This article describes the characteristics of a distinctively Australian paradigm of metropolitan planning which reflect circumstances of governance, infrastructure provision and concentration on suburban expansion into surrounding countryside. The resultant plans are detailed in their arrangement of land use and communications, comprehensive and long term. There are indications this paradigm may be changing as these dominating influences alter in character. Contemporary metropolitan strategic planning in Europe and America is overviewed to establish the distinctiveness of the Australian paradigm. Changes in plan-shaping forces are leading the emergence of a new European strategic spatial planning paradigm very different to Australia’s. Strategic spatial planning in the United States, while heterogeneous, has examples that reinforce the idea of an Australian paradigm in terms of the influence of governance structure and infrastructure agency on the level of spatial plan detail.

In her important essay ‘Praxis in the time of empire’, Ananya Roy (2006) calls for planning theory to confront imperialism and colonialism as the constitutive ‘present history’ of planning and to substitute a liberal ‘responsibility for’ others with a postcolonial ‘accountability to’ them. This article takes up Roy’s appeal with reference to the disciplines of anthropology, critical development studies and feminist studies. It argues that in order to move beyond the limits of ‘liberal benevolence’, planners need an ethics of accountability that recognizes the conditions of postcoloniality, to be sure, but that can also foreground the relational subjectivities of planners and beneficiaries more generally with an eye to broaching the normative terrain of ‘what is to be done?’. Through a review of literature at the juncture of planning and critical development studies, and reflections on my own cross-disciplinary travels, the article identifies four theoretical concepts that planning needs to recognize and engage in order to strengthen both its critical and normative orientations: the structures of imperialism, agency and resistance among the ‘beneficiaries’ of planning action, the subjectivity of planers and the conditions of collective action. The article argues that, cumulatively, these concepts can inform an ethics of accountability that encompasses both postcolonial critique and a ‘reflexive relationality’.

Transport studies and planning have traditionally considered mobility as a rational activity, necessitated by external factors and shaped by economic considerations. This has led to a focus on quantitative criteria as explanatory factors and left other aspects such as the travellers’ perception of mobility and the links between mobility and other parts of life largely unexplored. But studies from cultural and social sciences show that mobility has wider implications, for instance, by serving psychological and social needs. The article undertakes a critical review of the evolution of transport planning, outlines the main elements of the discipline’s worldview and explores the reasons for its difficulties in handling the ‘soft’ dimensions of mobility such as comfort, ambience, sensual stimulation. It becomes clear that these difficulties can be traced back to the profession’s origins in infrastructure design and economic assessment. The article considers the main criticisms of the traditional mindset and, focusing on travel as an activity, outlines some possibilities to make ‘soft’ aspects more accessible from a planning perspective.

Current planning policies place significant emphasis on the importance of public participation. Through a case study of a planning application for a wind power development in Scotland, this article examines the realities of such policy commitments. It seeks to evaluate to what extent the planning process represents an exercise in participation — entailing empowerment of participants — or rather in social control — through which public participation is managed in order to secure particular outcomes. The article refers to Lukes’s (1974 [2004]) three-dimensional view of power to demonstrate the various forms of power present within the planning system. Subtle forms of power are shown to act to restrict the extent to which public participants meaningfully influence decisions. This is considered to be particularly true where public participation leads to the expression of public opposition towards developments which are explicitly supported by government policies (as is the case with renewable energy). However, while power remains predominantly in the hands of decision-makers, and within the structures of the planning system, public participants are not powerless. Yet, greater power exists within and beyond the planning system influencing participants’ perceptions of what constitutes legitimate participation. The active roles of participants in interpreting what is expected or required of them, and presenting themselves in ways perceived to lead to optimal benefits must be acknowledged. Engaging with the opinions and knowledge of members of the public is more problematic than simply setting up encounters or opportunities. Rather it requires a more fundamental change in the ways by which expert and lay knowledges are perceived within society.

Through a case study of urban planning in Tromsø, Norway, Jean Hillier’s idea of a multi-planar theory of planning is discussed. Hillier’s theory explores the potential of the concept of becoming as creative experimentation. Our aim with this article is to explore the concept of planning as experimentation. The case study is a democratic experiment with planning as a more open, transparent and inclusive process, and it represented a break with institutionalized practices. The article analyses this experiment through a post-structural approach and how it relates to planning practice.