My First Published Article: Criticising The Political Nature of Modern City Planning

In May 2018, I had an article I wrote regarding the political nature of modern city planning published in my university's International Affairs Review titled "Politik". The article appears in the "Turbulence" edition of the Review. Below is a copy of my article. Feel free to let me know your thoughts!

---

The Politics of Planning: Corruption, Transparency, and Bribery in the Democratic Planning Process

Introduction

Planning and planning theory has had a long-standing relationship with politics and political science despite its short time as a profession and academic field. As planning theory has evolved over the past 100 years, town planning has grown to ‘play a fundamental role in politics and communities subject to existing political regimes’.[i] Due to the often turbulent political nature of planning, the two intertwined fields have become ‘fraught with ethical challenges regarding equity, fairness and social justice’.[ii] In regards to some of the challenges that this complex relationship has produced; political corruption, transparency, and bribery are particularly important issues to the democratic planning process. As planning is ‘true to the democratic theory from which it sprang,’[iii] shielding effective planning and planning practices from the effects of corruption, bribery and non-transparent decision-making is just as important as preventing and stopping these disruptive forces in the field of politics itself. However, it is still often the case that planners are left feeling ‘overwhelmed by the exercise of private economic power or by politics, or by both’.[iv] This article will focus how bribery, corruption, and non-transparency has manifested and presented itself in democratic societies through three international case studies.

Corruption

One of the many challenges that planning professionals face on a daily basis is corruption. Corruption, simply put, is ‘the abuse of public power and role for private benefit’.[v] In terms of town planning, it is often the case that corruption comes from the politics and politicians involved in the planning process whereby ‘politicians tend to use power and authority to resolve…conflict often citing ‘public interest’… yet, in some instances, they will be protecting private and personal interests’.[vi] Failure to declare conflicts of interest has also distorted the planning profession and led to poor planning decisions and/or biased decision making. An example of alleged corrupt practices manifesting in the town planning realm is a decision made by the Liberal National Party (LNP) controlled Brisbane City Council to ‘sell designated city parkland to a businessman who is also a significant donor to the LNP’.[vii] Not only was a clear conflict of interest involved in the decision-making process, but also poor transparency, where ‘public tender, advertisement or auction as required by Queensland government regulation’ was not undertaken.[viii] This particular case example surrounding land use can be a common occurrence in town planning, as ‘corruption in the planning field is largely tied to the opportunities that land-use planning generates’.[ix]

Transparency

The issue of transparency in both the political and town planning realms is of particular importance, as transparent political and town planning processes are crucial to producing effective and just planning outcomes. As the nature of town planning often involves negotiations between the public and private sectors,[x] ensuring that measures are taken to keep discussions open, transparent and inclusive of the public (where applicable) is critical. Consequences of non-transparency in town planning can often lead to inequalities and social justice issues, as ‘mediating the production and reproduction of the built environment involves choices that disadvantage some groups yet bring rich rewards for others’.[xi] As there can often be several stakeholders with different levels of interest and influence in the planning process, it can be difficult to ensure that transparency and the interests of the public are fully maintained. Non-transparent practices in the political and planning realms can create problems regarding social justice, as some societal groups or members of the community may be favoured over others in the planning process. An example of poor transparency as a result of the relationship between town planning and politics is a controversial 31 home development in Saratoga County in New York (United States), where closed door meetings between the towns planning board chairman and the developer frequently occurred.[xii] These meetings caused public concern and were reported on as many believed that the private meetings “…deprives the other planning board participants to challenge the applicant and… deprives it from public view”.[xiii] Such acts of discretion by the planning officials provide poor and often bias planning outcomes that typically favour developers over the community.

Bribery

Within the political sphere, bribery is often a challenging and difficult act to both prevent and overcome. Bribery can be defined as ‘a transaction between two people with one offering money (or other goods) to a second in order to induce that person to commit an improper act’.[xiv] As politics has a close and somewhat symbiotic relationship to town planning and the town planning profession, bribery in one realm often can have consequences that affects the other. In terms of land-use planning, ‘the government bodies which oversee the land sector are one of the public entities most plagued by…bribery’.[xv] An example of how bribery and its effects can manifest in politics and planning is a 2002 police investigation into Doncaster City Council members in the United Kingdom, who took "…lavish bribes to process a planning application", some worth up to £160,000 (AUD $290,000).[xvi] The investigation led to over 74 arrests being made and centred around the former mayor and council's head of planning approving "…a planning application for land designated for countryside".[xvii] Such acts of corruption and bribery ‘seriously damages the legitimacy and credibility of the political and institutional system, and undermines generalised trust’,[xviii] and can undermine social justice and equality in the town planning realm.

Conclusion

Corruption, transparency and bribery are all critical issues that face any truly democratic society around the world, in terms of both politics and town planning. Both politicians and planners alike have a responsibility to the public to be unbiased and considerate of all parties involved when mediating, considering, and implementing town planning policies and practices. Preventative measures to ensure that such corruption does not manifest in either fields is critical to the success of effective, just, and socially equitable town planning. Further research into the effects and consequences of corruption in either politics and/or town planning is required to create more proficient measures and further eliminate space for such corruption to grow within these two realms. An alternative solution to corruption in politics and planning could be achieved by further separating the two fields, such that the consequences and full effects in one field are not transferred to the other. However, further research again is needed into such potential solutions, to see which would ultimately be more beneficial for politics, planning, and the public.

[i] J. J. Williams and D. Muchadenyika, ‘Politics and the practice of planning: The case of Zimbabwean cities’, Cities, vol. 63, no. 1, March 2017, p. 33.

[ii] S. McKay, M. Murray, S. MacIntyre and A. Kashyap, ‘Evidence-based policymaking and the public interest: Lessons in legitimacy’, Town Planning Review, vol. 86, no. 2, January 2015, p. 151.

[iii] H. J. Gans, ‘Planning and Political Participation: A Study of Political Participation in a Planned New Town’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 19, no. 1, March 1953, p. 3.

[iv] J. Forester, ‘Planning in the Face of Power’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 48, no. 1, March 1982, p. 67.

[v] F. Chiodelli and S. Moroni, ‘Corruption in land-use issues: A crucial challenge for planning theory and practice’, Town Planning Review, vol. 86, no. 4, 2015, p. 438.

[vi] Williams and Muchadenyika, op. cit., p. 33.

[vii] M. Willacy, ‘Brisbane City Council's $3.3m deal to sell parkland to significant LNP donor revealed’, in ABC News, 29 February 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/questions-raised-over-brisbane-council-deal-with-lnp-donor/7208632 (accessed 1 April 2018).

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Chiodelli and Moroni, op cit., p. 437.

[x] Ibid., p. 438.

[xi] M. Tait, ‘Building trust in planning professionals: understanding the contested legitimacy of a planning decision’, The Town Planning Review, vol. 83, no. 5, September 2012, p. 597.

[xii] W. Liberatore, ‘Saratoga planning board chair meets privately with developer John Witt’, in Times Union, 07 May 2018, https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Planning-board-chair-meets-privately-with-12894181.php#photo-12806644 (accessed 8 May 2018)

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] K. D’Andrade, ‘Bribery’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 4, no. 4, August 1985, p. 239.

[xv] Chiodelli and Moroni, op cit., p. 437.

[xvi] N. Britten, ‘Web of corruption that shamed a town’ in The Telegraph, 13 March 2002, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387554/Web-of-corruption-that-shamed-a-town.html (accessed 08 May 2018)

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Chiodelli and Moroni, op cit., p. 440.