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.

Putting the Canal on the map: Panamanian agenda-setting and the 1973 Security Council meetings

In the early 1970s, Panama’s negotiations with the United States over the status of the Panama Canal ground to a standstill. General Omar Torrijos had rejected treaties left unratified by previous governments only to receive a less generous offer from the Nixon administration. Realizing that the talks were being ignored in Washington, the Panamanian government worked to internationalize the previously bilateral issue, creating and exploiting a high-profile forum: Extraordinary meetings of the UN Security Council in March 1973 held in Panama City. In those meetings, Panama isolated the United States in order to raise the issue’s profile and amplify the costs of leaving the matter unsettled. Using underutilized Panamanian sources, this article examines that meeting, the succeeding progress, and the effect of this early stage on the final negotiations several years later. The case also illustrates how, during the unsettled international environment of the 1970s, a small state utilized international organizations to obtain attention and support for its most important cause.

Coloso fragmentado: la agenda “interméstica” y la política exterior latinoamericana

Los asuntos “intermésticos”, como el comercio, la migración y el narcotráfico, tienen un gran peso en las relaciones contemporáneas entre Estados Unidos y América Latina y son de suma importancia para los estados latinoamericanos y del Caribe. Pero, pese a su trascendencia para los líderes y las sociedades de Latinoamérica, el éxito que han tenido los diplomáticos del continente en influir sobre la política estadounidense en estos temas ha sido aún menor que en otras esferas. Esto se debe, al menos en parte, a las dinámicas que los asuntos intermésticos generan en el proceso de la política exterior de Estados Unidos. Si bien dichas dinámicas han sido ampliamente estudiadas, se ha prestado menos atención a cómo inciden en la política exterior de América Latina y el Caribe hacia Estados Unidos. A partir de los trabajos de Putnam, Milner y Tsebelis, entre otros, este artículo sostiene que los asuntos intermésticos enfrentan más actores con capacidad de veto y tienen menos “conjuntos ganadores” (win-sets) que los asuntos de política exterior tradicionales, lo que dificulta aún más los intentos por influir en las políticas estadounidenses. Esta tesis se examina tomando como ejemplo el caso de la disputa entre Estados Unidos y México por el cruce fronterizo de camiones y los veinte años que el gobierno mexicano tuvo que luchar contra funcionarios y grupos de interés estadounidenses para lograr que aquel país cumpliera con lo dispuesto en el TLCAN. Luego de examinar brevemente otros asuntos similares, el artículo concluye que los asuntos intermésticos exigen estrategias diplomáticas diferentes por parte de los legisladores latinoamericanos.