Critical Review of Two Papers in the Context of Neoliberalism and South East Queensland

Transcription

1 Critical Review of Two Papers in the Context of Neoliberalism and South East Queensland GRIFFITH SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT 4047ENV Public Involvement and Community Development 2014 GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY CONVENOR: Ms Sonia KIRBY. STUDENT S NAME: Mohammad GHAFOOR. STUDENT NUMBER: S DUE DATE: Monday, 12pm, August 11 th, ENV Public Involvement and Community Development. S Page 1 of 5.

2 Introduction This paper will critically review two articles concerning the public involvement and community engagement and incorporating additional literature to support the review and considering the ideas presented in the context of neoliberalism and South East Queensland (SEQ). The first is Head (2008), article Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms? (Head 2008), while the second is Quick & Feldman (2011), article Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion (Quick & Feldman 2011). Head (2008) article is about community engagement and citizen participation and how the shift is taking off from managerial versions of liberal democracy top-down approach dominance of elite planning decision makers towards building institutional bridges between government leaders and citizens for more empowerment of community. In particular, he argues that a degree of scepticism about government intentions that are having on the community groups and citizenry. Furthermore distinctions drawn between policy arenas, capacity building of non-government organisations (NGOs) and public and general community engagement outlined for social capital. This is similar in many ways to Quick & Feldman (2011) article about how participation is intertwined with inclusive method community engagement and without inclusive method then the participation may not be effective. In their argument they highlight that participation emphasizes public input whereas inclusion creates community involvement. After giving a brief statement of the core arguments of both articles, this paper will claim that the ideas in both articles agree with one another and showing great similarity in the issues raised and ways of combating the matter. Finally, this paper shall briefly define the key themes and arguments in both articles and then critically reflect in light of the current environment to recognise opportunities, challenges, and issues related with concerning persons in planning. Neoliberalism and how it has influenced planning in SEQ This paper begins by defining the term neoliberalism and the evolving role of the planner and the evolution of planning in SEQ. Neo-liberalism new kind of liberalism that includes deregulation (reduce government regulation), privatisation (sell state-owned goods & services), cutting public expenditure (decreasing safety-net) and liberating free enterprise (Steele 2009). In QLD the deregulation shifted planning from prescriptive-based to performance-based planning which came to effect under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA 1997),(Steele 2009). Gleeson (2004) pointed out some of the key forms of restructuring i.e. privatisation of services and planning, using private capital to finance urban development, rise in private sector planning (master planning), weakening strategic planning within the metropolitan and centralism in urban governance (Gleeson 2004). The influences contemporary neoliberalism has on planning are defined or grouped into three categories, physical (restructuring, reforming, reengineering) change relate to urban structure, governance (splintering, rescaling) refinancing declining to public services and socio-political (dissolving, remodelling) of socio-cultural bonds (Gleeson 2004). The statutory planning framework adopts performance-based giving greater flexibility to land use in SEQ and attracting capital by facilitating development (McClure & Baker 2013). Gleeson and Low (2000a) demonstrate a detailed effect neoliberalism has on planning reforms and stakeholder views on planning system. Moreover the context of neoliberalised governance in SEQ is shifting between public and private realms and planning policy in Queensland showing the increasing influence of neoliberalism which is streamlining state planning interests and snowballing the timeliness and effectiveness of development approval (Wright & Cleary 2012). Neoliberal dominance places significant implications for urban planning and perceived as misleading land markets therefore is considered as a minimalist form of spatial regulation (Gleeson and Low 2000b:10). 4047ENV Public Involvement and Community Development. S Page 2 of 5.

3 Key themes and arguments in Head (2008) and Quick & Feldman (2011) Head (2008, p. 442) argues that community engagement and citizen partnership has been an important part of the liberal democratic theory, however the managerial role of liberal fairness been the dominant. In recent decades a shift away from top-down approaches to building intuitional involvement of citizenry and government leaders. Head (2008, p. 446) demonstrates the reasons behind the shift from top-down to intuitional due to political economy, international drifts in governance and the advancements of communications technologies, and the need for resolving complex issues. The doubt as to the truth about the intentions of government placed serious limits and influence of the community groups and citizenry. Therefore building effective capacity is important for non-government organisations (NGOs) and citizenry. In addition Head (2008, p. 443) claims inter-relationships between the community sectors, business and government are approaching nearer due to globalisation of technologies, commerce and communications. Also participatory approach increased due to growing awareness and inter-connectedness of many problems and solving complex environmental and social issues describes it as wicked issues. Building social capital through bonding and bridging social connections to draw on wider resources. Neoliberalism encourages free market management and control to power to influence public by those with wealth that acquires the dominant factor. Arnstein (1969) supports Heads (2008) argument through the dialogues about haves and have nots, where the haves are the leading businesses and dominant individuals that are encouraged to engage in community. Head (2008, p. 444) debates citizen participation and community involvement in public issues be carried out in five stages, involving, collaborating, informing, consulting and empowering citizens. However the hierarchical regulation and control still lie in the hands of the governments and seen to maintain control through service contracts, funding s and regulation. Quick and Feldman (2011, p. 1) argues that inclusion and partnership are self-regulating dimensions of civic engagement and that the relationship of inclusion aligns with diversity and deliberation. Participation emphasizes on public input through policies and programs whereas inclusion creates community involvement to address public matters. Community practice lens used to compare consequences of inclusion and participatory practices through four processes of high and low of inclusion and participatory approach. Quick and Feldman (2011, p. 15) further argues that inclusion is an imperative and theoretical practices for scholars, managers of public processes and planners. Critical reflection of Head (2008) and Quick & Feldman (2011) Head (2008) and Quick & Feldman (2011) agree that smaller marginalised groups are left out and not consulted to engage due to the lack of power dominance. This theory is also supported by Arnstein (1969) theory of tokenism, that participation does not attain power to those engaged but rather a customary that is taken place after the decision has already been made. Quick and Feldman (2011) argues a move towards participatory governance is ever increasing in current arena. Lane (2006) argues that Arnstein (1969) regarded power in public participation as a ladder from a degree of citizen power to non-participation grouping (see figure 1). Decision makers refer to the opportunities offered to the public as consultation, where government agencies gather advice that is then given to decision makers (Lane 2006). Lane (2006, p.297) argues that how to evaluate the success and effectiveness of public participation and Head (2008) stresses that public participation should move towards empowerment. Quick & Feldman (2011, p. 8) promotes inclusiveness that ultimately aids capacity building and understanding for logical decisions rather than participation to input for decision making (Quick & Feldman 2011). 4047ENV Public Involvement and Community Development. S Page 3 of 5.

4 On the other hand the foundation for effective community action, there are the needs to balance between the three tiers of community action to effectively engage, these are community value, community capacity and community empowerment, all of which needs to intertwine to better build an effective equilibrium community action (Williams 2004). Community values encourage community care to protect, preserve or maintain desired elements or uniqueness of community (Williams 2004). Secondly community capacity gives the community the prospective to act efficiently and empowerment offers the opportunity and confidence to act within reasonable means (Williams 2004). Head (2008, p. 450) recognises number of obstacles linked with significant community engagement, i.e. building trust between government and community, uniformed decision making, engagement and continual consultation can cost substantially and different community groups in trans boundary and political institutional, which remains a weakness in community engagement strategies (Head 2008). Conclusion The argument in this paper has concentrated in specific on two articles. The first is Head (2008) article titled Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms?, and the second is Quick & Feldman (2011), article titled Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion. Both articles cover several points on the shift in participation and how participation may possibly lack the usefulness if the inclusive method of community engagement was not inclusive in the process. Secondly the dominance of elite groups in planning decisions surrounded by neoliberal climate and the need for more empowerment of community. This paper has argued that while empowerment of community is right that empowerment offers the confidence and opportunity to act and that community capacity aids in effective community participation, this does not mean that effective community action can be achieved by simply having community capacity and empowerment but rather the implementation of the three tiers combined including the community value to preserve, maintain or protect the desired elements. Further development and discussion of this issue especially in the area of different community groups and in Trans boundary where there may be different conflicts of interest and values is needed to advance research on these matters. 4047ENV Public Involvement and Community Development. S Page 4 of 5.

5 References Arnstein, S R 1969, A Ladder of Citizen Participation, American Institute of Planners Journal, pp Forester, J 2000, 'Ch8: On the Ethics of Planning: What Profiles of Planners Can Teach Us About Practical Judgement and Moral Improvision', in The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, pp Gleeson, B & Low, N 2000a, Revaluing planning: rolling back neo-liberalism in Australia, Progress in Planning, 53(2), Gleeson, B 2004, The Chrysalis Breaks Open:The Emergence of a Post Neo-Liberal Mode of Urban Change, Integrated Transport Planning Division, Griffith University, QLD. Gleeson, B and Low, N 2000b, Unfinalised business: neoliberal planning reform in Australia, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp Gleeson, B and Steele, W 2009, The Bellwether Zone? Planning Infrastructure in South-East Queensland, Planning Infrastructure in South East Queensland, QLD. Head, B W 2008, Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms?, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 42, no. 3, pp Integrated Planning Act 1997 (QLD). Lane, M B 2006, 'Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history', Australian Geographer, Volume 36 (3), pp McClure, L & Baker, D 2013, Doing Adaptation Differently? Does Neoliberalism Influence Adaptation Planning in Queensland?, School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment Science and Engineering Faculty Queensland University of Technology, QLD. Quick, K S & Feldman, M S 2011, 'Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion', Journal of Planning Education and Research,Volume 31 (3), pp Steele, W 2009, Australian urban planners: Hybrid roles and professional dilemmas, Urban Policy and Research, 27(2), pp Williams, C 2004, Community Capacity Building: A Critical Evaluation of the Third Sector Approach, Review of Policy Research, Volume 21, Number 5, pp Wright, I & Cleary, S 2012, Reinvigorating planning and the planning system in Queensland - a neoliberal perspective, Paper presented at the Planning Institute of Australian Queensland State Conference Wright, I 2013, Are we all neoliberals now? Urban Planning in a neoliberal era, 49th ISOCARP Congress Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (QLD). 4047ENV Public Involvement and Community Development. S Page 5 of 5.