The Reform of Planning Practice, and the Practice of Planning Reform, in English Central Government

What do the ‘everyday’ practices of planning during the 2012-2014 National Planning Practice Guidance Review tell us about the dynamics of planning reform in English central government?

Part 1: Untangling and Re-tangling the Coalition Government’s Planning Reforms

Dr Olivier Sykes / Prof. Graham Haughton / Dr. David Dolowitz / John Healey MP

Daniel J. Slade

Outline

Project Summary

1.Why is planning practice at the national level so under-researched?

2.The ‘Taylor Review’

3.'Summarising the conceptual framework

4.Untangling and ‘Re-tangling’; The reform of practice and practice of reform

Early Findings

5.This presentation's focus: The framework in action and early findings.

6.Exploring policy contradiction, everyday practice and emergent properties in the English planning system

7.Summary

There is strangely little research into

planning practice in

central government

This is odd because:

1.UK planning system remains highly centralised despite academic fashion and political rhetoric to the contrary.

2.Recent neoliberal reforms are ‘quintessentially’ driven by, and particularly concentrated at, the level of the state. However, studies of ‘actually existing’ neoliberalisation rarely focus on the practices which constitute it at this level.

3.Unlike the local and regional levels, planning practice at the national level in general remains treated as a ‘hollow container’ or ‘black box’ and abstracted notions of process are relied on. This also means that contexts specific to the national level of practice (and therefore the rest) remain unexplored.

There is a range of possible reasons.

“Perhaps it is time for students of planning to subject this scale of planning to the

same sort of attention frequently given to the local or city regional levels, in an attempt to put forward more effective

models which might fit better the coming decades.” (Marshall, 2011)

“Perhaps it is time for students of planning to subject this scale of planning to the

same sort of attention frequently given to the local or city regional levels, in an attempt to put forward more effective

models which might fit better the coming decades.” (Marshall, 2011)

Aim: “To explore the key characteristics of planning and ‘planning practice’ in English central

government and examine how these characteristics shape and are shaped by existing

structuring/re-structuring institutional and discursive forces, in the context of recent waves

of reforms and the longer term process of restructuring these reforms relate to.”

Aim: “To explore the key characteristics of planning and ‘planning practice’ in English central

government and examine how these characteristics shape and are shaped by existing

structuring/re-structuring institutional and discursive forces, in the context of recent waves

of reforms and the longer term process of restructuring these reforms relate to.”

A very brief summary of the ‘Taylor Review’

• National Planning Practice Guidance Review 2012-2014 (though ideas earlier). Owned by DCLG, though (semi) external Review Group.

• Guidance provides normative and technical advice to LPAs on how to implement national policy. It constitutes a material consideration in planning decisions (almost policy!).

• Aim of PGGR was to consolidate an overly-complex suite of guidance, as framed by classically neoliberal rhetoric (‘brake on growth’…) This did received extremely widespread support from sector, in principle, however.

• Excellent case study: Cross-cutting and bridges various spheres, modifies implementation of recent reforms according to perceived successes/failures, introduces new techniques/practices/relationships for first time at local level and in DCLG, and embodies much of the Coalition’s approach to reform… and there’s no writing on the subject yet!

Planning Practice

and Reform in English Central

Government

DISCURSIVE INSTITUTIONALISM

PRACTICE THEORY

Practice are more than ‘work’: ‘specific configurations of

action, norms and knowledge’ (Wagenaar & Cook 2003); a

certain mode of engagement with the social world and way of

creating meaning (similar to phronesis)

Practice is generative – knowledge and context are

artefacts of practice rather than vice versa. So can be discourses

and the public sphere.

Habitus: Internalised external structures which shape and enable preconscious action

through dispositions – a ‘conductorless orchestra’.

You can’t ‘read off’ change from the top…

Institutions are bundles of everyday practices which remain more or less stable over time - this is because they determine

practices whilst being comprised of them.

This is via ‘structuration’ through rule, ideational, material

resources, carried by habitus.

Deals with institutional change better than the ‘new

institutionalisms’ via foreground (deliberation and legitimation)

and background discursive abilities.

Interplays between different levels of understanding (practice to (neoliberal) discourse) and the level of practice. These are spatial

(Healey).

Planning Practice

and Reform in English Central

Government

INTERPRETIVE POLICY ANALYSIS

Neoliberalism is an ‘operational logic’ rather than a monolithic

force.

Therefore its nature is completely dependant upon

local institutional contexts – it is “systematically variegated”

across time and space.

Conflict and contradiction is characteristic.

Heuristic for linking practices to wider/’higher’ discursive & temporal planning contexts

which fit.

… and provides sensitising concepts which help with these

inquiries…

Subfield of policy analysis – variety of approaches which share some core similarities.

They studies the “political and institutional dynamics of

policymaking processes, and the complexities of policy in

interaction with life-worlds” (Healey, 2011).

Emphasise Civil Service institutional and cultural

context critical to understanding policy work in

central government (e.g. relationships with ministers,

onset of eGovernance, everyday routines such as the

write-round process).

ACTUALLY EXISTING NEOLIBERALSIM

PART I: ‘STRUCTURE’

Assesses the key ‘everyday’ discursive,

programmatic, and institutional forces shaping planning in Central Government

and the Guidance Review within the context of ongoing

reform.

PART I: ‘STRUCTURE’

Assesses the key ‘everyday’ discursive,

programmatic, and institutional forces shaping planning in Central Government

and the Guidance Review within the context of ongoing

reform.

PART II: ‘AGENCY’

Explores how the key structural

characteristics previously outlined

directly and indirectly shape planning practice in central government,

and how these practices in turn shape the

structural forces which act upon them – or

create new structures.

PART II: ‘AGENCY’

Explores how the key structural

characteristics previously outlined

directly and indirectly shape planning practice in central government,

and how these practices in turn shape the

structural forces which act upon them – or

create new structures.

PART III: ‘DYNAMICS’

Theorises the relationship a between processes identified in

parts 1 & 2, and the key drivers of change

identified.

PART III: ‘DYNAMICS’

Theorises the relationship a between processes identified in

parts 1 & 2, and the key drivers of change

identified.

Project Summary

The reform of practice / the practice of reform

The reform of practice / the practice of reform

Un-tangling / Re-tangling Un-tangling / Re-tangling

This part…

Aims to demonstrate:

•The ongoing importance of studying everyday practices at national level for understanding wider and longer-term system changes, and benefits of the conceptual framework developed to studying planning reform at this level.

This talk focuses on:

•How concurrent neoliberal reform programmes’ allocative structures interact in Civil Servants’ everyday practices (rather than how they do so subsequently - e.g. through sedimentation), and explores what the wider consequences of these are for the system as a whole.

•A critical reading of various official documents, personal experience, literature review, policy review and early scoping work.

•Several separate ‘vignettes’ drawn from the research which demonstrate the above.

THE GROWTH AGENDA

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Red Tape

Challenge

MANAGERIAL-ISM

e-Governanc

eNew

Technology and

Analysis Techniqu

es

Increasing power of

core executive

LOCALISM

NEOLIBERALISM looming in the background

Open Governme

nt Data policy

CORE HOUSING & PLANNING REFORMS

The Localism Act

NPPFHS

Review

‘Libertarian

Paternalism’ and ‘nudge’ theory.

THE ENTANGLEMENT OF PROGRAMMES from the perspective of the Guidance Review

CORE HOUSING & PLANNING REFORMS

The Localism Act

NPPFHS

Review

CORE PLANNING REFORMS•The Review and framework provide an excellent opportunity to explore how

different programmes which constitute different parts of the same wave of neoliberalisation, ostensibly trying to

achieve similar ends within different systems, interact through the practices of

agents working in DCLG (often badly!) – and what the consequences of these are the

wider system.

•Interpretive Policy Analysis, Practice Theory, Actually Existing and Discursive

Institutionalism help this endeavour.

•Very broad example to begin with: Setting scope of reviews in relation to workloads.

THE GROWTH AGENDA

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Red Tape

Challenge

MANAGERIAL-ISM

e-Governanc

eNew

Technology and

Analysis Techniqu

es

Increasing power of

core executive

LOCALISMOpen

Government Data policy

CORE HOUSING & PLANNING REFORMS

The Localism Act

NPPFHS

Review

‘Libertarian

Paternalism’ and ‘nudge’ theory.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Red Tape

Challenge

MANAGERIAL-ISM

Increasing power of

core executive

CLASHES BETWEEN DIFFERENT DEREGULATORY EFFORTS

•Red Tape Challenge (RTC) and Housing Standards Review (HSR)

parallels, with ostensibly the same aim.

•‘OITO’ : one-in-two out. Key feature of RTC and arbitrary cross-cutting rule,

the aim of which is to reduce ‘regulatory’ burdens across

government.

•OITO clashed with simplifying regulatory proposals put forwards as

preferred by HSR and Guidance Review.

•HSR preferred options changed, future regulatory structure heavily impacted. Also impacted Guidance Review… and government berated for excessive ‘red

tape’!

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Red Tape

Challenge

MANAGERIAL-ISM

Increasing power of

core executive

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM DIRECTLY AFFECTED THE REVIEW

•Tensions between roles demanded by Civil Service Reforms and

Planning (traditionally) lead to concrete changes in planning policy.

•Fluidity and dynamism encouraged, this results in ‘churn’ of employees. Recent evidence of this at various

levels in public sector.

•Other related phenomena include increasing reliance on consultants and growing strength of ministers

(and a more supportive role for Civil Servants).

•Examples: Erosion of institutional memory within Guidance Review

since NPPF. Also loss of knowledge for niche subjects like CPOs.

THE GROWTH AGENDA

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Red Tape

Challenge

MANAGERIAL-ISM

e-Governanc

eNew

Technology and

Analysis Techniqu

es

Increasing power of

core executive

LOCALISMOpen

Government Data policy

CORE HOUSING & PLANNING REFORMS

The Localism Act

NPPFHS

Review

‘Libertarian

Paternalism’ and ‘nudge’ theory.

THE GROWTH AGENDA

LOCALISM

‘Libertarian

Paternalism’ and ‘nudge’ theory.

CLASHES BETWEEN THE LOCALISM AND GROWTH AGENDAS

•Much of the Review defined by these two areas of policy.

•Tendencies towards centralisation and decentralisation clash.

•Attempts to resolve tensions with ‘Libertarian Paternalism’ (nudge

theory!).

•Example: Housing market assessments, and the Treasury’s

involvement during the write-round process overriding debate.

THE GROWTH AGENDA

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Red Tape

Challenge

MANAGERIAL-ISM

e-Governanc

eNew

Technology and

Analysis Techniqu

es

Increasing power of

core executive

LOCALISMOpen

Government Data policy

CORE HOUSING & PLANNING REFORMS

The Localism Act

NPPFHS

Review

‘Libertarian

Paternalism’ and ‘nudge’ theory.

e-Governanc

eNew

Technology and

Analysis Techniqu

es

Open Governme

nt Data policy

E-GOVERNANCE•Guidance suite online: Hyperlinked, malleable, mobile, commenting easy - a pragmatic solution recommended by the Review panel, it fulfilled

various agendas including ‘digital by default’ and ‘open source planning’.

•Beta phase rather than consultation? Demonstrates gap between legislation and use

of technology.

•Changing local access and use – consultation suggested local groups my find access difficult

(particularly neighbourhood groups!)

•Instant updating may make policymaking fundamentally more fluid.

Early findings• Interstitial or ‘fuzzy’ spaces between programmes are caused by

inherently contradictory tendencies characteristic of neoliberal planning reforms (either within national level, or any other). These relate to clashing ‘allocative structures’.

• Fuzzy spaces and their freedom from direct structuring forces, produce interstitial ‘discretionary spaces’, which amplify the agential force of actors working in central government. This reflects findings at the local level (Allmendinger & Haughton, 2013).

• The everyday actions of agents working in these spaces can produce new ‘emergent’ system properties which go on to shape structures, in unplanned and unexpected ways. These feed back into the process.

• This points to the fact that, in order to understand the systems shaping the reform process, an agent and practice-focused approach in required, and in such a centralised system the national level of practice is vital (even if it isn’t ‘planning’ as such, and some of the most important contexts aren’t ‘planning’!)

• This is not to say that planning at the national level is too context-specific and chaotic to theorise or generalise. This framework points to the relatively orderly production of chaotic moments which amplify the actions of individual agents. This needs to be addressed theoretically through the prism of planning theory, as it has been in many ways at the local level.

• It also shows the strengths and needs for the framework and case study: Neoliberalism = context and logics for reform and decision making Practice theory = practice as generative, the mundane as valuable Interpretive policy analysis = un-bordered contexts, the

significance of Whitehall Discursive institutionalism = the conceptual glue

… continued

Thanks!

Daniel J. Slade

Twitter: @_Dslade2

Email: d.slade@Liverpool.ac.uk

LinkedIn: uk.linkedin.com/in/danielslade

Dr Olivier Sykes / Prof. Graham Haughton / Dr. David Dolowitz / John Healey MP