[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-618531-105":59,"doc-detail-618531-en":129},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":122,"head_meta":124,"extra_data":126,"updated_unix":128},105,"en","planning-as-polycentric-institutionalist-lessons-for-communicative-and-collaborative-planning-in-global-south-contexts","Planning as polycentric: Institutionalist lessons for communicative and collaborative planning in Global South contexts","","This article connects planning’s “communicative turn” with polycentric governance to provide three lessons for communicative and collaborative planning. The lessons examine how institutional-cultural contexts shape stakeholders’ ability to enter and exit discursive arenas, how incentives and interactions among actors structure planning dynamics, and how information-power asymmetries affect communicative-action-based processes. Evidence comes from an ecological restoration planning project in a Global South setting, highlighting Southern critiques of normative concepts decoupled from asymmetric power and socio-economic differences.",{"@graph":69,"@context":121},[70,84,104],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/planning-as-polycentric-institutionalist-lessons-for-communicative-and-collaborative-planning-in-global-south-contexts/618531/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":98,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":99,"interactionStatistic":100},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/planning-as-polycentric-institutionalist-lessons-for-communicative-and-collaborative-planning-in-global-south-contexts/618531.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"4398046744996","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19",true,{"@type":101,"interactionType":102,"userInteractionCount":4},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":103},"ViewAction",{"@type":105,"mainEntity":106},"FAQPage",[107,113,117],{"name":108,"@type":109,"acceptedAnswer":110},"What is the core purpose of the article?","Question",{"text":111,"@type":112},"The article reframes the “communicative turn” by linking communicative and collaborative planning with polycentric governance, aiming to deliver three lessons for planning in Global South contexts.","Answer",{"name":114,"@type":109,"acceptedAnswer":115},"What three lessons does the article propose for communicative and collaborative planning?",{"text":116,"@type":112},"The lessons focus on (1) stakeholders’ agency to enter, act within, and exit discursive arenas, (2) incentives and interactions among actors, and (3) information and power asymmetries in communicative-action-based planning.",{"name":118,"@type":109,"acceptedAnswer":119},"How does the article support its lessons empirically?",{"text":120,"@type":112},"It uses moments from an ecological restoration planning project situated in a Global South context to illustrate the conceptual claims.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":123,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":125,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":127,"site_id":62},618531,1792448879,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":130},{"doc_id":127,"user_id":131,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":66,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":132,"file_id":133,"file_url":134,"file_type":135,"file_size":136,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":137,"language":138,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":139,"faqs":140,"seo_title":141,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":128,"read_time":142},4398046744996,"Original Article  \n\n| |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  | |  | | | | | |\n\nPlanning as polycentric: Institutionalist lessons for communicative and collaborative planning in Global South contexts  \nPlanning Theory 2022, Vol. 0(0) 1–23  \n© The Author(s) 2022  \nArticle reuse guidelines:  \n[sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)  \n[DOI: 10.1177/14730952221115871](DOI: 10.1177/14730952221115871)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/14730952221115871)[journals.sagepub.com/home/plt](journals.sagepub.com/home/plt)  \nEmmanuel Frimpong Boamah􀀁  \nJust Institutions Lab, Community for Global Health Equity, Food Systems and Healthy Communities Lab, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA  \nAbstract  \nThis article puts the ‘communicative turn’ in planning into conversation with polycentric governance to offer three lessons for communicative and collaborative planning. These lessons probe the nexus of institutional-cultural contexts and (1) stakeholders’ agency to initiate, enter, and exit discursive arenas, (2) incentives and interactions among actors, and (3) information and power (a)symmetries within communicative-action-based planning processes. The empirical moments for these lessons are evinced using an ecological restoration planning project in a Global South context. The conceptual and empirical dialogues foreground Southern critiques of the limits of normative planning concepts, especially when they are decoupled from historically contingent asymmetric power structures and socio-economic differences within planning cultures.  \nIntroduction  \nCan communicative and collaborative processes address asymmetric power structures and socio-economic differences in planning the urban commons? The arguments that interactive, discursive, and consensus-building planning can help address deep value differences and asymmetric power relations in place-conscious governance discourses lead some to answer affirmatively, having determined these processes produce  \nCorresponding author:  \nEmmanuel Frimpong Boamah, Just Institutions Lab, Community for Global Health Equity, Food Systems and Healthy Communities Lab, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University at Buffalo, 226 Hayes Hall, Buffalo, NY 12826, USA.  \nEmail: [efrimpon@buffalo.edu](efrimpon@buffalo.edu)  \ntransformative social learning and institutional capital (Forester, 1999b; Forester, 1999a; Healey, 1997; Healey, 1999; Innes and Booher, 1999) . Others are less convinced. For instance, Vanessa Watson found collaborative and communicative planning (CCP) useful for highlighting the role of civil society groups in planning processes, the distributive effects of planning decisions, and the challenges of modernist sensibilities in planning initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) contexts (Watson, 2002), but questioned the assumptions held by CCP and other Western liberal normative planning theories. Among her concerns were their blind faith in civil society groups, underestimating the tensions between identity and distributive politics, and fetishization of bottom-up processes (Watson, 2002, 2003, 2009) . There are also arguments that CCP prioritizes individuals ’processes and agency while neglecting broader contextual processes and forces that thwart and/or promote deliberative processes, power relations, and behavior of individuals (Alexander, 1996; Huxley, 2000; Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000; Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998; Silverman et al., 2020) .  \nThis article offers new insights for answering this contentious question by reconsidering the “communicative turn” in planning through the systems-based, institutional lens of the polycentric governance framework (Aligica and Tarko, 2012; Ostrom et al., 1961; McGinnis and Ostrom, 2012) . The communicative turn in planning describes discursive and consensus-building models of planning. The ‘turn ’ regards planning’s thoroughgoing exploration and inc","cbCaiufzy7mhfTtK","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiufzy7mhfTtK","pdf",817731,23,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n# Communicative turn and polycentric governance\n# System-based institutional lens and lessons for CCP","[{\"question\":\"What is the core purpose of the article?\",\"answer\":\"The article reframes the “communicative turn” by linking communicative and collaborative planning with polycentric governance, aiming to deliver three lessons for planning in Global South contexts.\"},{\"question\":\"What three lessons does the article propose for communicative and collaborative planning?\",\"answer\":\"The lessons focus on (1) stakeholders’ agency to enter, act within, and exit discursive arenas, (2) incentives and interactions among actors, and (3) information and power asymmetries in communicative-action-based planning.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the article support its lessons empirically?\",\"answer\":\"It uses moments from an ecological restoration planning project situated in a Global South context to illustrate the conceptual claims.\"}]","Planning as polycentric: Institutionalist lessons for communicative and collaborative planning in Global South contexts | PDF",58]