Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Planning in Motion. The New Politics of Mobility in Munich

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Understanding Mobilities for Designing Contemporary Cities

Part of the book series: Research for Development ((REDE))

Abstract

Since more of twenty years Munich is a sort of laboratory for the new politics of mobility in Germany. The so-called Inzell Initiative has been founded in 1995 to solve conflicts and to enable collaborative planning in the major city in the south of Germany. The initiative is a powerful stakeholder network which has been influencing and shaping local mobility politics significantly. The article reconstructs the rise of the network and analyzes its current activities in planning and envisioning the future of mobility in one of the most powerful economic metropolitan region in Europe. By doing so the author critically asks if there has been progress in transgressing the ‘technocentric planning paradigm’ towards a mobilities paradigm that puts social cohesion in the centre of attention instead of technological feasibility. In fast it seems that the new politics of mobility leads to a re-strengthening of technocentric visions, not at least through the rise of the smart city and mobility discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Munich had elections for its city parliament on March 16th in 2014.

  2. 2.

    For documentation see: http://inzell-initiative.de/links_infos/links_infos.htm (last approach on 07/06/2015).

  3. 3.

    Documentation of the 10th anniversary of the Inzell Initiative (2005, p. 1); accessed on 18/12/2014 at www.inzellinitiative.de.

  4. 4.

    Elsewhere I put this as multiple-best-way-solutions instead of one-best-way-solutions (Kesselring 2008, p. 91).

References

  • Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15, 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, C. (2013). Making better choices—An investigation of collaborative stakeholder dialogue as catalyst for consensus building and learning in the transport policy process (Ph.D. thesis). University of Technology, Sydney: Institute for Sustainable Futures, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, C., & Stuart, W. (2012). Making better choices: A systematic comparison of adversarial and collaborative approaches to the transport policy process. Transport Policy, 24, 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1988). Gegengifte. Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1993). Die Erfindung des Politischen: Zu einer Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2006). Power in a global age: A new global political economy. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., Bonß, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: Problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture and Society, 20(2), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., Hajer, M., & Kesselring, S. (Eds.). (1999). Der unscharfe Ort der Politik. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., & Kesselring, S. (1998). Mobilitätspolitik unter den Bedingungen der reflexiven Modernisierung. Eine Untersuchung der Mobilitätspolitik in der Landeshauptstadt München. Schlußbericht an das Bundesforschungsministerium (BMBF). München: unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolini, L. (2010). Coping with the irreducible uncertainties of planning: An evolutionary approach. In J. Hillier & P. Healey (Eds.), The ashgate research companion to planning theory: Conceptual challenges for spatial planning (pp. 413–424). Ashgate: Farnham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonß, W., & Kesselring, S. (2001). Mobilität am Übergang von der Ersten zur Zweiten Moderne. In U. Beck & W. Bonß (Eds.), Die Modernisierung der Moderne (pp. 77–90). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canzler, W., Kaufmann, V., & Kesselring, S. (Eds.). (2008). Tracing mobilities: Towards a cosmopolitan perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canzler, W., & Knie, A. (1998). Möglichkeitsräume. Grundrisse einer modernen Mobilitäts- und Verkehrspolitik. Wien: Böhlau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2008). The networked city. In G. Pflieger & M. Castells (Eds.), The social fabric of the networked city, Urbanism (pp. V–XIII). Routledge: London. ([u.a.]).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, T. (Ed.). (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern western world. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deckha, N. (2003). Insugent Urbanism in a railway quarter: Scalar citizenship at king’s cross, London. ACME, An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 1(2): 33–56. http://www.acme-journal.org/vol2/Deckha.pdf.

  • Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J., & Hendriks, C. M. (2012). Fostering deliberation in the forum and beyond. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweiss (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 31–57). Durham: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, A., & Urry, J. (2010). Mobile lives: Self, excess and nature. International library of sociology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elstub, S. (2010). The third generation of deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 8(3), 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Making organization research matter: power, values and phronesis. The Sage handbook of organization studies, (pp. 370–387)

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M., & Daasen, T. (2014). Smart about cities: Visualizing the challenges for 21st century urbanism. Rotterdam: Nai010 Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M., & Kesselring, S. (1996). Sustainable mobility in munich. Final report for the centre for european social research, Münchner Projektgruppe für Sozialforschung e.V. Cork, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M., & Kesselring, S. (1999). Democracy in the Risk Society? Learning from the New Politics of Mobility in Munich. Environmental Politics, 8(3), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings. Mobilities, 1(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (Ed.). (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2012). Performing place governance collaboratively: Planning as a communicative process. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweiss (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 58–83). Durham: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, J. (2010). Insurgent public space. Kentucky: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou, J., Spencer, B., & Way, T. (Eds.). (2015). Now Urbanism: The future city is here. London: Taylor and Francis, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, T., & Wehling, P. (1999). Das mehrdimensionale Mobilitätskonzept—Ein theoretischer Rahmen für die stadtökologische Mobilitätsforschung. In J. Friedrichs & K. Hollaender (Eds.), Stadtökologische Forschung (pp. 127–141). Analytica, Berlin: Theorien und Anwendungen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, L. J. (1993). Blaue Zone München. München: BMW. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal H, 155, 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junge, M. (2000). Ambivalente Gesellschaftlichkeit. Die Modernisierung der Vergesellschaftung und die Ordnungen der Ambivalenzbewältigung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. (1987). Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, V. (2002). Re-thinking Mobility. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, V. (2011). Rethinking the city: Urban dynamics and motility (1st ed.). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, New York, NY, Lausanne, Switzerland: Routledge; EPFL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesselring, S. (2001). Mobile Politik: Ein soziologischer Blick auf Verkehrspolitik in München. edition sigma. Univ., Diss–München, 2000, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesselring, S. (2008). The mobile risk society. In W. Canzler, V. Kaufmann, & S. Kesselring (Eds.), Tracing mobilities: Towards a cosmopolitan perspective (pp. 77–102). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesselring, S. (2009). Global transfer points: The making of airports in the mobile risk society. In S. Kesselring & J. Urry (Eds.), Aeromobilities, ed. Saulo Cwerner (pp. 39–60). International Library of Sociology, Routledge: London, New York NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesselring, S., & Freudendal-Pedersen, M. (2014). Mobilities, futures and the city: Towards a reflexive methodology for urban planning in the mobile risk society. Paris: Forum des Vies Mobiles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesselring, S., Moritz, Eckehart F., Petzel, Wolfram, & Vogl, G. (2003). Kooperative Mobilitätspolitik: Theoretische, empirische und praktische Perspektiven am Beispiel München und Frankfurt, Rhein-Main. München: IMU; IMU-Inst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, W. M., & Meadowcroft, J. (1996). Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects. Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of signs and space. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenger, F. (2013). Metropolen der Moderne: eine europäische Stadtgeschichte seit 1850. Munich: Beck.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, G., Jain, J., & Holley, D. (2007). The use of travel time by rail passengers in Great Britain. Transportation Research Part A, 41(1), 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miciukiewicz, K., & Geoff Vigar, G. (2012). Mobility and social cohesion in the splintered city: Challenging technocentric transport research and policy-making practices. Urban Studies, 49(9), 1941–1957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossberger, K., & Stoker, G. (2001). The evolution of urban regime theory the challenge of conceptualization. Urban Affairs Review, 36(6), 810–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, R., & Schallaböck, K. O. (1995). Mobilität für morgen. Birkhäuser, Berlin: Chancen einer zukunftsfähigen Verkehrspolitik. u.a.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rammler, S. (2001). Mobilität in der Moderne: Geschichte und Theorie der Verkehrssoziologie. Berlin: edition sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichow, H. B. (1958). Die autogerechte Stadt. Ein Weg aus dem Verkehrschaos. Hannover: Bauen und Wohnen GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlüter, T., & Schwerdtfeger, W. (1993). Blaue Zone München: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag. Ein Konzept mit blauen Augen. Internationales Verkehrswesen 45(9):502–06.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmucki, B. (2001). Der Traum vom Verkehrsfluss: Städtische Verkehrsplanung seit 1945 im deutschdeutschen Vergleich. Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, M. (1995). Kooperatives Verkehrsmanagement. Die Grüne Mamba Nr., 63, 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieverts, T. (2003). Cities without cities: An interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. English language ed. Spon Press : London, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. Studies in government and public policy. Lawrence Kan: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Switzer, A., Bertolini, L., & Grin, J. (2013). Mobility transitions 1945–2012. Working paper. Amsterdam: Centre for Urban Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tully, C. (1999). Erziehung zur Mobilität. Campus, Frankfurt/Main: Jugendliche in der automobilen Gesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities of the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, J. (2011). Climate change and society. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J. P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In J. P. Voß., D. Bauknecht & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 3–28). Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulfhorst, G. (2013) Vision 2050. Strategiepapier der Arbeitsgruppe Erreichbarkeit im Forum Zukunft der Mobilität. Munich: Technische Universität München.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Geislingen, Germany

    Sven Kesselring

Authors
  1. Sven Kesselring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Kesselring .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DAStU, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

    Paola Pucci

  2. Department of Sociology and Social Research, The University of Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy

    Matteo Colleoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kesselring, S. (2016). Planning in Motion. The New Politics of Mobility in Munich. In: Pucci, P., Colleoni, M. (eds) Understanding Mobilities for Designing Contemporary Cities. Research for Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22578-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation