Explanation of Network Society Status in Urban Planning with Emphasis on Urban Governance

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor , Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Planning and Environmental Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

2 PhD Candidate in Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Planning and Environmental Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Urban planning presents a wide range of difficulties, and conventional designs lack the effectiveness required to handle these difficulties. As a result, it is essential to provide solutions that are founded on cooperation and communication between various organizations, as well as the creation of networks that extend beyond hierarchical levels. Therefore, decentralization and the transferring  authority and power are raised as fundamental problems. To rethink society in this way, Manuel Castells proposes a network society as a new paradigm. This concept, along with its governing principles and guiding policies, must be taken into account. The network society proposes as a facilitating component in the interim, urban governance.
Methodology: This research is based on purpose, fundamental, and qualitative, and adopts an explanatory-exploratory approach to systematically analyze resources and texts in network society and its place in urban planning. The research method used for the intended goal is qualitative content analysis; as defined by a definition of the studied literature. We extracted these concepts, and operational definitions based on theoretical discussions.In the second step, resource retrieval was performed based on keywords, title, and abstract, and in the third step, analysis and conceptual framework were developed.
Results: From the viewpoint of the network society, the system of urban planning is an open, decentralized, and dialogue-oriented system in which activities are carried out freely and based on Virtualization. This means that a network society as the dominant form of social organization, is flexible and convergent, which replaces the hierarchical, vertical, and divergent structure.
Discusion: The process of urban planning and management is no longer a linear and one-sided process, according to recent developments in urban planning approaches. Instead, top-down planning has given way to bottom-up planning, governance has replaced government, and political communication has improved. Urban policies are fundamentally significant in this regard. Therefore, it is essential to integrate policies and pass sectoral policies that have impacted urban planning and management over the past few decades. Meanwhile, integration can be observed in various ways that strengthen policy coherence, avoid ineffective repetition, increase social learning, overcome weak sequences, and overcome intra-institutional stagnation and innovation. Urban governance is viewed as a method of structuring politics that, at higher levels of governance, calls for horizontal integration as opposed to a sectoral strategy. On the other hand, participatory network processes are highly valued in urban governance. In doing so, it substitutes the hierarchical administrative system for the network structure and integrates private and voluntary agents into this system. The local government's recognition of various abilities and skills has also encouraged the transfer of power from higher to lower levels.
Castells' network society theory is one concept and theorythat must be paid attention to in order to implement a multi-sectoral and inter-sectoral strategy in urban planning and management. A decentralized society, a society based on knowledge, information, and communication technology, and a society where activities are carried out freely are thus the three basic tenets of the network society theory. However, for the network society to be realized in the interim, several important policies are required, such as a) creating new political spaces, so the governments were envisioned to be linked (local to regional, national, and international). The search for multi-level governance, or international policy discourses, is what defines politics in the network society; b) setting politics and policy-making in fundamental uncertainty that this new social awareness now presents a set of uncertainties about plans. Policymakers must therefore reevaluate their approach to addressing social uncertainties. The idea of a network society aids us in understanding the necessity and importance of dealing with issues like "trust," "interdependence," and "institutional capacity." c) increasing the importance of "difference" to our understanding of politics; d) taking actions to be aware of interdependence; and e) making policies and considering the dynamics of trust and identity. Achieving  a decentralized society is neither a prerequisite nor sufficient for achieving a networked society and effective urban governance. Instead, attention to agency, empowerment, and capacity building are also crucial factors. It implies that capacity is defined as the ability of a person, group, network, or society to complete a task or achieve a goal and that increasing capacity is defined as increasing power. Open culture and learning are  the key indicators in developing community capacity, knowledge, and skills; leadership; mutual trust and interaction; and social networks. The realization of a network society is defined as a participatory, interactive, discourse-oriented, and knowledge-oriented process. The shift from a hierarchical structure to a network structure is crucial considering recent developments in urban planning approaches and the appearance of new models in urban planning. The reason is that while man is involved in the process of urban planning and management as the subject of development in the network structure;  he is viewed as a tool and one of the development dimensions in the hierarchical structure. But in the interim, social capital—another significant factor—is also mentioned to prevent bargaining for personal interests. Social capital is characterized by behaviors that bind members of social networks and communities together and enable cooperative action. It also includes trust and mutual understanding between individuals.
Conclusion: Urban planning must take a pluralistic stance to create a city where people and their needs are prioritized over development as the main concern. The approach that is suggested as being the most adaptable and compatible in this case is the network society theory and consideration of its principles and policies.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Abizadeh, S., & Zali, N. (2013). Analyzing urban green space function emphasizing green space features in district 2 of Tabriz metropolis in Iran. Anuario do Instituto de Geociencias, 36(1), 119-127.
Albrechts, L., & Mandelbaum, S. (Eds.). (2007). The network society: a new context for planning. Routledge.
Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American behavioral scientist, 59(2), 254-269.
Araya, D. (2015). Smart cities as democratic ecologies. Springer.
Bang, H., & Esmark, A. (2009). Good governance in network society: Reconfiguring the political from politics to policy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(1), 7-37.
Baud, I. S. A., Pfeffer, K., Sydenstricker, J., & Scott, D. (2011). Developing participatory ‘spatial’ knowledge models in metropolitan governance networks for sustainable development. Literature Review. Bonn: EADI, Change2Sustain.
Beauregard, R. A. (2007). Planning and the network city: discursive correspondences. In The network society (pp. 42-51). Routledge.
Bihari, M., & Ryan, R. (2012). Influence of social capital on community preparedness for wildfires. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), 253-261.
Blokland, T., & Rae, D. (2008). The end to urbanism: How the changing spatial structure of cities affected its social capital potentials. In Networked Urbanism: Social Capital in the City (pp. 23-39). Routledge.
Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2015). Understanding public management and governance. In Public management and governance (pp. 29-39). Routledge.
Brain, D. (2019). The practice of urbanism: Civic engagement and collaboration by design. In The Palgrave handbook of bottom-up urbanism (pp. 51-66). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Castells, M. (2002). Local and global: Cities in the network society. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 93(5), 548-558.
      Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society. John wiley & sons.
Castells, M., & Cardoso, G. (2005). The network society: From knowledge to policy (pp. 3-21). Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
Chaskin, R. J., & Greenberg, D. M. (2015). Between public and private action: Neighborhood organizations and local governance. Nonprofit and Voluntasae Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 248-267.
Christopoulos, D. C. (2008). The governance of networks: Heuristic or formal analysis? A reply to Rachel Parker. Political Studies, 56(2), 475-481.
Da Silva, A. O., & Fernandes, R. A. S. (2020). Smart governance based on multipurpose territorial cadastre and geographic information system: An analysis of geoinformation, transparency and collaborative participation for Brazilian capitals. Land Use Policy, 97, 104752.‏
Dahiya, B., & Das, A. (2020). New urban agenda in Asia-Pacific: governance for sustainable and inclusive cities. In New Urban Agenda in Asia-Pacific (pp. 3-36). Springer, Singapore.
Davidson, K., Coenen, L., Acuto, M., & Gleeson, B. (2019). Reconfiguring urban governance in an age of rising city networks: A research agenda. Urban Studies, 56(16), 3540-3555.
Diefenbacha, T. (2013). Hierarchy and Organisation: Toward a General Theory of Hierarchical Social Systems. Routledge.
Dool, L. V. D., & Schaap, L. (2020). Learning Processes in an Urban Governance Context: A Theoretical Exploration. In Strategies for Urban Network Learning (pp. 13-29). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Dool, L. V. D., Hendriks, F., Gianoli, A., & Schaap, L. (2015). Chapter one Introduction: Good Urban Governance: Challenges and Values. In The quest for good urban governance (pp. 11-28). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
Edelenbos, J., & van Meerkerk, I. (2018). Finding common ground in urban governance networks: what are its facilitating factors?. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(12), 2094-2110.
Epstein, D. L. (2015). Fostering Participation and Capacity Building with Neighborhood Information Systems (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan).
Fischer, F. (2018). Participatory governance and collaborative expertise. In Handbook on Participatory Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gallent, N., & Robinson, S. (2014). Neighbourhood planning: Communities, networks and governance. Policy Press.
Gualini, E. (2007). Reconnecting space, place, and institutions: inquiring into “local” governance capacity in urban and regional research. In The Network Society (pp. 302-324). Routledge.
Gupta, J., Pfeffer, K., Ros-Tonen, M., & Verrest, H. (2015). Setting the scene: The geographies of urban governance. In Geographies of Urban Governance (pp. 3-25). Springer, Cham.
Gupta, J., Verrest, H., & Jaffe, R. (2015). Theorizing governance. In Geographies of Urban Governance (pp. 27-43). Springer, Cham.
Gurstein, P. (2013). Social equity in the network society: Implications for communities. In Policy, Planning, and People: Promoting Justice in Urban Development (pp. 161-182).‏
Haindlmaier, G. (2016). Participation and urban policy-making in a network society–a theoretical outline on new urban governance. Public Philosophy & Democratic Education, 5(2), 87-102.‏
Hamdan, H., Yusof, F., & Marzukhi, M. A. (2014). Social capital and quality of life in urban neighborhoods high density housing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 169-179.
Hardin, R., Pateman, C., Weingast, B., & Elkin, S. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press.‏
Harding, A. (2005). Governance and socio-economic change in cities. Changing Cities: Rethinking Urban Competitiveness, Cohesion and Governance, (pp. 62-77).
Haus, M., Heinelt, H., & Stewart, M. (Eds.). (2004). Urban governance and democracy: leadership and community involvement (Vol. 8). Routledge.‏
Hendriks, F. (2014). Understanding good urban governance: Essentials, shifts, and values. Urban Affairs Review, 50(4), 553-576.
Hillier, J. (2003). Shadows of power: an allegory of prudence in land-use planning. Routledge.
Khan, H. A. (2017). Globalization and the challenges of public administration: Governance, human resources management, leadership, ethics, e-governance and sustainability in the 21st century. Springer.‏
Khodabandehloo, A. (2014). Networking for regional development: a case study. EuroMed Journal of Business.
Lange, P., Driessen, P. P., Sauer, A., Bornemann, B., & Burger, P. (2013). Governing towards sustainability—conceptualizing modes of governance. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 15(3), 403-425.
Levi-Faur, D. (2012). From “big government” to “big governance”. In The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 3-18).
Lipkin, N. D. (2016). Agents at work: decision making capacity and creative labor in network society (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-Graduate School-New Brunswick).‏
Little, D. (1991). Varieties of social explanation: An intrlduction to the philosophy of social science (A. Soroush, Trans.). Serat Press. (In Persian)
Löffler, E. (2015). Public governance in a network society. In Public management and governance (pp. 233-248). Routledge.‏
Low, N. (2007). A Way of Understanding Policy Formation, Stability, and Change in the Networked Polity. The network society: a new context for planning?.
Marc, H., & Stolle, D. (2004). Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marinova, D., McGrath, N., & Newman, P. (2008). Dialogue with the city: An era of participatory planning for provision of more sustainable infrastructure in Perth?. Proceedings of the 6th International Summer Academy on Technology Studies: Urban Infrastructure in Transition: What Can We Learn From History, 195-210.
McLaren, D., & Agyeman, J. (2015). Sharing cities: A case for truly smart and sustainable cities. MIT press.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Rifkin, W., Louis, W., & Moffat, K. (2019). Power, participation, and exclusion through dialogue in the extractive industries: Who gets a seat at the table?. Resources Policy, 61, 190-199.
Mohebifar, A., Sobhiyah, M., Rafieian, M., Hasas yegane, Y., & Elahi, S. (2017). Governance of distressed areas regeneration program of Tehran with network approach. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 14(53), 5-14. (In Persian)
Pacchi, C. (2018). Epistemological critiques to the technocratic planning model: the role of Jane Jacobs, Paul Davidoff, Reyner Banham and Giancarlo De Carlo in the 1960s. City, Territory and Architecture, 5(1), 1-8.
Pal, A. (2008). Planning from the bottom up: Democratic decentralisation in action (Vol. 20). IOS Press.
Pardo, I., & Prato, G. B. (Eds.). (2016). Citizenship and the legitimacy of Governance: Anthropology in the Mediterranean Region. Routledge.
    Pierre, J. (2011). The Politics of Urban Governance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Polk, M. (2011). Institutional capacity-building in urban planning and policy-making for sustainable development: success or failure?. Planning, Practice & Research, 26(2), 185-206.
Pollitt, Ch.(2016). Decentralized management. In Public Management and Governance. London: Routledge.
Pourmohammadi, M. R., & Zali, N. (2004). Human Development, Challenges and Prospects (with an Analytical Look at Human Development Indicators in Iran). Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, 10(15), 44-52.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(2), 229-252.
Roosen, B., Huybrechts, L., Devisch, O., & Van den Broeck, P. (2020). Dialectical design dialogues: Negotiating ethics in participatory planning by building a critical design atlas. Urban Planning, 5(4), 238-251.
     Rydin, Y. (2013). The future of planning: Beyond growth dependence. Policy Press.
Saegert, S. (2006). Building civic capacity in urban neighborhoods: An empirically grounded anatomy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(3), 275-294.
Sandström, A., & Carlsson, L. (2008). The performance of policy networks: the relation between network structure and network performance. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 497-524.
Selman, P. (2001). Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning. Planning theory & practice, 2(1), 13-30.
Sheikhi, M., Shahsavarian, M., & Fazli, A. (2013). Network Analysis Approach to the Governance of Ex-Urban Lands,(Case study: Karaj Urban Region). Urban Management, 11(32), 123-138. (In Persian)
Simpson, L., Wood, L., & Daws, L. (2008). Community capacity building: Starting with people not projects. Community Development Journal, 38(4), 277-286.
Sirianni, C. (2010). Investing in democracy: Engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Brookings Institution Press.
Skelcher, C., Sullivan, H., & Jeffares, S. (2013). Hybrid governance in European cities: Neighbourhood, migration and democracy. Springer.
Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2013). Networks of social capital: Extending a public relations model of civil society in Peru. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 1-12.
Sorensen, A., & Okata, J. (Eds.). (2010). Megacities: urban form, governance, and sustainability (Vol. 10). Springer Science & Business Media.
Sun, I., Hu, R., & Wu, Y. (2012). Social capital, political participation, and trust in the police in urban China. Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology, 45(1), 87-105.
Tan, E. (2019). Decentralization and Governance Capacity: The Case of Turkey. Springer International Publishing.
United Nations. (2007). Participatory dialogue: Towards a stable, safe and just society for all. United Nations Publications.
Van Ark, R. G., & Edelenbos, J. (2007). Collaborative Planning, Commitment, and Trust: Dealing with Uncertainty in Networks. In L. Albrechts & S. Mandelbaum (Eds.), The network society: a new context for planning. Routledge.
Van Dijk, J. (2020). The network society. Sage.
Watts, L., & Hodgson, D. (2021). Social Justice Theory and Practice for Social Work: Critical and Philosophical Perspectives. International Journal of Social Welfare, 30(1), 120-121.
Zangisheieh, S., Rafiean, M., Ghaedrahmati, S., & Meshkini, A. (2021). Communicative Planning Governance Network sustainable regeneration slum textures (case study: Kermanshah city). Human Geography Research, 53(4), 1165-1190. (In Persian)
Zali, N., & Zamanipour, M. (2016). Presenting And Implementing A New Model For Scenario Building In Regional Plannings Case Study: Mazandaran Province.
Zali, N., Zamani-Poor, M., & Arghash, A. (2014). Analyzing the Identity Aspect of Cultural Heritage of Isfahan City from the Viewpoint of Visitors with the Aim of City Branding. Anuário do Instituto de Geociências, 37(2), 206-215.
Zérah, M. H. (2009). Participatory governance in urban management and the shifting geometry of power in Mumbai. Development and Change, 40(5), 853-877.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 26 April 2022
  • Revise Date: 06 September 2022
  • Accept Date: 26 December 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics