Complexity theory and planning: examining 'fractals' for organising policy domains in planning practice

This article examines selected methodological insights that complexity theory might provide for planning. In particular, it focuses on the concept of fractals and, through this concept, how ways of organising policy domains across scales might have particular causal impacts. The aim of this article is therefore twofold: (a) to position complexity theory within social science through a ‘generalised discourse’, thereby orienting it to particular ontological and epistemological biases and (b) to reintroduce a comparatively new concept – fractals – from complexity theory in a way that is consistent with the ontological and epistemological biases argued for, and expand on the contribution that this might make to planning. Complexity theory is theoretically positioned as a neo-systems theory with reasons elaborated. Fractal systems from complexity theory are systems that exhibit self-similarity across scales. This concept (as previously introduced by the author in ‘Fractal spaces in planning and governance’) is further developed in this article to (a) illustrate the ontological and epistemological claims for complexity theory, and to (b) draw attention to ways of organising policy systems across scales to emphasise certain characteristics of the systems – certain distinctions. These distinctions when repeated across scales reinforce associated processes/values/end goals resulting in particular policy outcomes. Finally, empirical insights from two case studies in two different policy domains are presented and compared to illustrate the workings of fractals in planning practice.

Spatial housing economics: a survey

This introduction to the Virtual Special Issue surveys the development of spatial housing economics from its roots in neo-classical theory, through more recent developments in social interactions modelling, and touching on the role of institutions, path dependence and economic history. The survey also points to some of the more promising future directions for the subject that are beginning to appear in the literature. The survey covers elements hedonic models, spatial econometrics, neighbourhood models, housing market areas, housing supply, models of segregation, migration, housing tenure, sub-national house price modelling including the so-called ripple effect, and agent-based models. Possible future directions are set in the context of a selection of recent papers that have appeared in Urban Studies. Nevertheless, there are still important gaps in the literature that merit further attention, arising at least partly from emerging policy problems. These include more research on housing and biodiversity, the relationship between housing and civil unrest, the effects of changing age distributions - notably housing for the elderly - and the impact of different international institutional structures. Methodologically, developments in Big Data provide an exciting framework for future work.

Towards (more) integrity in academia: transcending neo-liberal assumption of research and knowledge creation and the “rules” supressing academic freedom

European researchers across heterogeneous disciplines voice concerns and argue for new paths towards a brighter future regarding scientific and knowledge creation and communication. Recently, in biological and natural sciences concerns have been expressed that major threats are intentionally ignored. These threats are challenging Europe’s future sustainability towards creating knowledge that effectively deals with emerging social, environmental, health, and economic problems of a planetary scope. Within social science circles however, the root cause regarding the above challenges, have been linked with macro level forces of neo-liberal ways of valuing and relevant rules in academia and beyond which we take for granted. These concerns raised by heterogeneous scholars in natural and the applied social sciences concern the ethics of today’s research and academic integrity. Applying Bourdieu’s sociology may not allow an optimistic lens if change is possible. Rather than attributing the replication of neo-liberal habitus in intentional agent and institutional choices, Bourdieu’s work raises the importance of thoughtlessly internalised habits in human and social action. Accordingly, most action within a given paradigm (in this case, neo-liberalism) is understood as habituated, i.e. unconsciously reproducing external social fields, even ill-defined ways of valuing. This essay analyses these and how they may help critically analyse the current habitus surrounding research and knowledge production, evaluation, and communication and related aspects of academic freedom. Although it is acknowledged that transformation is not easy, the essay presents arguments and recent theory paths to suggest that change nevertheless may be a realistic hope once certain action logics are encouraged.

Neo-Gramscianism

Gramscian concepts have been utilized by scholars to analyze and illuminate various aspects of GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE. A foremost application of neo-Gramscianism to the scholarship on global environmental governance has been in challenging the basic premise of orthodox regime theory that international environmental rule-making is the exclusive preserve of state actors. Gramscian theory is very sensitive to the role and importance of political contestations, accommodations and compromises, which many have noted as the ‘stuff’ of environmental governance. Crucially, while a Gramscian analysis is sensitive to the counter-hegemonic potential of the subordinate class and the ever contested and changing contours of power in a social regime, it does not subscribe to the unlimited possibility of outcome. Given the utility of neo-Gramscian ideas, as demonstrated by the scholarship discussed, it is surprising that the approach has not been deployed more widely in the scholarship on global environmental governance.