Incrementalism versus integration: Are disjointed planning systems more productive?

PABLO ELINBAUM; DANIEL GALLAND

Gotemburgo

Congreso; AESOP Annual Congress 2018 - Making space for hope; 2018

Association of European Schools of Planning

Spatial planning systems in Latin America have been historically shaped by a series of contingent economic, socio-cultural and socio-political driving forces where the influence of (neo)colonialist as well as (neo)liberal modes of governmentality have determined the role of this region in the international division of labour. Until now, most research on planning systems has been clearly dominated by European casuistry based on "self-referential" planning traditions operating within the "integrated framework" of the European Union. Different geographies, however, must account for the study of (global) path-dependent forces commonly shaping a plurality of national social models. In Latin America, the discourse of "underdevelopment" implanted by the United States during the post-WWII era has triggered a naïve idealization of the notion of ?integration? as the universalized and progressive 21st-century planning policy paradigm. Through the analysis of two major players, Mexico and Argentina, this paper attempts to define the specificity of Latin American planning systems to spur debates beyond purely technical, traditional self-referential approaches. In doing so, it first considers how the institutionzalition of key planning processes has been influenced by the rescaling and the (discursive) prioritization of public policies. Second, the paper argues that "disjointed" planning levels show signs of operative productivity of ad hoc spatial interventions. Third, it contends that these incremental nuances result in critical lessons that can contribute to deeper analyses of formalized, bureaucratic and routine-like planning processes. Finally, the paper unveils a series of political and socio-spatial implications associated with the notion of integration.