Challenges to Democracy in Market-Oriented Urban Planning in Norway

Abstract

Neo-liberal ideas have resulted in a planning practice characterized by an informal phase in which early agreements are reached in closed negotiations between municipal planners and private developers. This challenges norms of legitimacy and accountability found in traditional democratic theories, as well as deliberative planning and network governance theories. Input-based legitimacy may be weakened by the lack of participation as well as by asymmetry in resources available for participation (voice). The representative democracy's (vote) responsiveness to the electorate may be weakened due to the lack of knowledge of the views of those affected, early lock-in to agreements and weak meta-governance due to the lack of adherence to overall plans. Throughput legitimacy is reduced by the lack of transparency, and thus accountability, in the informal phase. Output legitimacy might justify the privileged position of developers if tangible results are achieved. However, lack of participation weakens the quality and long-term lastingness of decisions, and lack of deliberation weakens the acceptability of justifications for those burdened by the decisions. We argue that two different types of reforms are necessary to increase the input legitimacy of planning practices: representative democracy reforms that strengthen the role of politicians and reforms that strengthen the direct participation of stakeholders in planning.