I think there is a third axis here, which is (very roughly) markets vs planning. It's much more the markets pole that turned out not to have all the answers; pre 2008 government was not marked by its enthusiasm for great infrastructure projects, now was it.
In fact, the Thatcherite era 1979-2008 showed that the markets pole and the community pole were quite capable of coexisting. You could have really complex consultations and a myriad of veto points precisely because the public was being told it couldn't expect the state to actually do anything and privatisation would somehow sort it out. So one end point here is basically Thames Water - build nothing, ever, anywhere, thus avoiding fighting with the nimbys and pay yourself by living off the existing capital stock.
Markets and planning feel like they're basically antithetical. What about planning and community? That feels like it could have possibilities, but unfortunately in practice community engagement, deliberation, etc tend to have a very powerful bias to inaction and the status quo even if the community doesn't want the status quo (it being quite possible and indeed emotionally satisfying to both hate the status quo and veto all the other options out of spite).
I suppose you can try to reconcile markets and planning by asking the business lobby what it wants and then using planning to ram it through, which is your "technocratic" end point. But it strikes me that we've got three potential end points and two of them end up being just stasis (in the true meaning of the word - not just inaction, but inaction with constant drama)
I think there is a third axis here, which is (very roughly) markets vs planning. It's much more the markets pole that turned out not to have all the answers; pre 2008 government was not marked by its enthusiasm for great infrastructure projects, now was it.
In fact, the Thatcherite era 1979-2008 showed that the markets pole and the community pole were quite capable of coexisting. You could have really complex consultations and a myriad of veto points precisely because the public was being told it couldn't expect the state to actually do anything and privatisation would somehow sort it out. So one end point here is basically Thames Water - build nothing, ever, anywhere, thus avoiding fighting with the nimbys and pay yourself by living off the existing capital stock.
Markets and planning feel like they're basically antithetical. What about planning and community? That feels like it could have possibilities, but unfortunately in practice community engagement, deliberation, etc tend to have a very powerful bias to inaction and the status quo even if the community doesn't want the status quo (it being quite possible and indeed emotionally satisfying to both hate the status quo and veto all the other options out of spite).
I suppose you can try to reconcile markets and planning by asking the business lobby what it wants and then using planning to ram it through, which is your "technocratic" end point. But it strikes me that we've got three potential end points and two of them end up being just stasis (in the true meaning of the word - not just inaction, but inaction with constant drama)