Beyond tokenism? Community-led planning and rational choices: findings from participants in local agenda-setting at the neighbourhood scale in England

The article confronts some key issues raised in the literature on public participation via a series of interrogatory questions drawn from rational choice theory. These are considered in relation to the design and process of public participation opportunities in planning and wider processes of local governance at the neighbourhood scale. In doing this, the article draws on recent research that has looked in some depth at a form of community-led planning (CLP) in England. The motives and expectations of participants, the abilities of participants, as well as the conditions in which participation takes place are seen as important factors. It is contended that the issues raised by rational choice theory are pertinent to emerging efforts to engage communities. As such, the article concludes that advocates of public participation or community engagement should not be afraid of responding to the challenges posed by questions of motive and reward of participants if lasting and worthwhile participation is to be established. Indeed, questions such as 'what's in it for me?' should be regarded as legitimate, necessary and indeed standard, in order to co-devise meaningful and durable participation opportunities and appropriate institutional environments. However, it is also maintained that wider considerations and capacity questions will also need to be confronted if participation is to become embedded as part of participatory neighbourhood-scale planning.

Technological change and the challenges for regional development: building social capital in less-favoured regions

The relevance of regional policy for less favoured regions (LFRs) reveals itself when policy-makers must reconcile competitiveness with social cohesion through the adaptation of competition or innovation policies. The vast literature in this area generally builds on an overarching concept of ‘social capital’ as the necessary relational infrastructure for collective action diversification and policy integration, in a context much influenced by a dynamic of industrial change and a necessary balance between the creation and diffusion of ‘knowledge’ through learning. This relational infrastructure or ‘social capital’ is centred on people’s willingness to cooperate and ‘envision’ futures as a result of “social organization, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993: 35). Advocates of this interpretation of ‘social capital’ have adopted the ‘new growth’ thinking behind ‘systems of innovation’ and ‘competence building’, arguing that networks have the potential to make both public administration and markets more effective as well as ‘learning’ trajectories more inclusive of the development of society as a whole. This essay aims to better understand the role of ‘social capital’ in the production and reproduction of uneven regional development patterns, and to critically assess the limits of a ‘systems concept’ and an institution-centred approach to comparative studies of regional innovation. These aims are discussed in light of the following two assertions: i) learning behaviour, from an economic point of view, has its determinants, and ii) the positive economic outcomes of ‘social capital’ cannot be taken as a given. It is suggested that an agent-centred approach to comparative research best addresses the ‘learning’ determinants and the consequences of social networks on regional development patterns. A brief discussion of the current debate on innovation surveys has been provided to illustrate this point.

Choices, chance and change: luck egalitarianism over time

The family of theories dubbed ‘luck egalitarianism’ represent an attempt to infuse egalitarian thinking with a concern for personal responsibility, arguing that inequalities are just when they result from, or the extent to which they result from, choice, but are unjust when they result from, or the extent to which they result from, luck. In this essay I argue that luck egalitarians should sometimes seek to limit inequalities, even when they have a fully choice-based pedigree (i.e., result only from the choices of agents). I grant that the broad approach is correct but argue that the temporal standpoint from which we judge whether the person can be held responsible, or the extent to which they can be held responsible, should be radically altered. Instead of asking, as Standard (or Static) Luck Egalitarianism seems to, whether or not, or to what extent, a person was responsible for the choice at the time of choosing, and asking the question of responsibility only once, we should ask whether, or to what extent, they are responsible for the choice at the point at which we are seeking to discover whether, or to what extent, the inequality is just, and so the question of responsibility is not settled but constantly under review. Such an approach will differ from Standard Luck Egalitarianism only if responsibility for a choice is not set in stone – if responsibility can weaken then we should not see the boundary between luck and responsibility within a particular action as static. Drawing on Derek Parfit’s illuminating discussions of personal identity, and contemporary literature on moral responsibility, I suggest there are good reasons to think that responsibility can weaken – that we are not necessarily fully responsible for a choice for ever, even if we were fully responsible at the time of choosing. I call the variant of luck egalitarianism that recognises this shift in temporal standpoint and that responsibility can weaken Dynamic Luck Egalitarianism (DLE). In conclusion I offer a preliminary discussion of what kind of policies DLE would support.

The Press in a world of technological change, 1970–2000

Oxford University Press’s response to technological change in printing and publishing processes in this period can be considered in three phases: an initial period when the computerization of typesetting was seen as offering both cost savings and the ability to produce new editions of existing works more quickly; an intermediate phase when the emergence of standards in desktop computing allowed experiments with the sale of software as well as packaged electronic publications; and a third phase when the availability of the world wide web as a means of distribution allowed OUP to return to publishing in its traditional areas of strength albeit in new formats. Each of these phases demonstrates a tension between a desire to develop centralized systems and expertise, and a recognition that dynamic publishing depends on distributed decision-making and innovation. Alongside these developments in production and distribution lay developments in computer support for managerial and collaborative publishing processes, often involving the same personnel and sometimes the same equipment.