Abstract
In urban planning research, trading zones can be approached as practical toolkits for mutual coordination between different groups. While acknowledging political difference as a legitimate condition in itself, we may try to establish local planning strategies that could coordinate the activities of the different groups, despite even fundamental differences in values and epistemic understandings. Originally, the concept was introduced as an interpretive tool in dealing with communication problems in conditions of cultural-epistemological heterogeneity. But can the concept be “stretched” to aid us in trying to resolve deep political conflicts in planning? In itself, the trading zone concept does not bear political implications. Trading zones may be found and generated in both collaborative and coercive conditions. The theoretical implications of the concept are highly relevant in addressing the communicative planning theory dilemma. The realm for its empirical uses, both normative and descriptive, is wide.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bäcklund P, Mäntysalo R (2010) Agonism and institutional ambiguity: ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. Plann Theor 9(4):333–350
Collins H, Evans R, Gorman M (2007) Trading zones and interactional expertise. Stud Hist Philos Sci 38(4):657–666
Forester J (1989) Planning in the face of power. University of California Press, Berkeley
Forester J (1993) Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. State University of New York Press, Albany
Forester J (2006) Making participation work when interests conflict. Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations. J Am Plann Assoc 72(4):447–456
Forester J (2009) Dealing with differences. Dramas of mediating public disputes. Oxford University Press, New York
Friedmann J (2011) Insurgencies: essays in planning theory. Routledge, London, pp 210–228 (originally published as an article The uses of planning theory: a bibliographic essay. J Plann Educ Res 28:247–257)
Fuller B (2006) Trading zones: cooperating for water resource and ecosystem management when stakeholders have apparently irreconcilable differences. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Galison P (1997) Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Galison P (2010) Trading with the enemy. In: Gorman ME (ed) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Gutmann A, Thompson D (1996) Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Hillier J (2002) Shadows of power. Routledge, London
Mäntysalo R, Balducci A, Kangasoja J (2011) Agonistic planning as communication in a trading zone. Plann Theor 10(3):257–272
Mouffe C (2000) The democratic paradox. Verso, London
Pløger J (2004) Strife: urban planning and agonism. Plann Theor 3(1):71–92
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mäntysalo, R., Balducci, A. (2013). Conclusions and Afterthoughts. In: Balducci, A., Mäntysalo, R. (eds) Urban Planning as a Trading Zone. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5853-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5854-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)