It is argued that the state in Victoria, Australia, has pursued five key trends in urban planning throughout the 1980s: Privatisation, liberalisation, subsidisation, commercialisation, and elitism. These trends are a response to conditions wrought by global economic restructuring, the dominance of economic fundamentalism as a political discourse in Australia, the institutional structure of federal–State government financial relations, and a resultant perception of fiscal crisis. These developments in urban planning have resulted in financial costs and a loss of democratic accountability to the Victorian community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlbrandtR S, 1984, “Ideology and the Reagan administration's first national urban policy report”Journal of the American Planning Association50479–485
2.
AndersonJ, 1990, “The ‘new right’, enterprise zones and urban development corporations”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research14468–489
3.
AscherK, 1987The Politics of Privatisation (Macmillan, London)
4.
BarnekovTBoyleRRichD, 1989Privatism and Urban Policy in Britain and the United States (Oxford University Press, New York)
5.
BeauregardR A, 1989, “Between modernity and postmodernity: The ambiguous position of US planning”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space7381–395
6.
BerryM, 1986, “Corporate accumulation and the corporate city: Australian in recession”, in Urban Planning in Australia: Critical Readings Eds McLoughlinJ BHuxleyM, (Longman Cheshire, Melbourne) pp 32–46
7.
BerryM, 1990, “The politics of Australian cities”Arena91126–137
8.
BerryMHuxleyM, 1992, “Big build: Property capital, the state and urban change in Australia”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research1635–59
9.
BrindleyTRydinYStokerG, 1989Remaking Planning: The Politics of Urban Change in the Thatcher Years (Unwin Hyman, London)
10.
CGoA, 1992One Nation (Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra)
11.
ColenuttB, 1991, “The London Docklands Development Corporation: Has the community benefited?”, in Hollow Promises? Rhetoric and Reality in the Inner City Eds KeithMRogersA, (Mansell, London) pp 31–41
12.
DavidsonK, 1992, “Defrocking the priests”, in The Trouble with Economic Rationalism Ed. HorneD, (Scribe, Newham, Victoria) pp 58–62
13.
DearM J, 1986, “Postmodernism and planning”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space4367–384
14.
DearM J, 1989, “Survey 16: Privatization and the rhetoric of planning practice”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space7449–462
15.
DPH, 1991Annual ReportDepartment of Planning and Housing (State Government of Victoria, Melbourne)
16.
DPUG, 1990Annual ReportDepartment for Planning and Urban Growth (State Government of Victoria, Melbourne)
17.
FainsteinS, 1991, “Promoting economic development: Urban planning in the United States and Great Britain”Journal of the American Planning Association5722–23
18.
GlickmanN J, 1984, “Economic policy and the cities: In search of Reagan's real urban policy”Journal of the American Planning Association50471–479
19.
HarveyD, 1989, “From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism”Geografiska Annaler B7113–17
20.
HaywardD, 1992, “Dual politics in a three tiered state: Peter Saunders' dual state thesis reconsidered”, paper presented to The Australian Sociological Association, Adelaide University; copy available from Centre for Housing and Planning, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, Victoria
21.
HealeyPMcNamaraPElsonMDoakA, 1988Land Use Planning and the Mediation of Urban Change: The British Planning System in Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
22.
HorneD, (Ed.), 1992The Trouble with Economic Rationalism (Scribe, Newham, Victoria)
23.
JCP, 1991, untitled memorandum, Justice in the City Project, 2 Elm Street, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051
24.
KilmartinL, 1986, “Coles' New World and the status of the plan”Urban Policy and Research4(4) 7–13
25.
KratkeSSchmollF, 1992, “The local state and social restructuring”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research15542–552
26.
LawsonJ, 1991, “Role of the Committee for Melbourne in the Planning and Development Process in the City of Melbourne”, dissertation, School of Environmental Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria
27.
LowNMoserS, 1991, “The causes and consequences of Melbourne's central city property boom”Urban Policy and Research9(1) 5–27
28.
MachimuraT, 1992, “The urban restructuring process in Tokyo in the 1980s: Transforming Tokyo into a world city”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research16114–128
29.
McLoughlinJ B, 1992Shaping Melbourne's Future? Town Planning, The State and Civil Society (Cambridge University Press, Melbourne)
30.
MillsC W, 1956The Power Elite (Oxford University Press, New York)
31.
MMBW, 1954Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme (Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Melbourne)
32.
MoorN, 1984, “A framework for change”The Planner70(15) 15–19
33.
MPE, 1986Annual ReportMinistry for Planning and Environment (State Government of Victoria, Melbourne)
34.
MPU, 1991, “Eastside: Registration of interest brief, April, Major Projects Unit” (State Government of Victoria, Melbourne)
35.
MPU, 1992, “Case studies—medium density housing: Lynchis Bridge—Melbourne”, paper presented to the Royal Australian Institute of Architects Conference, June, Canberra (State Government of Victoria, Melbourne)
36.
SaundersP, 1984, “The crisis of local government in Melbourne: The sacking of the City Council”, in Australian Urban Politics: Critical Perspectives Eds HalliganJParisC, (Longman Cheshire, Melbourne) pp 88–109
37.
SGoV, 1984Central Melbourne: A Framework for the Future (State Government of Victoria, Melbourne)
38.
SGoV, 1991Docklands Authority Act (State Government of Victoria, Melbourne)
39.
StewartM, 1987, “Ten years of inner cities policy”Town Planning Review58(2) 129–145
40.
SwannD, 1988The Retreat of the State: Deregulation and Privatisation in the UK and US (Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York)
41.
The Age1992a, “Auditor slams Bayside”, 10 June, page 1
42.
The Age1992b, “City Council calls for rethink on casino plan”, 15 October, page 5
43.
The Age1992c, “Continuity in vision for the city”, 24 October, page 2
44.
ThornleyA, 1991Urban Planning under Thatcherism: The Challenge of the Market (Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Andover, Hants)
45.
ThornleyA, 1992, “Political ideology and the by-passing of the planning system: Case studies of Canary Wharf, London and The Globe, Stockholm”, paper presented to the International Sociological Association Conference, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 23–25 April; copy available from the author, Faculty of Urban and Regional Studies, University of Reading, Reading
46.
WaltonJ, 1982, “Cities and jobs and politics”Urban Affairs Quarterly18(1) 5–19
47.
WattsR, 1992, “Privatisation and the cost to Victorians: Private investment in community services”, a report by the Justice in the City Project, 2 Elm Street, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051
