The growing involvement of private-sector consultants in urban planning has been critiqued as a potential problem, mainly due to doubts over their ethical position. India’s Smart Cities Mission which aims to equip 100 cities with smart technologies, relies on private consultants both to plan the interventions and to implement them. With the planning phase now complete, and implementation in its early stages, this study examines the proposals generated by the consultants. The study deploys natural language processing computational techniques to compare a large corpus of text extracted from the proposal documents to a framework of common planning terms. The analysis yields insights regarding the consultants’ “styles,” and the evolution of the proposals over four rounds of selection. Findings suggest that some consultants show better results than others, but as many as a third of the reports prepared for the mission have low scores on the study’s metrics. In addition, a close reading of the program design helps understand the institutional context within which consultants are embedded. The paper concludes with recommendations for closer scrutiny of the consultants’ work within the mission.
AdikariAAlahakoonD (2021) Understanding Citizens’ Emotional Pulse in a Smart City Using Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics17(4): 2743–2751. DOI: 10.1109/TII.2020.3009277
BanerjeeT (2009) U.S. Planning Expeditions to Postcolonial India: From Ideology to Innovation in Technical Assistance. Journal of the American Planning Association75(2): 193–208. DOI: 10.1080/01944360902790711
5.
Banerjee-GuhaS (2009) Neoliberalising the'urban': New geographies of power and injustice in Indian cities. Economic and Political Weekly44: 95–107.
6.
BasuI (2019) Elite discourse coalitions and the governance of ‘smart spaces’: Politics, power and privilege in India’s Smart Cities Mission. Political Geography68: 77–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.11.002
7.
BockS (2014) Politicized expertise – an analysis of the political dimensions of consultants’ policy recommendations to developing countries with a case study of McKinsey’s advice on REDD+ policies. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research27(4): 379–397. DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2013.864228
8.
CampbellHMarshallR (1998) Acting on principle: dilemmas in planning practice. Planning Practice and Research13(2): 117–128. DOI: 10.1080/02697459816139
9.
CampbellHMarshallR (2000) Moral Obligations, Planning, and the Public Interest: A Commentary on Current British Practice. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27(2): 297–312. DOI: 10.1068/b2509
10.
ChakrabartyA (2019) Smart mischief: an attempt to demystify the Smart Cities craze in India. European Urology, 31(1), 193–208.
11.
CowleyRCaprottiF (2019) Smart city as anti-planning in the UK. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(3), 428–448.
12.
CowleyRJossSDayotY (2018) The smart city and its publics: Insights from across six UK cities. Urban Research & Practice, 11(1), 53–77. DOI: 10.1080/17535069.2017.1293150
13.
DasD (2020) In pursuit of being smart? A critical analysis of India’s smart cities endeavor. Urban Geography41(1), 55–78.
14.
DattaA (2015) New Urban Utopias of Postcolonial India : ‘Entrepreneurial Urbanization’ in Dholera Smart City, Gujarat. Dialogues in Human Geography5(1): 3–22. DOI: 10.1177/2043820614565748
15.
DattaA (2018) The digital turn in postcolonial urbanism: Smart citizenship in the making of India’s 100 smart cities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers43(3): 405–419. DOI: 10.1111/tran.12225
16.
DattaA (2019) Postcolonial urban futures: Imagining and governing India’s smart urban age. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space37(3): 393–410.
17.
DattaAOdendaalN (2019) Smart cities and the banality of power. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space37(3): 387–392.
18.
DeasIRobsonBBradfordM (2000) Re-thinking the Urban Development Corporation ‘experiment’: the case of Central Manchester, Leeds and Bristol. Progress in Planning54(1): 1–72. DOI: 10.1016/S0305-9006(00)00007-6
19.
DevkarGAMahalingamAKalidindiSN (2013) Competencies and urban Public Private Partnership projects in India: A case study analysis. Policy and Society32(2): 125–142. DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.05.001
20.
FaludiA (2000) The Performance of Spatial Planning. Planning Practice and Research15(4): 299–318. DOI: 10.1080/713691907
GhertnerDA (2010) Calculating without numbers: Aesthetic governmentality in Delhi’s slums. Economy and Society39(2): 185–217. DOI: 10.1080/03085141003620147
23.
HaughtonG (1999) Trojan Horse or White Elephant? The Contested Biography of the Life and Times of the Leeds Development Corporation. The Town Planning Review70(2): 173–190.
24.
HigginsMAllmendingerP (1999) The Changing Nature of Public Planning Practice under the New Right: The Legacies and Implications of Privatisation. Planning Practice & Research14(1): 39–67. DOI: 10.1080/02697459915823
25.
HoelscherK (2016) The evolution of the smart cities agenda in India. International Area Studies Review19(1): 28–44. DOI: 10.1177/2233865916632089
26.
JonesPComfortD (2019) Commercialisation in Local Authority Planning. Town and Country Planning88(1): 32–36.
27.
JossSCookMDayotY (2017). Smart Cities: Towards a New Citizenship Regime? A Discourse Analysis of the British Smart City Standard. Journal of Urban Technology24(4): 29–49. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2017.1336027
28.
JossSSengersFSchravenD, et al. (2019). The Smart City as Global Discourse: Storylines and Critical Junctures across 27 Cities. Journal of Urban Technology26(1): 3–34. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2018.1558387
29.
KaufmanLRousseeuwPJ (2005) Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
30.
KhanSTaraporevalaPZerah Ma-H (2018) Mission Impossible: Defining Indian Smart Cities. Economic and Political WeeklyLIII(49): 80–88. DOI: 10.1097/00005217-199613040-00001
31.
KhoslaR (2018) Changing India’s Urban and Economic Landscape. Economic and Political Weekly53(15): 64–72.
32.
KumarHSinghMKGuptaMP, et al. (2020) Moving towards smart cities: Solutions that lead to the Smart City Transformation Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change153, pp. 119281. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.024
33.
KummithaRKR (2018) Entrepreneurial Urbanism and Technological Panacea: Why Smart City Planning Needs to go Beyond Corporate Visioning?Technological Forecasting and Social Change137: 330–339. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.010
34.
KunduD (2014) Urban development programmes in India: A critique of JNNURM. Social Change44(4): 615–632.
35.
LauriaMLongMF (2019) Ethical Dilemmas in Professional Planning Practice in the United States. Journal of the American Planning Association85(4): 393–404. DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2019.1627238
36.
LegerAOueslatiWSalaniéJ (2013) Public tendering and green procurement as potential drivers for sustainable urban development: Implications for landscape architecture and other urban design professions. Landscape and Urban Planning116: 13–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.005
37.
LinovskiO (2019) Shifting Agendas: Private Consultants and Public Planning Policy. Urban Affairs Review55(6): 1666–1701. DOI: 10.1177/1078087417752475
38.
LohCGArroyoRL (2017) Special Ethical Considerations for Planners in Private Practice. Journal of the American Planning Association83(2): 168–179. DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2017.1286945
39.
LohCGNortonRK (2015) Planning Consultants’ Influence on Local Comprehensive Plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research35(2): 199–208. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X14566868
40.
McCannEJ (2001) Collaborative Visioning or Urban Planning as Therapy? The Politics of Public-Private Policy Making. The Professional Geographer53(2): 207–218. DOI: 10.1111/0033-0124.00280
41.
McLeodSSchapperJHM (2020) Understanding Quality in Planning Consultancy: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X20943928
42.
MiklianJHoelscherK (2017) Smart Cities, Mobile Technologies and Social Cohesion in India. Indian Journal of Human Development11(1): 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/0973703017712871
43.
MitchellVW (1995) A Survey of Chief Planning Officer Attitudes towards Planning Consultants. International Journal of Public Sector Management8(1): 20–34. DOI: 10.1108/09513559510077805
MomaniBKhirfanL (2013) Explaining the Use of Planning Consultants in Ontario Cities. Canadian Public Administration56(3): 391–413. DOI: 10.1111/capa.12027
MoutonM (2021) Worlding infrastructure in the global South: Philippine experiments and the art of being ‘smart’. Urban Studies58(3): 621–638. DOI: 10.1177/0042098019891011
49.
ParkerGStreetEWargentM (2018) The Rise of the Private Sector in Fragmentary Planning in England. Planning Theory and Practice19(5): 734–750. DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2018.1532529
50.
PenningtonJSocherRManningCD (2014) GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In: Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2014, pp. 1532–1543. DOI: 10.3115/v1/d14-1162
51.
PraharajSHanH (2019) Cutting through the Clutter of Smart City Definitions: A Reading into the Smart City Perceptions in India. City, Culture and Society18: 100289. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccs.2019.05.005
52.
PrinceR (2012) Policy Transfer, Consultants and the Geographies of Governance. Progress in Human Geography36(2): 188–203. DOI: 10.1177/0309132511417659
53.
RacoM (2018) Private Consultants, Planning Reform and the Marketisation of Local Government Finance. In: FermJTomaneyJ (eds) Planning Practice: Critical Perspectives from the UK. 1st ed.Oxon, UK: Routledge, pp. 2–13.
54.
RacoMStreetEFreire-TrigoS (2016) The New Localism, Anti-Political Development Machines, and the Role of Planning Consultants: Lessons from London’s South Bank. Territory, Politics, Governance4(2): 216–240. DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2015.1036912
55.
RapoportEHultA (2017) The Travelling Business of Sustainable Urbanism: International Consultants as Norm-setters. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space49(8): 1779–1796. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X16686069
56.
RobinEBrillF (2018) The Global Politics of an Urban Age: Creating ‘Cities for All’ in the Age of Financialisation. Palgrave Communications4(1): 2–6. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0056-6
57.
RoyAOngA (2011) Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global.
58.
SadowayDGopakumarGBaindurV, et al (2018). JNNURM as a window on urban governance. Economic & Political Weekly53(2): 71.
59.
SagerT (2011) Neo-liberal Urban Planning Policies: A Literature Survey 1990-2010. Progress in Planning76(4): 147–199. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2011.09.001
60.
Saint-MartinD (2000) Building the New Managerialist State: Consultants and the Politics of Public Sector Reform in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press.
61.
Schuelke-LeechB-ABarryB (2018) Philosophical and methodological foundations of text data analytics. In: DehmerMEmmert-StreibF (eds) Frontiers in Data Science. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 147–170.
62.
ShatkinG (2008) The City and the Bottom Line: Urban Megaprojects and the Privatization of Planning in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning A40(2): 383–401. DOI: 10.1068/a38439
63.
ShmueliGBrucePCGedeckP, et al. (2019) Data Mining for Business Analytics: Concepts, Techniques, and Applications in Python. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
StapperEWder VeenM VanJanssen-JansenLB (2020) Consultants as Intermediaries: Their Perceptions on Citizen Involvement in Urban Development. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space38(1): 60–78. DOI: 10.1177/2399654419853583
66.
VajjalaSMajumderBGuptaA, et al. (2020) Practical Natural Language Processing: A Comprehensive Guide to Building Real-World NLP Systems. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
67.
VanoloA (2014) Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy. Urban Studies51(5): 883–898. DOI: 10.1177/0042098013494427
68.
VidgenBYasseriT (2020) Detecting weak and strong Islamophobic hate speech on social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics17(1): 66–78. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2019.1702607
69.
VogelpohlA (2019) Global Expertise, Local Convincing Power: Management Consultants and Preserving the Entrepreneurial City. Urban Studies56(1): 97–114. DOI: 10.1177/0042098018768490
70.
WargentMParkerGStreetE (2020) Public-private entanglements: consultant use by local planning authorities in England. European Planning Studies28(1): 192–210. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1677565
71.
YlönenMKuuselaH (2019) Consultocracy and its discontents: A critical typology and a call for a research agenda. Governance32(2): 241–258. DOI: 10.1111/gove.12369
72.
ZanottoJM (2019) Detachment in Planning Practice. Planning Theory and Practice20(1): 37–52. DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2018.1560491
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
