User:Andrewconsiders/sandbox

A comparison of planning cultures was first undertaken in 1993 in a study of planning cultures in France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. (DISP 115, 1993: Keller et al., 1996). John Friedmann, a renown contemporary planning theorist, defines planning culture as "the ways, both formal and informal, that spatial planning in a given multi-national region, country or city is conceived, institutionalized, and enacted."

The process of planning involves many stakeholders, though is still primarily overseen and approved by governments. As a result, planning processes and results are highly subject to political influences and institutional structures, which vary significantly around the world. The largest influences on planning culture are the variables of: constitutional government structures (unitary states, federal states, multi-national entities), economic structure (market economies, those in transition from command economies), the pace of urban population growth, political culture (involvement of civil society, role of media, competitiveness among parties, openness of political process), and the level of economic development. In all cases, planning institutions are constantly evolving themselves to adapt to new needs and changes. One such broad shift is the embracing of market-lead development, where planning institutions now facilitate market forces in an entrepreneurial fashion instead of restraining them.

In Japan, planning was largely centralized until the 1990s, when local governments were required to begin producing Master Plans to guide long-term changes in their jurisdictions. While municipalities were still tied financially to the central government, this change in planning was seen as a major innovation, and one that increased opportunities for localized public participation in planning in Japan.

In China, planning activities and planning bureaucracies have expanded significantly in recent decades, with over 60,000 practicing planners in what is now a well-reputed profession. Local development and land use decisions are guided by socio-economic plans developed by senior governments, which in turn are aligned with national 5-year plans. The State Land Administration Bureau is a vertically-integrated organization with branches in every major city, and oversees the allocation of land uses and coordinates major projects along with the Ministry of Construction and the Planning Bureau. This is indicative of planning in China, which is characterized by centralization of decision making: Civic Mayors, for example, are not elected but appointed by higher levels of government. Much of the day to day services provided at the neighbourhood level are coordinated by Street Committees, which also operate for-profit businesses in order to fund services. In China, planning is largely seen a a responsibility of government, with little involvement from civil society. Citizens who take issue with planning decisions may sue the local government, file a petition, or engage in public demonstration, however these actions are largely futile. Media outlets are only just beginning to provide critical perspective on planning decisions. As a result, planners have significant latitude to implement their ideas without inhibition.

In India, relative to China, planning is characterized by jurisdictional and administrative autonomy. The civil service in charge of planning is accountable to, yet separated from, the political sphere. Five-year national economic plans guide the direction of development and land use planning at the state and municipal level. With the quadrupling of urban populations over the past 50 years, planning is challenged to keep up with such rapid urbanization. Civil society is still finding its role in the balance of planning actors, and gaining increasing influence for historically marginalized groups. While planning in India is seen optimistically as a vehicle by which to organize and bring significant benefits to society, the profession is still marred by a socio-economic disconnect between planners and the populations they serve, a highly bureaucratic administration, and the continued marginalization of vast swathes of the urban poor who often live without land rights.

In Russia, previous to the late 1980s planning was highly centralized and plans were not publicly available. 30-year plans and designs for most areas were produced in government institutes in the largest cities, far removed from the realities where they were to be applied. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, local governments were rapidly given increased planning responsibility, but did not yet have the tools and structure in place to effectively regulate land use. Significant political, societal, and economic changes in that period of transition further complicated the challenges faced by local planning authorities. Attention was given to addressing these immediate needs, and less to the long-range planning tasks of the Soviet era.

In South Africa and sub-Saharan countries in general, urban growth rates remain some of the highest in the world. A severe lack of institutional capacity and financial resources characterizes the context of planning challenges in sub-Saharan states. Most planning efforts are focused in the areas inhabited by urban elites, while the vast majority of urban populations live in informal and squatter settlements, which are technically illegal and beyond the official realm of planning jurisdiction. However, increasingly local and national authorities are directing attention to such settlements, and combined with foreign financial support, are improving basic infrastructure needs. The precarious nature of these unofficial residential lands limits the ability of residents to obtain service and raise issues with local planning administrations, further maintaining their marginalization. Enforcement of regulations, public participation, and plan execution are notably weak, while nepotism is strong, resulting in much urban development taking place outside of official planning processes.