The Role of Market and State in Spatial Urban Planning: From Confrontation toward Engagement in New Institutionalism

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Student in Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: State and market institutions are among the most important and influential political-economic organizations whose composition and role can influence the integrity of the social system. In the modern planning literature, the nature of urban spatial planning is defined as the rule of place, and therefore the state and the market play a unique role in the process of this type of planning, and understanding how they interact in spatial planning discourses can determine the whole path and expected results of the spatial urban planning.
Objectives: Therefore, explaining the role and position of state and market in spatial urban planning as one of the key theoretical issues, with emphasis on the New Institutionalism approach, is the main goal of this research.
Method: In this article, with an analytical-descriptive method, while raising conceptual questions at the beginning, after introducing market and state as the two main institutions in spatial urban planning and the capabilities and failures of each in urban development, schools view and various theories of political economy are traced back to the three main streams and finally analyzed in terms of the New Institutionalism approach and Transaction Cost Theory.
Result: From an Institutionalism point of view, planning is a tool for dealing with the unknown future and can be successful when it leads to integration into the existing order. New Institutionalism and Transaction Cost Theory, by rejecting the dichotomy of the market and the state, attempt to portray spatial planning and planning as an aspect of governance that consisting of both the public and private sectors, thereby expressing the existence of plans and spatial planning reduce transaction costs.
Conclusion: The results indicate that considering the shortcomings and capabilities of the market and the state, changing the pattern of their relationships in urban spatial planning should be considered in order to reduce transaction cost in urban development.

Keywords

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2013). Economics versus Politics: Pitfalls of policy advice. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27 (2), 173- 192.
Adams, D., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Planners as Market Actors: Rethinking State–Market Relations in Land and Property. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), 187-207.
Adams, D., Dunse, N. & White, M. (2005). Conceptualizing state-market relations in land and property: the mainstream contribution of neo-classical and welfare economics. in: D. Adams, C. Watkins & M. White (Eds) Planning, Public Policy and Property Markets, (pp. 17–36), Oxford: Blackwell.
Akbari, N. (2016). Urban economy. Tehran: The Organization for Researching and Composing University textbooks in the Humanities. (in Persian)
Alexander, E. R. (1992). A transaction cost theory of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 190–200.
Alexander, E. R. (2001). Why Planning vs. Markets Is An Oxymoron: Asking The Right Question. Planning and Markets, 4(1), 1–6. Available at: http://www-pam.usc.edu/ volume6/v6i1a2s1.html; accessed October 23, 2009.
Alexander, E. R., (2008). Between State and Market: A Third Way of Planning. International Planning Studies, 13(2), 119-132.
Askari, M.M. (2009). Economics of the public sector. Written by Stiglitz, J., Tehran: The Organization for Researching and Composing University textbooks in the Humanities. (in Persian)
Auster R. D. & M. Silver (1979). The State as a Firm: Economic Forces in Political Development. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Beauregard, R. A. (2005). Introduction: Institutional Transformations. Planning Theory, 4(3), 203-7.
Boettke, P. J., Coyne, C.J. & Leeson, P.T. (2004). The Many Faces of the Market.
Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines, 14(2), 1-16.
Brunner, Eric J. (1998). Free Riders or Easy Riders? An Examination of the Voluntary Provision of Public Radio. Public choice, 97, 587 - 604.
Buchanan, James M. (1997). Public Finance and Public Choice. In Baker, S. & Cotherine Elliot t (ed.): Reading in Public Finance, (pp. 163-80). International Thomson Publish.
Buitelaar, E. (2004). A Transaction-cost Analysis of the Land Development Process. Urban Studies, 41(13), 2539–2553.
Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content Analysis: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Nurse Researcher, 4(3), 5-13.
Charles Wolf, Jr. (1986). Markets or Government: Choosing Between Imperfect Alternatives. The Rand Corporation.              
Chenery, H. (1988). Handbook of Development Amsterdam. North- Holland. 
Chrystal, K. Alec (2000). Public Choice Analysis of Economic Policy. In Chrystal, K. Alec and Pennant - Rea, R. (eds.) Public Analysis of Economic Policy, Macmillan Press.
Coase, R. H. (1998). The New Institutional Economics. American Economic Review, 88, 72-94.
Connolly, S. (1999). Economics of the Public Sector. Prentice Hall Europe.
Dierwechter, Y. & Thornley A. (2012). Urban Planning and Regulation: The Challenge of the Market, Randall Crane and Rachel Weber, Eds. The Oxford Handbook in Urban Planning. Oxford; Oxford University Press. pp 46-68.
Ding, C. (2009). Policy and planning challenges to promote efficient urban spatial development during the emerging rapid transformation in China. Sustainability, 1(3), 384-408.
Dunleavy P. and O'Leary B. (1987). Theories of the State: The Politics of Liberal Democracy. Red Globe Press.
Ejlali, P. (2014). Experience planning in the world: Genesis and evolution. Tehran: Institute for Management and Planning studies. (in Persian)
Etzioni, A. (1993). The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda. New York, Crown.
Fainstein, S. & Campbell, S. (1996). Readings in Planning Theory. Blackwell.
Friedmann, J. (1963). Regional planning as a Field of study. Journal of the American Planning Association, 29, 168-175.
Friedrich, C. K. (1969). Political development and the objectives of modern government. In Braibanti, R. Political and Administrative Development, Durham, (pp. 115-16). NC, Duke University Press.
Harrisswhite, B. (2002). On Understanding Markets as Social and Political Institutions in Developing Economies; Cambridge University Press.
Hayek, F. Von. (1964). Kinds of Order in Society. New Individualist Review.
Healey, P. (1992). Development Plans and Markets. Planning Practice and Research, 7(2), 13–20.
Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Kareni, V. (1999). Hayek’s Implicit Economics: Rules and the Problem of Order. Review of Austrian Economics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 129-144.
King, D. S. (1987). The New Right: Markets and Citizenship. Doney Press.
Lai, W. L. (1994). The economics of zoning: a literature review and analysis of the work of Coase. Town Planning Review, 65, 77-98.
McMillan, J. (2002). Reinventing the Bazaar: A Natural History of Markets. W. W. Norton & Company.
Mills, E. S. (1979). Economic analysis of urban land use controls. Reprinted in J. M.
Moore, T. (1978). Why allow planners to do what they do? A justification from economic theory. Journal of the American Planning Association, 44, 387-98.
Renani, ‌ M. (2007). Catalaxia and justice: A study of the distributive consequences of intervention in catalaxia (Case study: Isfahan). Journal of Economics, 7(27), 285-331. (in Persian)
Sharifzadegan M. (2007). Strategies of economic development and social justice. Refah journal, 6 (24), 9-30. (in Persian)
Sharifzadegan M. and Aboutalebpour, A. (2008). Reduction of transaction costa by spatial planning, for optimization of urban service centers. Economic Research, 43(83), 57- 87. (in Persian)
Sharifzadegan, M. (2015). Good Governance: Institutionalization for Development. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University Press and Tehran Center for Studies and Planning. (in Persian)
Sharifzadegan, M. and Malekpour B., (2015). Areas of Business Improvement (BID) as an Improvement of Urban Economy in Iran. 3th Ed, University of Tehran Press. (in Persian)
Slaev, A. D. (2017). The relationship between planning and the market from the perspective of property rights theory: A transaction cost analysis. Planning Theory, 16(4), 1-14.
Tanzi, V. (2011). Government versus Markets: The Changing Economic Role of the State. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, N. (1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. Sage Publication.
UCL&Deloitte (2007). Shaping and Delivering Tomorrow’s Places: Effective Practice in Spatial Planning. London: RTPI.
Verma, N. (2007). Institutions And Planning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Webster, C. and Lai, L. W. C. (2003). Property Rights, Planning and Markets: Managing Spontaneous Cities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Wildavsky, A. (1973). If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sciences 4(2): 127-153.
Williamson, O. (2010). Transaction Cost Economics: The Natural Progression. American Economic Review 10, 673–690.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 April 2020
  • Revise Date: 15 May 2020
  • Accept Date: 02 July 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics