Showing papers in "Planning Theory in 2003"
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a personal review of Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, published in 1997, focusing on the treatment of context, the emphasis on process, the use of social theory, and power.
Abstract: This article presents a personal review by the author of Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, published in 1997. It explains how the book came to be written and makes some comments on the various criticisms it has attracted. The first section introduces key experiences that fed into the book followed by a brief summary of the key ideas that underpin its arguments. In reviewing the critiques, the article focuses in particular on the treatment of `context', the emphasis on `process', the use of `social theory', and `power', and the development of `institutionalist' analysis. This is followed by a comment on the normative biases in the work. In conclusion, the author makes a plea for continuing attention to the complexity and diversity of urban governance contexts and the importance for practical action of grasping the particularities of situated governance dynamics.
828 citations
TL;DR: This article explored the core Habermasian concept of rational consensus-formation and its counterfactuality before introducing the possibility of permanence of conflict, non-reciprocity and domination (i.e. of agonism) which may productively explain some of the powergames enacted in planning decision-making.
Abstract: I explore the core Habermasian concept of rational consensus-formation and its counterfactuality before introducing the possibility of permanence of conflict, non-reciprocity and domination (i.e. of agonism) which may productively explain some of the powergames enacted in planning decision-making. In so doing I draw on the concept of agonism and introduce the political into Habermas' moral theorization. Where the personal and the political intersect there is a role for psychology. I illustrate how Habermas' communicative theorizing was itself partly developed from a psychoanalytical tradition before introducing some of the concepts popularized by Jacques Lacan. I conclude that development of communicative planning theory could usefully retain some of Habermas' psychological foundations while turning to the work of Lacan as a basis for an enhanced understanding of the realities of planning practice.
336 citations
TL;DR: The authors revisited Throgmorton's 1996 claim that planning can be thought of as a form of persuasive storytelling about the future and argued that planners' stories will have to make narrative and physical space for diverse locally-grounded common urban narratives.
Abstract: This article revisits Throgmorton's 1996 claim that planning can be thought of as a form of persuasive storytelling about the future. It responds to three broad lines of critique, connects the claim to contemporary scholarship about `transnational urbanism' and the `network society,' and revises the author's initial claim. This revision suggests that planners should tell future-oriented stories that help people imagine and create sustainable places. It further argues that, to be persuasive to a wide range of readers, planners' stories will have to make narrative and physical space for diverse locally-grounded common urban narratives. It recognizes that powerful actors will strive to eliminate or marginalize competing stories.
211 citations
TL;DR: The authors examines how citizens in authoritarian political contexts learn radical planning for social transformation, identifying a series of gaps in the radical planning literature, and identifying a set of gaps that need to be filled.
Abstract: This article examines how citizens in authoritarian political contexts learn radical planning for social transformation. After identifying a series of gaps in the radical planning literature, the a...
100 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that complexity theory is a fundamental basis of a science that can inform the practice of planning, and that planning could and should be a means through which we construct the future.
Abstract: Friedmann recognized that planning could and should be a means through which we construct the future; Unger tells us that we lack a science which can inform the practice of such construction. The essential argument of this piece is that complexity theory is a fundamental basis of such a science. Friedmann called for dialogue – a process to which we shall return – and argues, absolutely correctly, that these issues are central to all
83 citations
TL;DR: In a recent article as discussed by the authors, Bish Sanyal argues that most planners go through their education without a clear understanding of planning theory in its multiple dimensions, and they learn "by doing" not from theories.
Abstract: In a recent issue of this journal, Bish Sanyal argues that, based on a survey of planning practitioners some years back, none of them had found planning theory or, indeed, any theory, useful as they ‘grappled with conflicting interests’ (Sanyal, 2002). They learned ‘by doing’, not from theories. His comment raises the question, why, if practitioners find planning theory to be of little or indeed, of any use, we should bother with contributing to the several ongoing discourses on theory. I suspect that Professor Sanyal’s views on this matter are widely shared. Even within the academy, there is no consensus as to what constitutes ‘planning theory’. As a result, most planners go through their education without a clear understanding of planning theory in its multiple dimensions. There is not even, I would venture to guess, a clear view of ‘theory’, whether the term should be reserved for predictive theories only, or whether, as in the case of economics, a theory about what is can also be employed as a prescriptive theory, or whether it is possible for theoretical discourse to be entirely normative, with large claims but little evidence, or whether it is simply a loose term, as in thinking about planning. There is a widespread acceptance in our métier that there are significant differences between theories that are used in planning and are specific to its several specializations (land use, transport, urban design, regional development, environmental planning, etc.) (theory 1); and theories that address what is common to all of them, i.e. theories of planning tout court (theory
75 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the role of politics in planning and the highly political role of planners and show that planners are an active force in enabling change and that political decision-making is a process of its own with its own actors.
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to explore the role of politics in planning and the highly political role of planners. The structure planning process for Flanders illustrates that planners are an active force in enabling change and that political decision-making is a process of its own with its own actors. Interviews with key political actors allow unravelling the planning process from the perspective of the political class. The case brings powerful informal arenas to the open and documents power plays involving planners and politicians. The case also illustrates that much of the actual planning discourse is at odds with the rationale of some politicians.
73 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine Lacan's psychoanalytically derived social theory as to its appropriateness for understanding aspects of planning practice and discuss how a Lacanian critical social theoretical approach could be pertinent to analysis of the complex mixture of hybrid processes that comprise planning development assessment.
Abstract: This article examines Lacan’s psychoanalytically derived social theory as to its appropriateness for understanding aspects of planning practice. Lacan theorized not only about language and culture, but also about that which resides outside of symbolization and underlies human desire, to provide an understanding of human subjectivity, identity and motivation. We discuss how a Lacanian critical social theoretical approach could be pertinent to analysis of the complex mixture of hybrid processes – technical, collaborative and political – that comprise planning development assessment. We outline key Lacanian concepts including the mirror-stage, jouissance, the Four Discourses and the ‘big Other’ and their applicability to understanding development assessment and regulation.
41 citations
TL;DR: Friedmann as mentioned in this paper argued that there are three kinds of planning theories: theory 1, theory 2, and theory 3, i.e. theory based on empirical study or experience of practice.
Abstract: John Friedmann’s (2003) commentary does less than justice to Bish Sanyal’s question about the relevance of planning theory to practice (Sanyal, 2002; see also Sanyal, 2000: 322–6) or to the more basic question he sets out to answer: why do planning theory at all? His answers boil down to the assertion that there are three kinds of planning theory. Theory 1 are theories for use in planning; these are about the subject or objects of the planning undertaking, often borrowed from cognate fields and specific to sub-specializations in planning: land-use planning, transportation, environmental planning, etc. Theory 2 is (normative) theory of planning, in its generic sense, i.e. common to all the field’s specializations. Theory 3 is critical theory about planning, i.e. theory based on empirical study or experience of practice. From here on, Friedmann’s discussion focuses on Theory 2, assuming that the practical relevance of Theory 1 and Theory 3 is undisputed. For Theory 1 this is no problem, but I have difficulty buying his distinction between Theory 2 and Theory 3, for reasons that will become clear later. His case for the relevance of Theory 2 continues with a synoptic review of its significant (to him) examples, from the rational decision-making models of the 1950s through his own Transactive Planning to the multicultural, radical and insurgent planning proposed today. But his claim for these theories’ relevance for practice is founded on only one statement: ‘there is no planning practice without a theory about how it ought to be practiced’ (Friedmann, 2003: 8). This statement unwittingly
17 citations
12 citations
TL;DR: This article argued that planning can be interpreted as persuasive and constitutive storytelling about the future and that storytelling is more to storytelling than first meets the eye, and that planning as persuasive storytelling is not well connected to contemporary scholarship about economic restructuring and the emergence of a globalized, global, or transnational city.
Abstract: In Planning as Persuasive Storytelling (1996), I argued that planning can
usefully be construed as persuasive and constitutive storytelling about the future.
Three broad lines of critique have been directed against that claim. One argues
that to think of planning as storytelling is to open the floodgates to fabrications. The second essentially argues that power, not stories, is what matters.
And the third suggests that there is more to storytelling than first meets the
eye. Furthermore, my claim was not well connected to contemporary scholarship about economic restructuring and the emergence of a globalized “network
society” and the postmodern, global, or transnational city.