The contributors to this volume have extensively explored our initial enquiries regarding the practical manifestations of insurgent planning in a myriad of contexts. They have explored the strategies employed by insurgent planners to navigate the many ways by which planning regimes manifest around the world, in both the so-called Global North and Global South; in places where the rule of law is robust and in places where it is weak; and in places where implementation happens vigorously and where it does not – where planning is more a promise in the imagination of bureaucrats than a fact. In all cases, contributors have described insurgent planners’ endeavours towards advancing a democratic agenda and promoting the right to the city, even if some of their victories are pyrrhic and may not last. Although those issues have been addressed, they have also given rise to numerous additional questions. Therefore, this concluding reflection is structured around four overarching themes that engage with these emerging questions and that permeate all chapters to varying extents.

The first topic concerns insurgent planners’ engagement with existing institutions and legal frameworks, and the way by which planners may transit between Miraftab's definition of “invited” and “invented” spaces. These issues are connected to the planners’ identities, to the way they conceive their relationships with power and to the context in which they are acting. In summary, these relationships are intricate, malleable, adaptive and extremely fluid, allowing actors to often transition between invited and invented spaces, at times eager to comply with the law and at other times challenging established institutions.

The second topic revolves around finding a balance between technocratic expertise and what can be described as “popular” or “vernacular” knowledge, for lack of better expressions. Around this topic, we find practices that adopt a “Freirean” attitude towards knowledge and power distribution, as cited by Hellmer, Lin and Lu in their chapter on Taipei. A “Freirean” attitude refers to an approach inspired by the teachings and philosophy of Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire, who advocated for a transformative and emancipatory approach to education, particularly in the context of addressing social inequality and oppression. A Freirean attitude emphasizes the importance of critical consciousness, dialogue and praxis (the integration of reflection and action). It encourages citizens to engage in critical thinking, reflection and active participation, rather than being passive learners into whom knowledge is “deposited”.