Breaking MALPE paths: motives and problems Raine Mäntysalo 1
MALPE A discourse rather than a model. Operationalized by certain governance tools: Structural schemes (origin in the PARAS Act s reguirement (2007) for 17 urban regions to compile joint strategic plans towards functional and sustainable urban structure, integrating land use, housing and transport. MAL(PE) agreements in 4 largest urban regions (Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, Oulu), Growth agreements in 10 largest urban regions (origin in the transport infra and social housing agreements between the central and local governments in Helsinki region, early 2000s). MAL-network (2010->, 16 city regions, ministries etc.). The aim: is to develop planning processes and tools, to disseminate good practices of cooperation to support planning done in the regions, and, doing so, to strengthen the regions as attractive environments for working, living and leisure time. 2
Soft structural schemes of Finnish urban regions 3 3
Motives behind MALPE coordination (1) A view of large and growing urban regions as engines of Finnish economic growth in the global competition of investments. -> Focus on their strategic planning to promote their global competitiveness, with the well functioning urban infrastructure as a crucial factor. A concern for the regionalization of urban structures beyond central city boundaries (commuting, housing, retail, industry space and job markets). -> Focus on the improvement of city-regional urban infrastructure by coordinating land use, housing, transport, service and economic development planning. 4
Motives behind MALPE coordination (2) A realization that the siloing of planning sectors suffers from discoordination and it often leads to unintended consequences (e.g. service network development does not follow land use planning; land zoning + predict & provide transport planning -> dispersion & car dependency). -> Soft city-regional planning instruments (e.g. structural schemes) as platforms for planning coordination. A concern for the urban region municipalities inclination to resort to zero sum competing within the city region over investments and well-to-do residents, at the expense of the city-regional strategic perspective, while the regional councils are seen to be too weak to counteract this development. -> The need for direct state intervention, where the state investments (especially in major transport infra projects) are used to encourage municipalities strategic cooperation and are conditioned by mutual agreements (MAL(PE) agreements, Growth agreements). 5
Incremental and project-centred: Complexity of multi-level, cross-sector and public-private governance: incremental policy tinkering. The centrality of transport infra project incentives: project-centredness coupled with high budgetary uncertainty. Generalistic number-driven agreement procedures directed by the state (e.g. on transport and social housing investments and measures) at the expense of addressing local and regional challenges and strengths. -> Strategic and broader perspectives are neglected. Gap between administration and politics: Problems in MALPE coordination (1) Planners cooperate while the politicians are not committed. Depoliticization of city-regional strategy work. -> Legitimacy of administrator-driven soft city-regional planning? 6
Problems in MALPE coordination (2) Periurbanization: Urbanization beyond city-regional boundaries, polycentricity and growth corridors. -> Who to involve in MALPE coordination and how to delineate it geographically? Lack of boundary-crossing concepts/artefacts, narratives and models: Siloed conceptualizations of urban phenomena, regarding how they are understood, who they concern, how they should be handled and by whom: inappropriately bounded rationalities. Large infra projects may serve as boundary objects but they narrow the view (project-centredness). -> New conceptualizations, narratives and models are needed to better objectify complex urban realities as planning issues and thereby bring the planning sectors together (e.g. accessibility, multilocality, environment as service, scenario storylines, integrative datasets and models that utilize them). 7
Previous research: Projects Paras-ARTTU research programme (2008-2012) Projects for Min. of Environment (2013-2015): Rakennemallit & YLKÄ Project JULMA for Finnish Council of State (2014-2016) Project KuVa (2014-2016) and other studies by Association Finnish Local and Regional Authorities Studies and workshops coordinated by MAL-network Finnish Academy Project SCENSLECO (2015-2019) 8
Previous research: Publications Mäntysalo, R, J.K. Kangasoja and V. Kanninen (2015). The paradox of strategic planning: a theoretical outline with a view on Finland. Planning Theory & Practice 16(2), 169-183., 40 5 Kanninen, V and I. Akkila (2015). Kaupunkiseutujen strateginen suunnittelu. Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 24/2015. Salo, R. & Mäntysalo, R. (2016). Path dependencies and defensive routines in Finnish city-regional land-use policy cooperation, International Planning Studies, Published online: 12 Aug 2016. Hytönen, J.; Mäntysalo, R.; Peltonen, L.; Kanninen, V.; Niemi, P. & Simanainen, M. (2016): Mixed messages and defensive routines in land use policy steering in Finnish urban regions, European Urban and Regional Studies 23 (1), 40-55. Kuntien ja valtion välinen vallan ja vastuun jako yhdyskuntapolitiikassa (2016). Kuntaliitto, Helsinki. Puustinen, S.; Mäntysalo, R. & Karppi, I. (eds.) (2016). Strateginen eheyttäminen kaupunkiseuduilla - Näkökulmia kestävän maankäytön ja julkisen talouden kysymyksiin. Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 4/2016. Hytönen, J.; I. Akkila & R. Mäntysalo (eds.) (2011). Kaupunkiseutujen kasvukivut. Kuntien maankäyttöpolitiikka ja suunnitteluyhteistyö viidellä kaupunkiseudulla. Kuntaliiton verkkojulkaisu, Paras-ARTTU-ohjelman tutkimuksia nro 15, Helsinki. Mäntysalo R.; L. Peltonen; V. Kanninen; P. Niemi; J. Hytönen & M. Simanainen (2010). Keskuskaupungin ja kehyskunnan jännitteiset kytkennät. Kuntaliitto, Acta nro 217, Helsinki. Mäntysalo R.; J.K., Kangasoja & V. Kanninen (2014). Rakennemallit kaupunkiseutujen suunnittelussa. Strategisen maankäytön suunnittelun paradoksi. Ympäristöministeriö, Raportteja 18, Helsinki. 9