Planning scholarship and the fetish about planning in Southern Africa: the case of Zimbabwe’s operation Murambatsvina

Beacon Mbiba

International Planning Studies, 2019, vol. 24, issue 2, 97-109

Abstract: Contributing to the resurgent debate on urban informality in the global south, Kamete (2013) charged that urban planners in Southern Africa have a fetish about informality that is fuelled by an obsession with modernity. In these and other writings, Zimbabwe’s 2005 Operation Murambatsvina (OM) is used as a prototype planning malfeasance. Using the concept of fetish and fetishism, this paper argues that a fixation on and fetish about planning and planners has led some planning scholars to churn out misplaced or misleading understandings of OM regarding the role of planning (in) the operation. Inevitably, recommendations for planning reform from such scholarship are largely inefficacious. It is time planning scholars looked seriously beyond planning for both analytical tools and space for political activism.

Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13563475.2018.1515619 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:cipsxx:v:24:y:2019:i:2:p:97-109

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/cips20

DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2018.1515619

Access Statistics for this article

International Planning Studies is currently edited by Shin Lee, Scott Orford and Francesca Sartorio

More articles in International Planning Studies from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().