Reflective individual essay 17068553
Timirlans Abidovs
U37732
All post-industrial societies in Britain require a kind of mechanism for allocation land use and for deciding upon the most effective forms of development in urban and rural environments. The interest in professionalism in planning resulted in the large attack on the idea of planning as a profession from the 1960s onward (e.g. Johnson 1972), and this can be seen as part of a general critique of the ‘state bureau-professions’ that consolidated in the welfare state post World War 2 (e.g. Clark and Newman 1997). The main aim of this essay is to examine the evolution of professionalism in planning as well as to critically examine the case for sustaining professionalism. The essay observes the critiques of planning’s professional status, rather than a detailed examination of the issues in planning and an attempt at solving them. To start, we need to understand the meaning of the term ‘profession’ in planning. In general sense, professional planning is ‘a process of developing a shared knowledge and translating the knowledge into collective action’ (March 2007, 386). Moreover, it is most important to understand the integration and the cooperation of knowledge of profession (Rydin 2007). However, the term ‘knowledge’ can be interpreted in many different ways by different individuals. It is not a selfderived element, instead, knowledge is gained in action within communities and groups. This may be either small task-orientated work groups (Wenger 1998) or in larger networks of practices (Amin and Roberts, 2008). In planning, knowledge has got kinaesthetic qualities, garnered through practice – ‘learning by doing’ (Amin and Roberts, 2008). Planning in Britain was established in 1909, and culminated in new zoning system regulations under the Town and County Planning Act 1932. Meanwhile, there was a growing pressure for a more effective and efficient planning system from communities. Later, the White Paper, the groundwork in the planning system in Britain, was published in 1944 and comprised three reports (the Barlow Report 1940,
the Scott Report 1942, Uthwatt 1942); this paper proposed new solutions to the issue raised by the war-time. Since then, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning established a series of Planning Acts, which can be understood as a desire to reshape the planning system. For example, a new 1943 Act is somewhat the government’s desire to secure consistency and continuity in the formulation and framing of the national policies with respect to the land use. In my opinion, when the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was published, the document became a foundation of a modern town and country planning in Britain. County Councils, as the new planning authorities, are required since then to prepare a county map, more detailed town maps and programme maps showing the future developments. Overall, the new Act empowered local planning authorities over their county. The evolution of the planning system in Britain can be easily seen when comparing the 1940s with the present day. The modern system considers many more aspects of life than before (Sustainable Settlements and Shelter, the UK National Report for Habitat 2, Department of the Environment, 1996). Professional practice deals with not only the limitations of the land use and developments. Instead, it regulates the local economic development and quality of life, the housing market, protection of the natural and built environment, and sustainability issues. Furthermore, the skills required to become a professional planner evolved from providing a simple design-based preparation of plans, then into considering complex socio-economic issues, and finally into a city and environmental management. In addition, professional planners are now required to be more responsive to the market, local politics and the community. The general support for the ‘state bureau-professions’ activity of land-use existed in the post-war years in Britain. The last decade’s town planning process and the town planning profession have seen a significant number of criticisms. Planning has been criticised, because it had understood as a function of promoting capitalist accumulation (Castells and Sheridan, 1979), attacked by the right as being inflexible, bureaucratic and NIMBY-friendly (Not In My Back Yard) towards enterprise (Ehrman,
1988); questioned by community organisations as being insensitive towards society (Davies 1972). First, all the critics agree that planning acts in the public interest and to do so with a unique body of knowledge (e.g. Evans 1993). The recent studies on professions say that they need to be seen in the context of increasing specializations within the domain of practice; increase the amount of information available that challenges professionals. We need to displace the power of bureau-professions by ‘managerialism’ (Clarke and Newman 1997). My main argument is that professional planning is not sensitive and easily understandable by everyone; thus the result is empowering some individuals over others. Secondly, the state sponsorship is an essential element for the formation of the planning profession, and it was passing of the 1947 Act which nationalised development rights and developments value. The key element here is state support, and, unfortunately, ‘welfare professions’ such as town planning may be monopolised by the state. Thus town planning may be seen as bureaucratic activity concerned with the delivery of state policy. In the result, for planners, according to March 2007, success is seen as ‘compliance’ with state-level ordinances. The fact that the state support is essential to successful professionalization as planning, forces to question ourselves: why did the state benefits to co-operate with planners? Read argues that the planning profession is in a ‘corporatists bargain’ with the state. Professional planners are expected to create an illusion of property industry being kept in check, in exchange for economic security from the state. Thirdly, town planning in Britain was concerned with the creating new settlements in early days. The main role of the planning system was ‘the ordering of the use of land and the character and sitting of buildings and communication routes’ (Keeble 1969). In other words, planners aimed to design the vision and skills necessary to build new or ruined towns in the early days, which were such a high necessity in post-war days. Nowadays, it is difficult to find how planning system can contribute to real town problems such as poverty, racism, natural environment degradation or water pollution. Town planning was a part of a social movement in the past. Whereas nowadays, as town planners professionalised, the profession has quickly disowned the social status. The general point is that town planning as a
profession has its roots in the 19th century, so the particular system struggle to tackle problems and cannot be used in the current situations. Fourthly, all professionals - the occupational group which secure their privileged status, conditions of work and autonomy - have an interest in the maintenance of the profession. This is also true in the sense of town planning system in Britain. Furthermore, as Healey’s and Underwood’s research in 1978 shows, planners do not have the exclusive list of skills that define them from other professions. They said that ‘planners have acquired financial and occupational status on the basis of a variety of ideals rather than expertise’. More recent studies by Evans in 1993 examines that to qualify for a professional planner individuals should have ‘general management’ or ‘interpersonal skills’. Evan’s research confirms Healey and Underwood’s conclusion that the technical expertise is of rather less important than a knowledge relating to the communication skills and implementation of state policy. Of course, these professional skills are crucial. However, the main question is whether it is necessary to be trained as the professional planner or to be a member of the professional institution (e.g. Royal Town Planning Institute) in order to solve planning’s problems. In support, by then Minister for Town and Country Planning, Lewis Silkin said that the planning system in Britain needed to be staffed with professionals whose background were in public administration rather than planning. It is important to understand that I am not stating that the planning system should disappear in Britain. Instead, I argue that the current planning system does not contribute to the sustainable system of environmental planning. The professionalization of planning as every professionalised industry is becoming ‘merely cosmetic, symbolic and to a greater or lesser degree a sham’. Finally, the British planning system gradually has become a ‘token’ system. The planning decisions and actions are promoted as a positive influence on the land and property developments and benefit land and property owners. The government believes that planning system benefits everyone at the same time. For example, the RTPI in the 2001 report states that they ‘see planning as being about people and places, the natural and built environment, immediate requirements and long-term stewardship’. It can be seen that there is the belief in the capacity of planning to
benefit the society seems to pervade the profession. The main issue here is that the harsh, political reality negatively correlates with the profession’s utopian ideology. To draw the conclusion, it is important to return to Bickanbach and Hendler’s criteria for professional status: of the knowledge base, the community of practitioners; and societal role. The claim of planning to professionalism are criticised and challenged in relation to professions generally. Professional planners, MacDonald 1995: 201 concludes, have ‘esoteric collection of areas of knowledge, rather than a basis in esoteric knowledge’. As a result, the planning claims to professionalism is ‘inherently multidisciplinary; thus becoming extremely objective. (Bickenbach and Hendler 1994). Today, information must be turned from a ubiquitous element into usable knowledge and it is the professional’s duty to complete the transformation. However, planning exists as an independent, selfidentifying community. Thus outside the community does not have a free access to planning. This essay should not be understood as an absolute opposition to planning as a profession. Instead, I critically examine and provoke the discussion on criticisms of professional planning. Despite that the UK’s professional planning association, the RTPI, ‘faces an enormous challenge’ (Campbell H, Marshall R, 2005), I do not argue for the removal of the association from the market. The reason for this is my personal opinion that there must be some form of land-use and development regulatory system. It is open to the debate whether the planning system has the power to achieve structural societal change, but it is true that the system is able to impact positively the built environment and living conditions. For example, the RPTI has embarked upon a programme of ‘evolutionary radical change’ (PRTI, 2001), thus resulted in a major legislative change in the form of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004.
Bibliography: Amin, A. and Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy, 37(2), pp.353-369. Bickenbach J and Handler S (1994) The moral mandate of the planning profession. In: Thomas H (ed.) Values and Planning. Aldershot: Avebury Castells, M. and Sheridan, M. (1979). The urban question. London: E. Arnold. Campbell, H. and Marshall, R. (2005). Professionalism and planning in Britain. Town Planning Review, 76(2), pp.191-214. Davies J G, 1972, The Evangelistic Bureaucrat, (Tavistock, London) Department of Environment (1996), Sustainable Settlements and Shelter, the United Kingdom National Report for Habitat II, London, HMSO Ehrman R, 1988, Planning Planning (Centre for Policy Studies, London) Evans, B. (1993). Why we no longer need a town planning profession. Planning Practice & Research, 8(1), pp.9-15. Johnson, T. (1972). Professions and power, ̈bÿ Terence J. Johnson. London: Macmillan. Healey, P. and Underwood, J. (1978). Professional ideals and planning practice. Progress in Planning, 9, pp.73-127 Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (1997). The Managerial State: Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social Welfare (Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social Welfare). Sage Publications. March, A. (2007). Institutional Impediments to Planning Professionalism in Victoria, Australia. International Planning Studies, 12(4), pp.367-389. Keeble L, 1969, Principles and Practice of Town and Country Planning (fourth edition) (The Estates Gazette, London) Reade, E. (1992) The future for town planning, paper given at the conference ‘Town Planning into the 21st Century’, South Bank University, October, to be
published in Town Planning into the 21st Century (ed.) A Blowers, R Evans, 1993 forthcoming
RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) (2001), A New Vision For Planning: Delivering Sustainable Communities, Settlements and Places, London, RTPI
Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-Examining the Role of Knowledge Within Planning Theory. Planning Theory, 6(1), pp.52-68.
Vigar, G. (2012). Planning and professionalism: Knowledge, judgement and expertise in English planning. Planning Theory, 11(4), pp.361-378.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.