85-98

Regional problems and spatial planning in Greece after 1981

• Γετίμης, Παναγιώτης

The pursuit of social consensus through the participation of different social groups in "democratic" planning processes, the upgrading of the local state through the devolution of administrative responsibilities, the intensification of the regional economic activity and the shift of major decision making from central government to regional and local agencies are some of the basic features which characterise the changing context of regional problems and spatial planning after 1981. Until that time the spatial problems at the local were usually within the context of the central political and administrative governmental powers. The crucial need for the spatial devolution of political and administrative power remained unsatisfied and the fragmented regulations were functioning at the level of political promises and satisfaction of the electoral clientele. The manifestation of spatial problems in the regions should not be interpreted either by means of an institutional perspective (of administrative and political measures) or through theoretical and conceptual abstractions, such as "the basic needs", "the development from below" or the "crisis approach". The spatial problems at the local level emerge as an expression of the particular division of labour, i.e. of the differentiation existing between the "structural" elements of the national and local society. The spatial problems are either manifested as a conflict between local classes or groups - or as an opposition between them and the central powers -, or they often remain in a latent condition and are not realized by the vains actors? finally, by surpassing the level they are also realized as such, in a more general level (regional or central). In this way the definition of spatial/regional problems can not be obtained at the local level, but refer to the conditions of integration, - in terms of the social division of labour -, of the local society into the national social formation, (and of the specific expressions that this integration has at the local level). On the other hand, the regulations of these problems are limited in specific areas, while a different social space coexists, which remains unregulated, i.e. without institutional interventions of the local or central state. Under the new conditions of spatial planning transformation the following statements * can be made: 1. The mechanisms of "central regulation of space" were gradually substituted by a system of piecemeal regulations (incrementalism) and corporatism. 2. The new spatial interventions include elements of "welfare policy" but also elements of "neo-liberalism". 3. "Traditional" and "modern" elements coexist in the process of spatial regulations. The revival of "traditional" forms and norms, however functions as a prerequisite and necessary condition for the modernization, with simultaneous reproduction of the social consensus and equilibrium. 4. The decentralization processes and the shift of decision making function on the one hand as a diffusion of the central powers to lower levels of administration, -which results in an increase of the action area, and on the other hand they create new conditions for social consensus and the legitimation of the political power.

• Sociology

• Κοινωνικές επιστήμες

* Η εισήγηση αυτή γίνεται στα πλαίσια της προβληματικής μίας έρευνας που έχει ως αντικείμενο την μελέτη της συγκρότησης του «τοπικού κράτους» στην Ελλάδα και ειδικότερα τα προβλήματα λειτουργίας της διοίκησης και αυτοδιοίκησης σε τοπικό επίπεδο. Το διετές ερευνητικό πρόγραμμα (1985-1987) γίνεται στο Ίδρυμα Μεσογειακών Μελετών.

1. Αθανασόπουλος, Κ.(1984): Νομοθεσία περιφερειακής ανάπτυξης, Αθήνα.Γετίμης, Π.(1984): Ο σχεδιασμός του χώρου στις νέες συνθήκες γεωγραφικής κατανομής της διοικητικής και πολιτικής εξουσίας στην Ελλάδα. Εισήγηση σε μερίδα του TEE.Cockburn, C.(1977): The Local State, London.Cooke, P.(1983): Theories of Planning and Spatial Development, London.Dear, M./Clark, G. (1980): Dimensions of local state autonomy, Environment and Planning A, 13, 10.Duncan, S/Goodwin, M(1982): The local state and restructuring social relations, theory and practice, in I.J.U.R.R. Vol.6, No 2.Emenalauer, R/Grymer, H7Krämer-Badoni, T./Rodenstein, M.(1974): Die Kommune in der Staatsorganisation, Frankfurt am Main.Friedman, J./Weaver, C.(1979): The agropolitan approach, in Territory and Function, London.Herbert, M.(1981): The new decentralism, a critic of the territorial approach.Hirsh, J.(1981): The apparatus of the state, the reproduction of capital and Urban conflicts, in Dear, M./Scott, A.(eds) Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society, London.Hondrich, K.-0.(1973): Theorie of Herrschaft, Frankfurt am Main.Κιντής A.A.(1980): Περιφερειακή βιομηχανική ανάπτυξη της Ελλάδος και επιπτώσεις από την ένταξη στην ΕΟΚ, Προβλήματα Περιφερειακής Οικονομικής Αναπτύξεως, ειδική έκδοση ΕΒΕΘ, τ.1,2.Λαγόπουλος Α.Φ.(1981): Το διοικητικό και νομικό πλαίσιο του συστήματος φυσικού προγραμματισμού στην Ελλάδα, πόλη και περιφέρεια αρ.1.Λουκάκης, Π.(1976): Περιφερειακές σχέσεις και τάσεις εξέλιξης του δικτύου αστικών κέντρων της Ελλάδας, επιθεώρηση κοινωνικών ερευνών τ.28.Rondinelli, (1981): Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective, in International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol.XLVil, No.2.Saunders, P.(1979): Urban Politics, a sociological Interpretation, London.Schnabel (1980): Politik ohne Politiker, in Wollmann, H. (Hrsg): Politik im Dicklicht der Bürokratie, Düsseldorf.Stöhr, W./Taylor, F.(1981): Development from Above or Below;, London.Φυτράκης Χ.(1985): Προβλήματα Διοίκησης, εισήγηση στο Νομαρχικό Συμβούλιο Χανίων, Χανιά.Χασσίδ, 1.(1980): Ελληνική Βιομηχανία και ΕΟΚ, ειδικές μελέτες 6, ΙΟΒΕ, Αθήνα.Ψυχοπαίδης Κ.(1982): Η τοπική αυτοδιοίκηση ως πολιτικός θεσμός, Τοπική Αυτοδιοίκηση, τεύχος 6, Αθήνα.