Speaker
Description
The debate on Planning Theory between Savini (2024a, 2024b) and Rydin (2024) raises critical questions regarding three key issues: how degrowth can gain political legitimacy, what role planners should assume in this process, and what practical pathways can facilitate the transition toward degrowth-oriented economies. By analyzing these perspectives and incorporating insights from studies on economic inequality and political efficacy, the paper seeks to enrich the debate on economic alternatives in the face of escalating climate, economic, and democratic crises.
Savini conceptualizes legitimacy as a socio-political challenge that cannot be resolved merely through efficiency-oriented policies. Instead, he argues for a threefold approach: prefiguration (demonstrating alternative economic models through grassroots initiatives), popularization (spreading these practices to build broader acceptance), and pressure (mobilizing political action to influence institutional change). Planners are envisioned as active agents of transformation, fostering radical, long-term transitions aligned with degrowth principles. Their role should include promoting complementarities among prefigurative practices and fostering the creation of institutions to counteract the dominance of growth-oriented economic models.
Conversely, Rydin adopts a more cautious perspective, expressing skepticism toward degrowth as a purely political and radical project. In this respect, she argues that legitimacy and public support for economic alternatives can emerge by working within existing economic structures. Specifically, she emphasizes the role of diverse economies—including social enterprises and small businesses—in gradually reducing dependence on growth without alienating potential allies. Rydin questions whether planners should adopt an explicitly radical stance and suggests they should engage with a wide array of stakeholders to create viable economic alternatives. In her view, a confrontational approach risks delaying practical action and alienating key economic actors.
Building on these different perspectives, which nevertheless share a recognition of the urgency of rethinking and implementing economic alternatives, the paper aims to enrich the debate by incorporating insights from a growing body of research on how economic inequality affects political trust in democratic systems.
In a recent study, Bienstman et al. (2024) demonstrate that as economic inequality rises, citizens increasingly perceive a lack of political efficacy. Political efficacy refers to the belief that ordinary citizens can shape political processes (Craig et al., 1990). The authors argue that this decline in political efficacy, driven by economic disparity, results in diminished trust in democracy.
These findings present both a challenge and an opportunity for integrating Savini's and Rydin's perspectives. In economically vulnerable regions, where civic organization is allegedly weak and political mobilization is unlikely to emerge organically, a dual approach may be necessary. On one hand, improving local economic conditions—such as enhancing access to goods and services and fostering job creation—can help alleviate economic insecurity. On the other, strengthening citizens’ perceptions of political efficacy may mitigate the negative impact of inequality on democratic support, thereby fostering the conditions for mobilization and systemic transformation.
Against this backdrop, the role of planners can become even more critical and multifaceted. Beyond supporting existing prefigurative practices, planners may need to actively co-develop new ones with communities, particularly in contexts where informal economies and economic precarity pose serious challenges to legality. At the same time, this may imply the need to imagine a new planning “toolkit”: rather than simply supporting grassroots initiatives, planners may need to actively cultivate agency within civil society and trigger political-organizational initiatives, ensuring that bottom-up transformations gain the momentum to drive systemic change.
By bridging these perspectives, the paper suggests that planners must navigate a complex landscape to foster legitimacy for alternative economic paradigms. In doing so, it suggests developing new paradigms, methodologies, and tools to ignite civic engagement and political pressure for shaping viable and socially transformative economic alternatives.
References
Bienstman, S., Hense, S., & Gangl, M. (2023). Explaining the 'democratic malaise' in unequal societies: Inequality, external efficacy and political trust. European Journal of Political Research, 63(1), 172-191. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12611
Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314.
Rydin, Y. (2024). A postgrowth response to Savini’s degrowth vision. Planning Theory, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952241278055
Savini, F. (2024a). Strategic planning for degrowth: What, who, how. Planning Theory, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952241258693
Savini, F. (2024b). Degrowth, legitimacy, and the foundational economy: A response to Rydin. Planning Theory, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952241278056
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
|---|
