Shifting Political Ideologies and Planning Reorientations in Diverging Social-Democratic Contexts

This paper argues that the Scandinavian planning tradition, a historically and widely consistent and convergent approach to understanding of planning systems, policies and practices, has begun to show signs of attenuation over the course of the past decade. The identified causes behind this shift relate to inter alia divergent interpretations of political ideologies as well as understandings about the purpose of planning in catering to spatial development. In unfolding this rationale, this paper delves into the evolution of planning at the national level in Denmark and Norway, two comparable nation states characterized by their social-democratic and welfarist traditions. The motivation behind the comparative study between Denmark and Norway is based on the following typological conditions: i) a geographical condition, as both Denmark and Norway share historical and socio-cultural patterns within Scandinavia and as part of the Nordic social democratic welfare tradition; ii) a legislative condition, as the planning systems in both nations has historically evolved in accordance with three operative levels, local, regional and national; iii) a planning practice or style condition: Denmark and Norway are associated with the comprehensive-integrated approach to planning systems and policies (CEC, 1997). Besides the historical similarities that make these specific cases akin, the comparative study is timely and further validated due to increasing divergences concerning development orientations, roles of planning in catering to spatial development, planning tools and modes of implementation. Through an analysis of these variables, the paper then discusses the implications of changing ideologies and roles in terms of their impacts on democratic affairs; lack of policy coordination and sectoral integration; priority of ad hoc spatial imaginaries as well as other societal concerns regarding the neoliberalisation of spatial planning. The overall contribution of the paper is to raise awareness about the impact of these substantial shifts on the prospective role of planning in Scandinavia. (With co-author Daniel Galland, NMBU)