Abstract
This paper argues that territories being the objects of spatial planning amounts to a spatial planning meta-theory shared with populists, which I describe as territorialism. Prioritising their territory and people, except where it is a source of threats and opportunities, populists neglect the world outside. Invoking Jan Werner Müller and Pierre Rosanvallon, I identify criticisms of populism, taking note also of Yascha Mounk and David Djaïz who, up to a point, accept populist concerns and see states continuing to play a role in meeting them. To planners, the meta-planning theory that singles out territories as objects of state concern and planning poses a dilemma. In reality, spatial relations go all over the place. Even if their vantage points are territories, planners must pursue spatial relations wherever they take them, including across borders. Also, there are meta-theories of spatial planning less congenial to populists. They focus on places rather than jurisdictions, or on functional areas criss-crossing territories.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
