évaluation démocratique et performance des politiques publiques territoriales : les enseignements d’une analyse comparative à l’échelle internationale," Post-Print hal-01881876, HAL.
    19. Camilla Adelle & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny, 2012. "Proceeding in Parallel or Drifting Apart? A Systematic Review of Policy Appraisal Research and Practices," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 401-415, June.
    20. Irene Fafaliou & Euthalia Tzanalaridou & Apostolos Ballas, 2010. "Is Rationing an Option for Approaching Healthcare Services Provision? The Case of the Greek Cardiac Patients," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 16(1), pages 109-121, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:42:y:2005:i:12:p:2123-2144. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.