Planning under the Southern Cross: The institutional
perspective1
Andrés Borthagaray
A recent book edited by Néstor Stancanelli2, former Argentine ambassador to Australia, gathered a
series of contributions by scholars from Argentina and Australia. The reasons for comparative
studies are well known; Australia and Argentina are the sixth and eighth largest countries
respectively by surface, they were rising world economic stars at the beginning of 20th century,
the have a largely migrant population, a tragic history with native born populations, a very rich
endowment of natural resources and agriculture and a largely urban population (90% in both
cases). A legacy of rails and harbours built under a strong trend of exchanges with Great Britain at
the turn from the 19th to 20th century is still perceivable in both countries´ urban landscape.
Notwithstanding the numerous explanations about why both countries´ development has tended
to diverge lately, such as the proximity to booming China, South East Asia and Pacific Islands or
different migration policies, the institutional perspective tends to be a dominant one. While
several times during 20th century Argentina’s constitutional order was broken, Australia’s has
been largely respected. While macroeconomic instability was characteristic in the first case, it was
rather an exception in the latter. Institutional culture is an essential background for a planning
culture. It is therefore very useful to elaborate a key understanding about different institutional
evolutions in otherwise comparable countries, in the particular domain of planning.
Both countries’ economic cycles, that once shared common roots, have followed diverging paths,
especially since 1930. The evolution of railway and harbour infrastructure reflects different
institutional cultures. Access to capital in Australia, for instance to finance new railway lines,
stresses a sharp difference with Argentina, where almost no new railway lines were built in the
last several decades. Anticipation to natural phenomena, such as water cycles, takes on different
meanings in new urbanisations and developments. In Australia, the cost of infrastructure is
charged to developers, whilst in Argentina it is quite often the sole responsibility of public
authorities, in a context where development has been following its own will rather than a preestablished plan, especially in the peripheries of major cities. Therefore, in Australia resources in
the first case are more easily available and more evenly obtained and shared. They are less
accessible and more unequally supported in the second case.
Strategic planning timeframes are different too. Facing changing realities, shifting priorities and
institutional conflicts, the horizons tend to be shorter in Argentina. The difference seems not to be
in the existence of conflicts, but rather on the way of processing them: how energy is spent
between defining common ground for identifying solutions on the one hand and attributing
responsibilities for the problems (and also in actually giving an institutional outcome to a
demonstrated responsibility).
1
Consultado el 10/11/2014 en el sitio: Planning Institute Australia
http://www.planning.org.au/internationalcontent/article-pages/planning-under-the-southern-cross-the-institutionalperspective
2
Stancanelli, Néstor (2011).Under The Southern Cross. Australia-Argentina. Eudeba, Buenos Aires.
On the other hand, out of an unstable context and informality, there seems to be an interesting
skill of adaptation, innovation and creativity for changing environments in Argentina and
Uruguay´s (and more broadly, Latin American) planning practices.
There are outstanding examples of innovation, in planning, public transportation (like the BRT),
housing and slum urbanisations. Some of our cities reached more than 1 million people in the first
quarter of 20th century. Montevideo, Buenos Aires and Rio de Janiero gave early examples of
social and economic development, urban design and governance. In the second half, cities such as
Brasilia and Curitiba offered, for different reasons, new paradigms of planning. Innovative policies
in Bogotá and Medellín, a constant search for alternative policies in México, Sao Paulo and most of
our big metropolis, alternative fuels in Brazil, emergency procedures after Chile's earthquakes are
part of the lessons we can learn from Latin America.
We can also learn from our threats and the dark face of our urban practices. Upward social
mobility coexists with divergent, often segregated, paces of development for different segments
of our societies. Innovative planning and environmentally active policies coexist with
unsustainable energy, land and natural resources consumption. One of the most dynamic
emerging regions of the world coexists with growing parallel economies of drugs and crime. Vital
and well-designed public spaces coexist with walls and wires of division.
What is expected regarding the skills a planning professional should have in each country reflects a
different approach as well. A variety of discipline backgrounds in Australia contrasts to a certain
monopoly from architects in the South American context. This point has been developed from the
academic approaches by my colleague Daniel Kozak. But, perhaps, the biggest difference is in the
gap from what is planned to what is actually done, a reality far greater on our side of the world.
Tellingly, when a course of action does not go according to plan, it is not necessarily because it has
been questioned, but rather because it has been ignored.
It’s interesting from our point of view how the institutional context shapes planning practices. For
example, the possibility of addressing alternative views, like from law firms, developers and
neighbours taking opposite views, the size and composition of private urban planning practices
and the way the assist public sector agencies, are quite different from our way of understanding
and practicing planning.
These cultural and institutional differences are also expressed in dealing with the natural
environment in public projects. Some examples can be seen in storm water treatment in Sydney’s
Green Square, in the amount of new parks that have been created or regenerated out of brown
fields are elements when contrasts might be pointed out. It could be interesting to follow an
exchange about the following set of elements:
 Wetlands and stormwater recycling;
 Olympic and Commonwealth Games legacies (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane) and Youth
Olympics (Buenos Aires 2018);
 How railway infrastructure is taken into account in new developments on railway lands;
 A different share of infrastructure charges in urban developments;
 The role of municipal governments in two systems of states, provinces and federal
governments;
 The role of public sector in urban processes;
 A national policy framework for cities;
 Public space, from the most humble neighbourhoods to the most expensive commercial
buildings;
 The rising political importance of planning issues;
A mutual collaboration for international development projects and education in third countries,
out of a cross fertilisation from different backgrounds.
Differences and common points underline the case for learning through each other´s experiences.
The institutional ones are particularly different. And, because of that, particularly enlightening.