Outline the key groups that may be disadvantagedin their ability to influence urban policy making and the implementation, and assess the reasons for their relativelack of power in the process[1]".

University Degree Architecture, Building and Planning

Seminar Tutor: Alan Mace Module Code: 4USP601

“Outline the key groups that may be disadvantaged

in their ability to influence urban policy making and the implementation, and assess the reasons for their relative

lack of power in the process”.

According to Healey (Booth, 1996: 11), the 1990s saw the introduction of pluralist approaches to planning, whereby the various communities in society can all have a say in the policy formation and implementation. This essay aims to identify the key communities and groups disadvantaged in the formation and implementation of urban policy, which in the main are defined by gender; ethnicity; age; and disability.

The essay will identify and assess why these communities are excluded, and then conclude with the assessment of the strength and viability of these reasons.

Public participation in policy formation is easier for some groups than others. In many cases the barriers that make it harder for some groups to participate in policy formation, are structurally institutionalised in the sense that the way certain institutions are governed, they do not recognise or value the divergent needs and differences between and within various marginalised groups in British society today.

Groups of people are often referred to as communities. The term ‘community’ in the present day has lost its dependency on referring to a locality, and we now find communities such as the Black community, which do not share a common locality but are share a connection on heritage and experiences.

Community:

The term community is often limited to refer as something only the poor and underprivileged exist within, or the socially excluded (Hoggett, 1999: 11).

The original concept of community referred to:

A loose coalition of people who have social relations within a defined geographical region, and in which the boundaries of membership have been defined.
Marxists would interpret community as the organisation of the working classes in order to fight the oppression of the economically dominant classes.
Some would argue that communities are the result of government exclusion from the political process of working class individuals. As a result, communities are formed to merely compete in the "competitive struggle for scarce government resources". Simply individuals realised that they are powerless acting on their own, but together they can survive.
John Major interpretated community as a forum for individual preferences within a congruent group of people in which individuals are able to 'influence' public decision making. This is clearly a way of providing individuals with a sense of citizen participation, but excluding them from 'serious' political decisions that take power away from central government and into the hands of the working class individual. (Hoggett, 1999: 14)

Other uses of the term community include political emancipation, for example the Black community etc. It is important to note that the term community describes insiders as well as outsiders; it is a form of exclusion as well as inclusion.

Females:

Female individuals and groups are constantly marginalised in the participation and implementation of urban policy. R. Blaug believes that:

"Gender inequality has taken many forms... [it has] resulted in systematic exclusion from participation, relegation to a domestic realm assumed to be non-political, and a history of democratic thought [and public participation] that either ignores women altogether or resents them in a series of distorted images"(R. Blaug, 2000: 301)

Feminists and advocates of female advancement argue power is structurally biased in institutions towards men. They argue that historically men have always had power over women, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Females:

Female individuals and groups are constantly marginalised in the participation and implementation of urban policy. R. Blaug believes that:

Feminists and advocates of female advancement argue power is structurally biased in institutions towards men. They argue that historically men have always had power over women, and even though in recent decades females have now acquired the franchise, state institutions, businesses, and even the family are patriarchal in their structure. Unique issues that face women such as personal safety, childcare, a greater tendency to work part-time, single parenthood, and mobility are not taken into consideration by those in power because these issues are alienated from the lives of the men who create and implement urban policies.

Another reason why females tend to exert less influence on urban policy is that women’s issues, unlike homeless or ethnic minorities, are a lot more heterogeneous in the sense that women as a group have many sub groups within the single group. All women exist within a wider more complex system of communities; they exist in say the Black community, the single parent community, the elderly community, the Turkish community etc. As a result it is a lot harder for planners to get the opinion and views from the whole spectrum of female groups, as this is a time consuming and expensive process.

As a result, less ‘visible’ female groups (such as disabled women, housebound housewives, women that don’t speak fluent English) will be disadvantaged in influencing policy making because they are not consulted with, and lack the resources to do so (fluent English, time, knowledge, organization skills).

Another reason put forward is that community participation is extremely time consuming, and as a result those with extra responsibilities like caring for children, elderly parents, and working full time, as well as family duties, are at a disadvantage in terms of having the available time to attend and participate in forums, town meetings, and the implementation of these policies.

In addition, many women find that not only do they not have the time, but also their lack of knowledge and resources in order for them to play a fuller role in urban policy formation and implementation, means that many of them will always have to assume a mere ‘consultation role, as oppose to a partnership or executive role. Females in general, are underrepresented in the planning profession. As a result, there tends to be no real voice for female groups and issues on either the planners side or the community side – except in mere consultation.

“Involving women in the planning processes requires a redistribution of power to enable them to influence policy decisions on the future shape of their environment” (Booth, 1996: 16).

Ethnicity in planning

Structurally, state institutions such as the police; the judiciary; the education service; civil service; and local government hire senior personnel, and follow policies that are exclude Black and ethnic minority communities.

Reports such as the Scarman Report (1981), the Macpherson report (1992), and the Royal Town Planning Institute/Commission of Racial Equality report, ‘Planning for a Multi-Racial Britain’ (1983), all advocate greater government intervention in ethnic tensions which have erupted as a result of racial discrimination. They also state how British society is structurally biased towards (non-immigrant) white people.

For members of ethnic minority communities, widespread discrimination across society relegates ethnic minorities to yield a disproportionate amount of power in society. Major writers and reports exemplifying this include Commission of Racial Equality, (B.Cullingworth 2003: 371)

Thomas and Krishnarayan feel that the planning profession as a whole have yet to challenge the racial discrimination and ‘colour blindness’ approach to planning. They believe this is due to the:

“ ‘socially conservative’ nature of planning: the tendency to focus on technical problems of land use management rather than radical social goals, a tendency that has been strongly reinforced by professionalism, the narrow interpretation of the objectives of planning by government and the courts, and the reproduction of existing social and spatial divisions in planning policy.” (B. Cullingworth, 2002: 371)

Another reason why ethnic minorities find it harder to influence urban policy is that within the planning system the planners, executives, and private sector partners involved (who tend to be white and male)

“Stereotype different groups by oversimplifying their internal diversity” (B. Cullingworth, 2002: 370)

Often a steer group that claims to represent a group or community is created or ‘stimulated’ to form (via cash funding), when in reality these steer groups do not represent the community as a whole but loose touch with various strands within a group.

This reason put forward does carry a lot of weight. As Hoggett points out:

“Where community involvement does exist. Local authorities will stimulate group formation (through grants, loans, etc) which will become the local governments creation” (Hoggett, 1997: 214)

This form of false representation only has disastrous consequences for the sections within a particular community left out who lack a voice in the construction of their built environment. The local government then has the problem of further criticism from the community once the urban policy has been implemented without their knowledge.

To some extent, false representation cannot totally explain why ethnic minority groups find it harder to influence urban policy than others. Apathy, bad past experiences, and a lack of understanding of the planning process all play a part in this explanation too. However, false representation and discrimination are the hardest challenges local government have to face if they wish to serve their ethnic communities wholly. This is because these issues are the ones that are ‘invisible’ and harder to prove, as well as promote.

Elderly groups and teenager groups:

According to Marxist theories of power distribution within society, decision making is based around the groups with the greatest economic power; white middle aged men and women.

Issues concerning mobility, personal safety, and physical ability affect elderly groups disproportionately to any other group, and as a result are disadvantaged in their ability to influence urban policy making, and the implementation of it as they often lack the infrastructure and the time to participate.

Elderly people tend to be less physically active, and attending meetings to discuss a planning proposal is an activity that clearly inconveniences a large proportion of the elderly community, especially in urban areas where a the town hall may be several blocks away and public transport or a car is needed.

In assessment, I feel that elderly groups and young groups genuinely are at a real disadvantage in influencing urban policy. For young people the very fact that they lack political recognition, like the ability to vote, etc means that they are not taken seriously and often lack the means to change this, as illustrated by Curtis et al (Curtis, 2000: 46). Similarly, with elderly groups, as they lack the respect and political recognition, they too are genuinely disadvantaged in influencing urban.

If the community representation is small then the planning authorities/local government is unlikely to listen but use this as a legitimation exercise, whereas if the community has a large vocal presence then they have the real clout and will be able to exert greater influence in policy making.

Disabled groups:

Although disability issues in the planning realm have received more attention in recent years, still, the disabled communities find it hard to influence urban policy formation and implementation.

Another reason why disabled groups may be disadvantaged in their ability to influence urban policy making is that disability is often thought as an issue that can be easily stereotyped as ensuring ramps for easy access are installed, and an elevator is installed. Similarly to female groups, when representation cannot be found it is often made up using ‘common sense’, or false representations are created in terms of consulting a handful of disabled people that are not representative of the disabled community in that particular area.

Conclusion

Approaches to planning tend to be deeply rooted in a more traditional consultative approach as and when the planners decide to consult certain groups. The agenda then, remains firmly with the planners who decide ‘who’ to consult with, and when to what level of participation these groups will play.

This does not appear to be changing, and as a result, only the communities, can stand up and voice their concerns in multi-lateral ways in order to be heard. However, planners need to show a greater level of commitment to marginalized groups, and need to spend more money, time, and commitment in working alongside and below marginalized groups in society.

Many of the reasons are legitimate, however in assessment the most significant factor why various groups are disadvantaged in their ability to influence urban policy making is that the institutional structures, personnel, and policies do not reflect the society that they serve.

Until the do, central government in partnership with community leaders must take a fuller role in advancing genuine citizen participation from under represented groups in society.

Bibliography

Books:

Allmendinger, P, Prior, A, and Raemaekers, J, 2000, Introduction to Planning Practice, New York, Wiley

Blaug, R and Schwarzmantel, J, 2000, Democracy a reader, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press

Cullingworth, B and Nadin, V, 2002, Town & country planning in the UK, London, Routledge.

Douglass, M and Friedmann, J, 1998, Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age, New York, Wiley

Gyford, J, 1991, Citizens, Consumers and Councils: Local Government and the Public, Basingstoke, Macmillan Education

Hamnett, C, 2002, Unequal City: London in the Global Arena, London, Routledge

Hoggett, P, 1997, Contested Communities : Experiences, Struggles, Policies, Bristol, Policy Press

King, D and Stoker, G, 1996, Rethinking Local Democracy, Basingstoke, Macmillan (in association with the ESRC local programme)

Journals:

Booth, C, (1996), 'Gender and public consultation: Case studies of Leicester, Sheffield and Birmingham' Planning practice and research, vol11(1), p.9-18.

Websites:

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (2004), 'Community involvement in planning: The Government's objectives', ODPM, <http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/pa ge/odpm_plan_027494.pdf >, accessed 15 March 2004.

The Countryside Agency, (2004), 'Positive planning with communities' <http://www.countryside.gov.uk/regions/eastOfE ngland/activities/livingLandscapes/positive_planning/index.asp>, accessed 15 March 2004.

Student name: Candice Jarvis-Irving

Extracted from Community Involvement in policy making and implementation module outline.

Harvard style.