全球比较中的规划系统和文化。巴西和德国的例子

IF 1.7 Q4 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING
K. Zimmermann, Sandra Momm
{"title":"全球比较中的规划系统和文化。巴西和德国的例子","authors":"K. Zimmermann, Sandra Momm","doi":"10.1080/13563475.2022.2042212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The global comparison of planning systems faces several theoretical and normative challenges. Against the background of ongoing debates on the comparability of emerging and existing ideas and practices of planning in the Global North and South, we propose a comparative approach based on field theory. Comparisons of planning systems often focus on the institutional dimension or are mere juxtapositions of cases studies. A comparison based on field theory is more appropriate for the comparative study of planning cultures as the approach allows to interpret planning as an emerging practice influenced (or not) by globalized or European knowledge communities. The two planning systems under scrutiny in this paper are Germany and Brazil. Germany presents a mature field of planning while Brazil’s field of planning is emergent. The paper is based on a literature review that supports the formulation of assumptions and tests the approach through a comparison of Brazil and Germany.","PeriodicalId":46688,"journal":{"name":"International Planning Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Planning systems and cultures in global comparison. The case of Brazil and Germany\",\"authors\":\"K. Zimmermann, Sandra Momm\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13563475.2022.2042212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The global comparison of planning systems faces several theoretical and normative challenges. Against the background of ongoing debates on the comparability of emerging and existing ideas and practices of planning in the Global North and South, we propose a comparative approach based on field theory. Comparisons of planning systems often focus on the institutional dimension or are mere juxtapositions of cases studies. A comparison based on field theory is more appropriate for the comparative study of planning cultures as the approach allows to interpret planning as an emerging practice influenced (or not) by globalized or European knowledge communities. The two planning systems under scrutiny in this paper are Germany and Brazil. Germany presents a mature field of planning while Brazil’s field of planning is emergent. The paper is based on a literature review that supports the formulation of assumptions and tests the approach through a comparison of Brazil and Germany.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46688,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Planning Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Planning Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2022.2042212\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Planning Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2022.2042212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

规划系统的全球比较面临着几个理论和规范的挑战。在关于全球北方和南方新兴和现有规划理念和实践的可比性的持续辩论的背景下,我们提出了一种基于现场理论的比较方法。规划系统的比较往往集中在体制方面或仅仅是案例研究的并列。基于场理论的比较更适合于规划文化的比较研究,因为这种方法允许将规划解释为一种受全球化或欧洲知识社区影响(或不受影响)的新兴实践。本文研究的两个规划体系是德国和巴西。德国是一个成熟的规划领域,而巴西是一个新兴的规划领域。本文基于文献综述,该文献综述支持假设的制定,并通过对巴西和德国的比较来检验该方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Planning systems and cultures in global comparison. The case of Brazil and Germany
ABSTRACT The global comparison of planning systems faces several theoretical and normative challenges. Against the background of ongoing debates on the comparability of emerging and existing ideas and practices of planning in the Global North and South, we propose a comparative approach based on field theory. Comparisons of planning systems often focus on the institutional dimension or are mere juxtapositions of cases studies. A comparison based on field theory is more appropriate for the comparative study of planning cultures as the approach allows to interpret planning as an emerging practice influenced (or not) by globalized or European knowledge communities. The two planning systems under scrutiny in this paper are Germany and Brazil. Germany presents a mature field of planning while Brazil’s field of planning is emergent. The paper is based on a literature review that supports the formulation of assumptions and tests the approach through a comparison of Brazil and Germany.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Planning Studies
International Planning Studies REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Planning, at urban, regional, national and international levels, faces new challenges, notably those related to the growth of globalisation as both an objective socio-economic process and a shift in policy-maker perceptions and modes of analysis. International Planning Studies (IPS) addresses these issues by publishing quality research in a variety of specific fields and from a range of theoretical and normative perspectives, which helps improve understanding of the actual and potential role of planning and planners in this context.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信