Points of Departure and Major Arguments
- 244 Downloads
The epistemologies of imperial mindset, imperial space economy and imperial cities are critical points of departure in determining the way forward for planning in Africa. The revision of these epistemologies, entrenched under the growing influence of informality, is assumed to be the challenge ahead of planning intervention in Africa. In search of an appropriate planning perspective, this work assumes that form-based planning attributes are not significantly resilient in planning within spatial systems in Africa. Although contrary to current trend, the work argues that in so far as a new spatial planning perspective is without the form element it lacks merit to initiate a theoretical evolution in spatial planning. As such it further argues that formal expertise knowledge should take precedence over informal expertise knowledge in planning. These dispositions point to the need to revisit neoliberalism as development ideology and thinking instrument for planning in Africa.
KeywordsEpistemologies Imperial Formal planning Neoliberalism Spatial planning Institutionalist Africa
- Hawksley C (2004) Conceptualizing Imperialism in the 21st century. Being a paper presented at the 2004 Australian Political Studies Association Conference at the University of Adelaide. Available at: https://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Others/Hawksley.pdf. Date of access 26 Nov 2015
- Hicks J (1998) Enhancing the productivity of urban Africa. In: Proceedings of an international conference research community for the habitat agenda. Linking research and policy for the sustainability of human settlement held in Geneva, July, 6–8Google Scholar
- Majekodunmi A, Adejuwon KD (2012) Globalization and African political economy: the Nigerian experience. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci 2(8):189–206Google Scholar
- Rakodi C (1997) 2 Global forces, urban change, and urban management in Africa. In: Carole R (ed) The urban challenge in Africa: growth and management of its large cities. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar