Urban Policy in Thailand: Looking Back and Moving Forward 1

Transcription

1 439 Urban Policy in Thailand: Looking Back and Moving Forward 1 Piyapong Boossabong, Lecturer, College of Politics and Governance Mahasarakham University, Thailand. Abstract This paper claims that to understand urban policy that makes changes could not be reflected only from urban planning, legal framework, the development following national development plan and urban development strategies. To define urban policy as the governor or the mayor visions and missions are also not really true as sometimes the central governmental policy can make more changes to the city. In some cases, private policy contributes to city development much more than the contribution of the public policy. Besides, if we analyse the anatomy of the forces for urban change, we will see other hidden active forces including the policy as initiatives, collaborative projects and collective actions driven by civil society organisations or even each urban community itself. Thus, there are many policy actors in developing a city by which each one can either cooperate or compete the others. Their policies are either too wide or too specific. They are also intersect, repetitive, and paradox that reflect the complexity of urban development policy in Thai history. This paper attempts to capture that complexity for a better understanding of structures and mechanisms that drive the city development in the past. In addition, this paper analyses the policy direction by asking the key questions including what urban policy in the past leads us to, how far we are away from having liveable and sustainable cities, whether and how the existed policies respond to the challenge of being resilient and just cities. By exploring these boundaries would help bridging the gaps of the urban development in the past and pave the way toward future urban development. Keywords: Urban Policy/ Policy Network/ Thailand Introduction By mentioning urban development in Thailand, most of the people think about the development of urbanity such as industrial zone, commercial zone, educational zone, airport, bus and railway station, food markets that selling products transported from the rural area, the expansion of housing development programmes, the convenience of transportation systems, the improvement of quality of city life by creating public parks and other open spaces, and of-course the modernity. However, by asking how those changes are made or what can be urban policy behind them, many people seem to puzzle or even fail to define as the structures and mechanisms driving urban development policy both in the metropolis as such Bangkok and municipal territory in the regions is complicate. This paper claims that to understand urban policy that makes changes could not be reflected only from urban planning, legal framework, the development following national development plan and urban development strategies. To define urban policy 1 This paper had been developed from the research funded by the Institute of Think Tanks and the Future Urban Development Programme (FURD) and a part of it had been presented for the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB).

2 440 as the governor or the mayor visions and missions are also not really true as sometimes the central governmental policy can make more changes to the city. In some cases, private policy contributes to city development much more than the contribution of the public policy. Besides, if we analyse the anatomy of the forces for urban change, we will see other hidden active forces including the policy as initiatives, collaborative projects and collective actions driven by civil society organisations or even each urban community itself. Thus, there are many policy actors in developing a city by which each one can either cooperate or compete the others. Their policies are either too wide or too specific. They are also intersect, repetitive, and paradox that reflect the complexity of urban development policy in Thai history. This paper attempts to capture that complexity for a better understanding of structures and mechanisms that drive the city development in the past. In addition, this paper analyses the policy direction by asking the key questions including what urban policy in the past leads us to, how far we are away from having liveable and sustainable cities, whether and how the existed policies respond to the challenge of being resilient and just cities. By exploring these boundaries would help bridging the gaps of the urban development in the past and pave the way toward future urban development. To address the above issues, this paper divides into 5 sections. The first section provides theoretical background by starting with what urban development policy is about, its importance, its challenges and how to analyse it. Then, the following sections address urban policy structures in Thailand before explaining urban development policy in Bangkok and in the regional cities over the past decade through case studies. For the last section, the paper proposes the direction and suggestion for the next decade. Theoretical background Urban policy? By asking urban planners what urban policy is, they usually inform that we need to look at the urban physical plan that zones how land should be used. By asking policy analysts and strategists, the answer usually is the city development strategies and projects. By asking lawyers, they think about building control and other related laws. By asking local politicians, they point us to see visions and campaigns of the winer of the local election. By asking street-level bureaucrats, they would suggest us to look at their missions and what they do as the routine. In case of asking general city dwellers, they would talk about mixing things by ignoring the clear boundary of the city and tend to link to central governmental policy, such as 'the first car's subsidy policy', the expansion of overground and underground systems, minimum rate of income per day, employment etc. Some of them mention about local government, such as the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and a municipality, while some among them refer to particular investment of private sector, civil society initiatives and other forces whether link to public sector or not. Thus, there are many perspectives to conceptualise urban policy and the nature of urban policy is to relate to plural policy actors. No any single unit can control and shape a city by only itself. To monopolise city development and to determine the city

3 441 future by one force are also impossible. These conditions become a nature of worldwide city development under liberal democracy and capitalism as a basis of the development (Cochrane, 2006; Blackman, 1994). If we interpret public policy as public programme and projects initiated by the state, we will fail to understand the complexity of the real urban changes in which development programme and projects initiated by other sectors also contribute to the urban dynamics. Consequently, from this beginning, this paper sets the scope of urban policy covering all initiatives and actions led by plural actors that influence the urban changes and the livelihood of city dwellers either in the whole city or the urban community. By this view, urban policy is not only identified by urban physical plan, urban laws and regulations, the state policy that affects urban development, and the formal urban development strategies proposed by the city governor, the sheriff and the mayor. Urban policy conceptualised here also includes street-level bureaucrats' guidelines for service delivery and nonstate led urban development projects operated in the urban context. These projects might be proposed by temples, schools, local universities, hospitals, business organisations, non-governmental organisations or urban community committees. It should be noted here that the national policy in the Global South for developing the country usually contributes to city development in one way or another. We experience that to promote the national economic growth and rural development are to urbanise. The urbanisation have been a result of national policy after the industrial revolution over three decades. It reflects that the city has its own particular problems and requires specific measures in coping with those problems, such as urban poor, informal settlement, pollution, hygiene, transportation, food quality and urban green spaces. In the same time, distributive policies for rural development then creat new cities such as through infrastructure development and tourist promotion. In other words, such policies finally transform themselves to be urban policies. Thus, to focus particular policy for the cities becomes important for solving particular problems of urban conditions and urbanisation as well as for balancing urban development. In doing so, national, rural and urban policies are driven in the same time. These policies are interrelate by either supporting or even constraining and conflicting each other. As a consequence, the study of urban development policy is complicate. Reframing analytical framework To develop an analytical framework for understanding Thai urban policy requires the basic conceptualisation of public policy that is the decision to either action or inaction which makes an impact to the public (Dye, 1992). The examples of inaction aspect of policy are uncontrolled prostitutes, informal lottery and street food trading. Next, to analyse the urban policy requires a reframe of an analytical framework to capture policy phenomena of the case of both the capital city and the regional cities of Thailand that there are plural actors and actions related in the same agenda. The concept of 'policy networks', thus, is useful to be adopted here for understanding such phenomena. Policy networks refer to the policy approach in which there are a variety of related policy actors and policy actions active in the same policy issue. In this view, policy actors are autonomous but interdependent. The interaction among policy network actors takes place mainly in the form of resource exchange, such as sharing budget and information. One important focus of the approach is that there are unequal power among different actors. Their relations, however, shape policies that go beyond both top-down and bottom up approaches by which they are vertical approach that

4 442 analyses policy as an output from state hierarchic structure (Rhodes and Marsh, 1992; Rhodes, 2006). The policy network approach has been developed mainly in the European context, particularly by the Anglo-Governance School led by Rhodes and Marsh. In the US, a similar approach has been developed, known as the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) proposed by Sabatier (2007, 1988). The development of the policy network approach has a long history. The first scholar who proposed this approach was Heclo in his work on issue networks published in 1978 (Fischer, 2003, p.31). However, it seems clear that a strong starting point is the classic study of Rhodes and Marsh in Interest in this approach widened after Rhodes published Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability in 1997, which has been cited in no fewer than 520 articles in key international journals (Kjaer, 2011, p.101). As suggested by Schneider (1992, p.109), the policy network approach is an alternative to traditional rationalist policy approaches which are state- and marketcentred. The word beyond seems ambiguous because we cannot specify where the policy network approach is located. Powell (1990; cited in Schneider, ibid) contends that networks are configurations located between markets and hierarchies. However, Rhodes (2006, 1997) argues that the policy network approach merges state-centred and market-centred approaches while at the same time challenging the conventional state-market dichotomy. Jones, Hesterly and Borgatti (1997, pp ) add that the policy network approach has advantages over both hierarchy and market solutions in terms of adapting, coordinating and exchanging. In addition, the classic differentiation between types of policy networks in the literature is established between issue networks and policy communities, as developed by Rhodes and Marsh (1992, p.251). According to Rhodes and Marsh, policy networks can be categorised by establishing a continuum running from issue networks at one end to policy communities at the other. The former represents the loosest relations among a largely fluctuating group of policy actors, the most open but limited interaction, the highest conflicting policy preferences, and extremely unequal power relations, while the latter has polar opposite characteristics. The different types of policy networks are placed along the continuum depending on the degree of indicators ranging from large, diverse, unequal and fluctuating issue networks to smaller, cohesive, equilibrated and stable policy communities. Marsh and his colleagues (2009) also argued that there might be policy communities within any issue network and that within any policy community there could be policy networks. However, this paper sees that to categorise by establishing a continuum running from issue networks at one end to policy communities at the other is not easy to operationalise and frame an analysis. On the other hand, this paper found that the alternative typology proposed by Schneider (1992) and the idea of Sabatier (2007, 1988) are more practical and fit in framing this project. This paper argues that 'corporatist policy network' mentioned by Schneider can well explain urban policy phenomena of the regional cities of Thailand. According to Schneider (1992, pp ), within any policy networks, there usually are intermediary organisations that play an important role in the network above subordinate organisations and groups. Intermediary organisations usually hold more resources and play the role as the

5 443 centrality of the policy networks. This type is different from the 'pluralist policy network' in which power is equally distributed among network members. It is also different from 'clientelist policy network' in which policy network actors have a patron-client relation with one another. Regarding urban policy networks in the capital city, this paper argues that it is different. It is better conceptualised as 'advocacy coalitions driven policy networks' adapted from the idea of Sabatier (1988). According to Sabatier (ibid), within this type, there are different coalitions of policy actors. Each coalition has its idea and development approach as well as aiming to advocate for its particular goal. So, there are clashes among different coalitions. They complete in leading the development for achieving their ideals in the tug of war game. However, from the above it does not mean that these arguments can be generalised as some regional cities and some parts of the capital city require different frames. To capture all differences are the impossible project. The framework proposed here, thus, is just for guiding the overview analysis. It is not perfect, but we need one. Apart from that, it should be noted here that the urban policy networks in Thailand over the last decade are driven without continuity as a result of various changes particularly the political changes and the urban crises, such as the confrontation of chaos and disasters. These conditions affect the way to analyse the policy particularly from the traditional approaches such as the system and stages approaches which expect that policy would have its linear flow from inputs to outputs and from the formulation to the evaluation. In fact, urban policies in Thailand usually fluctuate as they are interrupted by changes and crises. To further understand how a policy network is governed requires more explanation, which this approach alone could not provide effectively as it still needs to be framed its various focuses proposed by different scholars. As argued by Dowding (1995, pp ), the approach itself seems to be a metaphor rather than an explanatory theory. He argues that the policy network approach does not provide details on how and why questions. His main point is that the analysis of interactions within a policy network is undeveloped and even confused as it pays most attention to describing typologies of policy networks, their characteristics, and their effects on policy outcomes or policy changes. Although this approach mentions resource interdependence as a reason for interaction, details of why and how resources are exchanged are not clear. This argument is supported by Walker (2004, p.8) who suggests that if policy network analysis is to move beyond descriptive boundaries, there is a need to marry it with theory. This paper therefore requires theories that can both frame various approaches and provide more powerful explanations of policy network governance. On the one hand, the institutional rational choice is the first theory that is helpful for understanding policy network governance. It is developed from micro-level analysis of rational individual choice to scale up to analyse rule-governed interactions in collective actions (Ostrom, 2010, 1999b, Scharpf, 1998, 1994). It proposes that the network is driven by effective incentives. It assumes that individual organisations and groups are rational beings in the pursuit of self-interest by means of a logic of consequentiality; to capture potential benefits and avoid or minimise costs, selfinterested individual organisations and groups always attempt to maximise short-term

6 444 self-benefits or achieve net benefits for themselves (Marsh and Olsen, 1989; Toye, 1999). By this view, policy networks are the result of conscious choices made by fairly rational actors interested in benefiting from cooperation. Thus, cooperation problems such as free-riding are explained as the result of ineffective incentives. On the other hand, the deliberative policy inquiry should be taken into account to understand how networks work. It fulfils the gap of the previous approach. While the institutional rational choice assumes that individuals are self-interested, the first basic assumption of the deliberative policy inquiry is that people s moral consciousness is influenced by a socially constructed impersonal collective will rather than driven by their self-interest (Habermas, 1990). Forester (1999, pp.223-4), a Habermasian, supports this assumption by arguing that there are moral and aesthetic concerns in our daily practice such as fairness and the distributive character of outcomes. He also mentions that such concerns are meta-interests, which mean that they require ethical judgement instead of benefit calculations. This assumption contributes to an understanding of policy network governance because network constituent organisations and groups do not engage with policy networks only to maximise their self-interests, but also to achieve their collective will. From this viewpoint, the deliberative policy inquiry proposes that a network is driven by communication in a public sphere where interactive actors share and learn data, information, interests and skills in coping with common problems from each other. In more specific to this project, this theory guides that policy networks are driven by communicative interactions among interdependent policy actors through a deliberative process. Policy network actors, therefore, try to make impacts by exercising communicative power for persuading, bargaining and deal making that enhance collaboration and handle conflicts (Healey, 2006; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003, Fischer, 2003, Forester, 1999, Dryzek, 1990, Habermas, 1987) Moving on, by analysing policy directions, this paper adopts the common concerned urban development goals proposed worldwide to be set as platforms to evaluate include discourses of liveable city, healthy city and sustainable city. These discourses can guide the progressive steps of urban development that goes beyond growth dependence following capitalist rules (Rydin, 2013). To evaluate urban development in the past is also made through the critical considerations of how far it away from being resilient city that focuses the capability of the city to adapt to the change (Pelling, 2011, 2008, and from being just-city that focuses priority regimes of the city and the distribution of equal opportunities in the city including an equality of urban environmental impacts (Khalil, 2013). Methodology This paper had been developed from the documentary research project. The research aimed to understand urban policy in Thailand by examining how it was conceptualised by the previous works and what were the limitations. This project also evaluated urban policy direction of the last decade (roughly from ). In doing so, the research measured from reviewing the past researches, reports and grey literatures to determine how far the urban development away from being liveable city, healthy city, sustainable city, resilient city, and just-city, which were discussed in the last section. To analyse the information, this research project adopted the policy

7 445 network analysis, incentive analysis, interaction analysis, and the content analysis regarding how progressive city development was perceived through world-wide urban planning theories particularly on sustainability, resilience and justice. Urban policy in Thailand over the last decade From the last decade, both Bangkok and cities in the regions either big (city municipality) or small (sub-district municipality) had a complex structure that intersects between central, regional and local government bodies and compounded with non-public sectors. Each actor in such structure had some degrees of autonomy; some had more and others had less. They did not always collaborate strongly and formally. Sometime they engaged in the policy networks through a soft collaboration (loose networking) and an informal way. Some of them could walk into and walk away anytime without clear policy system and process. Besides, no one could make a policy monopoly as a need to be interdependent with others. The following is an analysis of urban policy in Thailand over the last decade by separating the cases of Bangkok and cities in the regions in the overview. Key characteristics of urban policy in the capital city For Bangkok urban policy, key policy actors in policy networks were competitive. They had their own advocated ideas by which in many cases they could be distinguished into different polars as could be called the different policy advocacy coalitions. Therefore, this city was not only a primate city, but it also had an unique structure called a special local government that facilitates such policy phenomena. Within 1,500 km2, there were 2,000 urban communities (Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, 2012). This city was the cosmopolitan city like many capital cities of other countries as a result of the variety of urban population. It was also the centre of power, interests and national policy basis that their changes affected national political stability. Bangkok development had been forced mainly by both the central government and the central government known as the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA). For the central government, Bangkok was perceived like another ministry that political parties wanted to seize the seat. The competition for wining the governor election was intensive, even the national medias paid attention sound like it was the election of the governor of the whole country. The number of voters for the Bangkok governor was higher than that of a member of parliament, and this led to the high legitimacy of the position of Bangkok governor, although the power and responsibility were still limited. Thus, to drive Bangkok development in overview was the competition to make a leading role between the central government and the BMA. Apart from that, Bangkok had a one tire system and that made it is the huge local government controlled by only one governor. Thus, it was a city region that was hard to make a comparison to any municipalities as the general regional cities. Consequently, to drive Bangkok development was impossible to be expected from only the role of BMA. The role of 50 District Administration Offices (DAOs) was also significant, but they were not under the control of the BMA as the chief officers of the DAOs were appointed by the central government and needed to work under the central government control. Through this structure, no single unit can drive the whole

8 446 Bangkok development as it faced complex problems, challenges and populations both in the holistic and particular scales. By this gap, a plenty of actors both formal and informal ones played the role in joining Bangkok development both in integrate and separate ways. BMA also realised its limitation and open policy spaces for other sectors to join in. From above, Bangkok development was not only a result of the competition between the central and local governments, but also the spaces where various forces - both public and non-public sectors - exercised their influences through a variety of initiatives. These forces could not be put into any clear policy hierarchies, but rather be conceptualised as policy networks by which different actors found their places to play the role in determining the city development in particular policy agenda. In relation to that, policy coalitions were created either intentionally or naturally. Some coalitions aggregated only public organisations, while some aggregated only nonpublic organisations (particular the coalitions of business actors to push common strategies). It was also found that some policy coalitions emerged from the mix of both public and non-public organisations. The vintage point was the different ones proposed different development approaches and that became the identity of metropolis development both here and elsewhere. The policy coalitions within policy networks were also formulated by the fact that Bangkok development was made across authority boundaries. The Bangkok and its vicinity required the connected development, but again BMA and nearby municipalities had their own developmental goals and means. They then also developed different coalitions that completed with one another in cross-governance systems. The development, therefore, was a result of the tug of war. It was not always a zero-sum game. The development sometime was a consequence of the bargaining and compromising games. The games were changed depending on the changing political and administrative conditions as well as the stronger or weaker of policy coalitions. As Bangkok was complex, different urban communities required different policy interventions. They also faced with different policy problems. For example, the farming areas in peri-urban fringe faced with different problems in comparison with housing and commercial zones. As a consequence, the nature of policy networks was multiple scales. Some areas had a low intensity of policy networks, while others had a density of policy networks. Some policy networks were small, and other policy networks were big. Some networks functioned at the fringe, and others functioned at the inner city. Some were linked, and others were fragmented. The linked policy networks were, for example, the promotion of slum upgrading, urban environment governance and urban food security enhancement. These policy networks were found linking unintentionally. The policy network on slum upgrading promotion realised that good housing development for low-income people should come along with good urban environment governance and urban food security enhancement. In the same time, the policy network on urban environment governance realised that edible green space should be promoted and that link this policy network to meet the policy network on urban food security promotion. Moreover, some policy networks made an impact to others. For example, the policy networks on industrial development made the impact to the policy networks on urban

9 447 environment protection. In some cases, one policy network was a starting point that facilitates the emergence of another policy network, and this was the challenge in mapping policy network relations. For instance, the policy network on traditional communities conservation within Bangkok facilitated the emergence of the policy network on cultural tourism promotion. Key characteristics of urban policy in the regional cities Cities in the regions of Thailand apart from Pattaya City had the same structure and looked similar. Three types of regional cities can be defined by Thai legal framework including the city municipality, the town municipality, and the sub-district municipality. They functioned by sharing the area with the regional government, and this became the entry point that no single authority can determine the urban development alone without networking across different hierarchies. Apart from the link that needed to make between regional and local governments, the link of interlocal governments was also there particularly between the Provincial Administration Organisation and municipalities as their authority territories were intersected. Besides, the increasing role of the private sector in regional development could not look over particular the provincial industries council, the provincial commerce association, and the provincial banks association. Non-governmental organisations were also found actively in many places, although they could make merely a small impact and needed to be established formally. As a consequence, it can be concluded here that there were policy networks in regional cities as well, and those policy actors can be both public and non-public organisations. In overview, to drive the urban policy in the regions based mainly on reciprocate relations. However, different policy actors had different bargaining powers, resources, images and public attentions. The policy actors that usually found the most influence to policy changes were the regional government and the municipality, while other actors usually just worked in supporting them. These general characters can be conceptualised as the corporatist policy network as aforementioned. By this conceptualisation, the regional government and the municipality were the intermediary organisations, who played the central role in driving existing policy networks. Over the last decade, high-level bureaucrats from the Ministry of Interior played the leading role by which the mayor usually worked incorporation with them rather than in competition with. It should be noticed that the outstanding role of the regional government was also a consequence of the limitations of decentralisation in Thailand. Municipalities could propose policies merely in a small boundary, and that forced them to try to be boundary spanners that seek for cooperation with others to make their intention possible. Apart from that, the importance of the strategic planning as a new policy tool became the new political instrument for the regional government to have influences to the local authorities. This advantage, however, did not always make the high-level bureaucrats from the regional government negative control the mayor as they did not have a legitimacy to do that and they still seek for a benefit from positive position with the local government as it usually connected to local business. These relations within the policy networks were more complicate in the particular cases, such as the border towns, the campus cities and the tourism cities.

10 448 Moving forward to the future urban policy development The research that was developed to be this paper evaluated that the urban development in Thailand in overview was still far away from being liveable city, healthy city, sustainable city, resilient city, and just-city. In short, the huge constraint was that we usually lied to ourselves that we were going to be more sustainable, but what policy makers did were in a small scale, less sensitive to urban metabolism, without a continuity and under growth dependence approach. In relation to that, urban policy initiatives still operated within the in-resilient and un-just structures called the bias priority regime in which the urban poor and marginalised people were promoted and protected the last, while the investors and payable customers benefited the first from most urban policy initiatives. To move forward, the research proposes that we need to reshape the existing policy networks to be policy communities. This means we need to make them closer and more collaborate. In relation to that, we need to develop the urban policy analysts who understand urban policy phenomena out off the old frame (e.g. policy as land-used/ physical planning) to make that happen. The new generation of urban policy analysts should have facilitation and mediation skills rather than a skill of technical analysis. These people should also be able to map existing relations, open spaces for creative interactions, cope with distorted communication, and set effective incentives for motivating different policy actors to work together. In doing so, they must think out of the box, such as out of the system and stages approaches Moreover, we need to go beyond managerialism as city problems are too complex to be assumed that policy toolbox will always handle with them. We then should engage more in collaborative policy making and planning, which both promote cities by and for the people and contribute to policy network governance. Aside from that, we should still be continue promoting the sustainability discourse to allow alternative policy proposals to be created as this discourse is productive and depoliticised in its nature. However, the sustainability discourse should be used more for enhancing resilience, making a transition to better phase, and transforming the real and permanent structural changes, such as by challenging the existing bias priority regime. Last but not least, to reframe the urban policy is also a productive way to reframe urban-rural dichotomy. In this consideration, the urban policy for the future should recognise the blurred boundaries of rural and urban areas. The good urban policy should not consider only to make a city progress without thinking about the gap of city growth and rural recession. To balance urban-rural development and to bridge the gaps of their linkages as a consequence of urban metabolism should be taken into account more seriously. In this sense, good future urban policy should put the city to the remote rural areas through the process of urbanisation as well as bringing the rural sense back to the big city that faces the problem of over-urbanisation through the process of ruralisation (e.g. promoting green spaces and urban agriculture). Conclusion This paper was developed from the research project that was seen from the beginning that it was impossible project as it aimed to address the overview of the urban policy in Thailand. This project, of-course, recognises that to generalise is impossible, but someone needs to do it as we need to draw the overview of this scene. Thus, this

11 449 project is not perfect, but an attempt to do this challenging task. It tries to avoid claiming the huge and clear conclusions, while it rather pays attention to frame and reframe how to understand urban policy in Thailand over the past decade in overview. The future researches should go deeper by realising that each city may have its own spirit, but need to inductive their specific findings to reflect something to the whole picture. Another possible project is to try wider and harder in capturing the holistic urban policy and development through both quantitative and historical analysis. References Allen, A. (2003). Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field. Environment and Urbanization, 1(15), Amatamatucharti, C. (2012). Thailand s Urban and Spatial Policies. National Economic and Social Development Board, 17 October. Asian Coalition for Housing Rights. (2012). The Asian Coalition for Community Action Program Third Year Report. Asian Coalition for Housing Rights. Blackman, T. (1994). Urban Policy in Practice. London: Routledge. Boossabong, P. (2012). Collaborative Governance on Urban Food Agenda during Disasters: Learning from Flooding in Bangkok, Thailand late A paper submitted for an International Conference on Governance of Urban Environmental Risk in the Global South, Scotland, 3-5 th July (2011). Policy Networks on Urban Agriculture in Bangkok, Thailand: The Response to Economic, Political and Environmental Crises. Working paper, Development Planning Unit, University College London. Carlsson, L. (2000). Policy Networks as Collective Action. Policy Studies Journal. 28(3), Cochrane, A. (2006). Understanding Urban Policy: A Critical Introduction. London: Blackwell. Dye, T. (1992). Understanding Public Policy. 10th edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. New York: Oxford University Press. Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, transl. T.McCarty. Cambridge: Polity.. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, transl. T.McCarty. Cambridge: Polity. Hajer, M. and H. Wagenaar. (2003). Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(12),

12 450 Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, 2 nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Henri Lefebvre. (1991). The Production of Space, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Innes, J. and D. Booher. (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London: Routledge. Khalil, D. (2013), The Variegated Environmental Justices of Urban Resilience in the Global South. Background paper for EJUR workshop, September, Development Planning Unit, University College London. Kmonwatananisa, N. (2008). Thailand s Management of Regional and Spatial Development. Bangkok: Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board. March, D., and M. Olsen. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.. (1999). Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Theories of the Policy Process, ed., P.A. Sabatier, pp , Boulder, Westview Press. Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to Climate Change.London and New York: Routledge. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Rapoport, A. (2011). Interdisciplinary Perspective on Urban Metabolism, Working paper, UCL Environmental Institute. Reid, D. (1996). Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide. Oxford: Earthscan Publications. Rhodes, R.A.W. (2006). Policy Network Analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, eds, Moran, M., Rein, M. and Goodin, R. (pp ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Maidenhead: Open University Press.. and D. Marsh. (1992). New Directions in the Study of Policy Networks. European Journal of Political Research, 21, Rydin, Y. (2013). The Future of Planning : Beyond Growth Dependence. London: Policy Press. Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press.. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein, Policy sciences, 21(2-3), Schneider, V. (1992). The structure of policy networks: An comparison of the chemical control and telecommunications policy domains in Germany. European Journal of Political Research, 21, Waterston, A. (1979).,Development Planning: Lessons of Experience. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.