Land developers play an active role as institutional actors that shape the development and governance of urban regions. In this paper, we find that developers not only influence state institutions governing land use, they are place-based actors whose influence is normalized as invited strategic stakeholders in planning exercises. Our analysis highlights the complementarity of institutional and postpolitical theories in offering a nuanced understanding of the multi-faceted and multi-scalar relationships among powerful actors engaged in land development processes. Postpolitical theories highlight the participatory processes of inclusion and exclusion in collaborative-based planning exercises that privilege certain stakeholders and exclude others. Through the lens of institutionalist theory, we move beyond specific land conflicts to focus on the day-to-day interactions and institutionalized roles of key actors, ideas and political influences in shaping contested land policy and outcomes. The analysis is based on multi-year research projects that drew upon interviews, observation and document analysis of key actors’ engagement in initiatives to formulate and implement growth management policies in the Toronto region.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2012)
Post‐political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus?Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers37(1): 89–103.
2.
BarzelayMGallegoR (2006)
From ‘new institutionalism’ to ‘institutional processualism’: Advancing knowledge about public management policy change.Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions19(4): 531–557.
3.
BevirMRhodesRAW (2010) The State as Cultural Practice.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
4.
BevirMRichardsD (2009)
Decentring policy networks: A theoretical agenda.Public Administration87(1): 3–14.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation [CMHC] (2017) Housing Market Outlook: Greater Toronto Area.
Ottawa:
Market Analysis Centre, CMHC.
7.
CharneyI (2007)
Intra-metropolitan preferences of property developers in greater Toronto’s office market.Geoforum38(6): 1179–1189.
8.
CoaffeeJHealeyP (2003)
‘My voice: My place’: Tracking transformations in urban governance.Urban Studies40(10): 1979–1999.
9.
CoiacettoE (2006)
Real estate development industry structure: Consequences for urban planning and development.Planning Practice and Research21(4): 423–441.
10.
DodmanD (2008)
Developers in the public interest? The role of urban development corporations in the Anglophone Caribbean.The Geographical Journal174(1): 30–44.
11.
EtheringtonDJonesM (2018)
Re-stating the post-political: Depoliticization, social inequalities, and city-region growth.Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space50(1): 51–72.
12.
FainsteinSS (2001) The City Builders: Property, Politics, and Planning in New York and London, 1980–2000.
Lawrence, KA:
University Press of Kansas.
13.
FauveaudG (2014)
Mutations of real estate actors’ strategies and modes of capital appropriation in contemporary Phnom Penh.Urban Studies51(16): 3479–3494.
14.
Gilbert L, Sandberg L A and Wekerle GR (2009) Building bioregional citizenship: The case of the Oak Ridges Moraine, Ontario, Canada. Local Environment 14(5): 387–401.
15.
GonzálezSHealeyP (2005)
A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity.Urban Studies42(11): 2055–2069.
16.
GordonDJanzenM (2013)
Suburban nation? Estimating the size of Canada’s suburban population. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research30(3): 197–220.
GurranNPhibbsP (2013)
Housing supply and urban planning reform: The recent Australian experience, 2003–2012.International Journal of Housing Policy13(4): 381–407.
19.
GuySHenneberryJ (2000)
Understanding urban development processes: Integrating the economic and the social in property research.Urban Studies37(13): 2399–2416.
20.
HarveyD (1989)
From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism.Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography71(1): 3–17.
21.
HealeyP (1991)
Models of the development process: A review.Journal of Property Research8(3): 219–238.
22.
HealeyP (1998)
Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning.Environment and Planning A30(9): 1531–1546.
23.
JungSLeeJS (2017)
Korean developers in Vietnam: The mechanism of transnational large-scale property development and its planning. Sustainability 9(5): 748.
24.
KruegerRSchulzCGibbsDC (2018)
Institutionalizing alternative economic spaces? An interpretivist perspective on diverse economies.Progress in Human Geography42(4): 569–589.
25.
LawtonTMcGuireSRajwaniT (2013)
Corporate political activity: A literature review and research agenda.International Journal of Management Reviews15(1): 86–105.
26.
LeffersD (2018)
Real estate developers’ influence of land use legislation in the Toronto region: An institutionalist investigation of developers, land conflict and property law.Urban Studies55(14): 3059–3075.
27.
LegacyCCookNRogersD, et al. (2018)
Planning the post-political city: Exploring public participation in the contemporary Australian city.Geographical Research56(2): 176–180.
28.
LeoC (2002) Urban development: Planning aspirations and political realities. In: FowlerEPSiegelD (eds) Urban Policy Issues.
Toronto:
Oxford University Press, pp.215–236.
29.
LowndesV (2001)
Rescuing Aunt Sally: Taking institutional theory seriously in urban politics.Urban Studies38(11): 1953–1971.
30.
LowndesVRobertsM (2013) Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science.
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
MacDermidR (2009) Funding City Politics: Municipal Campaign Funding and Property Development in the Greater Toronto Area.
Toronto:
The Center for Social Justice.
32.
MacDonaldH (2018)
Has planning been de-democratised in Sydney?Geographical Research56(2): 230–240.
MaielloAChristovãoACde Paiva BrittoALN, et al. (2012)
Public participation for urban sustainability: Investigating relations among citizens, the environment and institutions – an ethnographic study. Local Environment: 8(2): 1–17.
36.
MarchJGOlsenJP (2005) Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism’. In: Binder SA, Rhodes RAW and Rockman BA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.3–20.
37.
MilesMBerensGEppliM, et al. (2007) Real Estate Development: Principles and Process. 4th ed.
Washington, DC:
Urban Land Institute.
38.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) (2002a) Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
Toronto:
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
39.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) (2002b) Principles: North Pickering Land Exchange and Development.
Toronto:
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
40.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) (2005) Greenbelt Plan.
Toronto:
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
41.
NoskiewiczMBronskillD (2005) Financing of Municipal Infrastructure and Services: Development Charges and Cost Sharing Arrangements.
Toronto:
Goodmans LLP. Available at: www.goodmans.ca/docs/lorman.pdf (accessed 4 June 2019).
OrmerodEMacLeodG (2018)
Beyond consensus and conflict in housing governance: Returning to the local state.Planning Theory Online Firsthttps://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218790988 (accessed 4 June 2019).
45.
Pond D (2004) Rewriting the rules of the game: The common sense revolution and administrative justice. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Presented at the Canadian Political Science Association.
46.
RancièreJ (1998) Disagreement.
Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
RumingK (2009)
Development configurations and planning negotiations: A case of fringe development in Sydney, Australia.Urban Studies46(7): 1461–1483.
49.
RumingK (2018)
Post-political planning and community opposition: Asserting and challenging consensus in planning urban regeneration in Newcastle, New South Wales.Geographical Research56(2): 181–195.
50.
SabbiMMensahCA (2016)
Juggling administrative institutions: Local state actors and the management of urban space in Kumasi, Ghana.Urban Forum27(1): 59–78.
51.
Sandberg L. A, Wekerle G R. (2010) Reaping nature’s dividends: The neoliberalization and gentrification of nature on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 12 (1): 41–57.
52.
SandbergLAWekerleGRGilbertL (2013) The Oak Ridges Moraine Battles: Development, Sprawl, and Nature Conservation in the Toronto Region.
Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
53.
ShatkinG (2016)
The real estate turn in policy and planning: Land monetization and the political economy of peri-urbanization in Asia.Cities53: 141–149.
54.
SomersMR (1998)
‘We’re no angels’: Realism, rational choice, and relationality in social science.American Journal of Sociology104(3): 722–784.
55.
SorensenA (2018)
Institutions and urban space: Land, infrastructure, and governance in the production of urban property.Planning Theory & Practice19(1): 21–38.
SwyngedouwE (2005)
Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state.Urban Studies42(11): 1991–2006.
58.
SwyngedouwE (2018) Promises of the Political: Insurgent Cities in a Post-political Environment.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
59.
WeinsteinL (2014) ‘
One‐man handled’: Fragmented power and political entrepreneurship in globalizing Mumbai.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(1): 14–35.
60.
Wekerle GR, Sandberg LA, Gilbert L and Binstock M (2007) Nature as the cornerstone of growth: Regional and ecosystems planning in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 16(1): 20–38.
61.
WilkinsHDonnellyDNadarajaR (2012) Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP): Legislation Urgently Needed in Ontario.
Toronto:
Canadian Environmental Law Association, Ecojustice, and Environmental Defence.
