From post‐political to authoritarian planning in England, a crisis of legitimacy

Datos Bibliográficos

ID8962024
AutoresGordon Fearn (0000-0001-8425-2376, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK, autor de correspondencia), Simin Davoudi (0000-0001-6299-3675, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK)
Año2021
Volumen47
Número2
Páginas347-362
Fecha de publicación2021-09-18
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0020-2754 • E-ISSN: 1475-5661
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/tran.12501
OpenAlexW3199132841
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas27
Referencias citadas63

This paper argues that the crisis of post‐politics has sparked an authoritarian turn in spatial planning in England. The proposed reform of the English planning system in 2020 is a defining moment, marking not only the failure of consensus‐seeking politics in governing dissents but also the rising authoritarian responses to fix it. This is manifest in the intensification of state control, strengthening of executive power, and decline of democratic institutions, with a shift of emphasis from techno‐managerial to executive‐punitive practices, and from seemingly consensual to openly antagonistic approaches. This drift to authoritarianism has been justified by invoking a “state of exception,” whereby the established rules and procedures are displaced by the appeal to “exceptional” circumstances, such as emergencies, national securities, and global pandemics. We draw on a case study of shale gas “fracking” in England to show how authoritarianism has crept into planning processes through changes in legislation, reconfiguration of rules, rescaling of decision‐making, and shrinking of democratic spaces. We discuss the role of a “political moment” in the politicisation of fracking, arguing that the return of the political has engendered antagonistic and exclusionary practices, rather than the agonistic pluralism that planning scholars have called for. In managing planning conflicts, consent, compromise, and co‐option are increasingly complemented or replaced by discipline, control, and explicit exclusion. Instead of denying, neutralising, or suppressing antagonism by calling for consensus, authoritarian politics exaggerates it by establishing frontiers between legitimate and non‐legitimate voices of dissents. The paper concludes by emphasising that the authoritarian turn can only offer a contingent and fleeting solution to the failure of post‐political planning to deliver neoliberal pro‐growth goals. It cannot eradicate the crisis of legitimacy in planning, nor can it foreclose the political struggle for fixing its meaning and purpose

Authoritarianism · Compromise · Democracy · Law and economics · Legitimacy · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Punitive damages · Sociology · Technocracy · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Law · Political and Economic history of UK and US · Public Administration · Urban Planning and Governance