Showing papers in "Planning Theory in 2016"
TL;DR: Since the 1980s and due to the ongoing complexity and diffuseness of global networked societies, planners have tried to move beyond classic technocratic and/or sociocratic ideas of planning towards...
Abstract: Since the 1980s and due to the ongoing complexity and diffuseness of global networked societies, planners have tried to move beyond classic technocratic and/or sociocratic ideas of planning towards...
116 citations
TL;DR: In a recent paper as mentioned in this paper, Friedmann revisited the question "What is planning?" and concluded that the effort to define "planning" is futile, and that realism demands a contingent, not a universal, definition of planning.
Abstract: “What is Planning?” is the question John Friedmann (1987) revisits in a recent paper1 that tells how he arrived at his (now popular) definition of planning as the link between knowledge and action (pp. 38–44). This question has engaged others, focusing on more specific traits: planning as rational choice (Davidoff and Reiner, 1962), as controlling the future (Wildavsky, 1973), or as framing subsequent decisions (Faludi, 1987: 116–128). Forester (1989) defined “planning (as) the guidance of future action” (p. 3); later, we find planning as storytelling about the future (Throgmorton, 1992; Van Hulst, 2012: 301), as “the premeditation of action” (Harris, 1996: 483), as expectation management (Hartmann, 2012: 243), and as a “language game” (Lord, 2014: 37–39). The problem with all these definitions is not that they are not true; it is that they are too abstract for closure.2 Vickers’ (1968) definition, “Planning is what planners do,” looks like a tautology, but it offers a pragmatic answer to the question. One of its merits is that it closes an infinite regress of debate.3 As an old party in this debate, I have come to the conclusion that the effort to define “planning” is futile.4 Platonic definitions may make interesting theory, but realism demands a contingent, not a universal, definition of planning. Vickers’ definition’s other merit is its validation principle, the social construction of knowledge. Expanding Vickers in the light of this principle: “Planners” are the people who a particular community acknowledges are involved in a process it recognizes as “planning.” This leads to an interesting discovery: only one set of people talks about “planning” without any qualification—planning theorists. Everyone else refers to “planning” with a substantive descriptor (implicit or explicit). The referent may be disciplinary or professional: city and regional—or town and country planning, economic planning or transportation planning; or
67 citations
TL;DR: The New Urban Agenda (NUA) as mentioned in this paper is a set of 17 sustainable development goals to replace the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which includes sustainable cities and communities: make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
Abstract: At the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Summit on 25 September 2015, world leaders adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which included a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to replace the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). A notable addition to the new list of goals is number 11, the Urban Goal, titled ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities: make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’. In October 2016, Habitat 3, also known as the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, takes place in Quito, Ecuador, and is convened by UN Habitat. The purpose of this conference is to take forward the UN commitment to sustainable urbanisation, to consider how to frame and implement the new urban goal according to what is being called the New Urban Agenda (NUA) and to consider sustainable urbanisation across the other new SDGs. In June 2016, UN Habitat produced the Revised Zero Draft1 of the NUA for discussion by UN agencies and a range of other stakeholders, with the intention of tabling a final document at Habitat 3. This Revised Draft is a reworking of an earlier draft of 6 May and contains significant changes.2 These drafts have undergone further revision in recent months, most recently in September 2016, but the core elements and positions remain. For a long time, planners around the world have been arguing that governments should take cities and planning more seriously, and now it has happened. The Revised Zero Draft of the new urban goal assigns a centrally important role to planning at national, regional and local levels to implement this goal. But in an attempt to create a universal vision that everyone could agree on and that has potential to cross borders, the conversations and negotiations have led to an amalgam of different planning objectives and styles that is far from what today’s planning theorists would recommend. This essay attempts to understand the planning theory behind this major new statement of planning policy and to ask whether that theory holds up well.
49 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the relevance of Rawls' Theory and Sen's Idea of justice to contemporary planning theory by drawing on the writings of the two philosophers and conclude that by connecting the sphere of just principles with deliberation on the actions which can advance those principles, Rawlsian "justice in planning" provides the basis for Senian "planning for justice".
Abstract: This article discusses the relevance of Rawls’ Theory and Sen’s Idea of justice to contemporary planning theory by drawing on the writings of the two philosophers. Besides providing a comprehensive account of what the two respective frameworks imply for the foundation of public planning and for the relevant evaluative practice, this article proposes an interpretation of these theories that overcomes their polarization into competitive frameworks. The main position of this article is that the notion of capabilities set forward by Sen is in fact an extension of, rather than in tension with, the notion of primary goods set forward by Rawls. By discussing a number of simple planning cases, this article concludes that by connecting the sphere of just principles with deliberation on the actions which can advance those principles, Rawlsian “justice in planning” provides the basis for Senian “planning for justice.”
47 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that planning should develop a robust conception of publics without the state, because the state is a necessarily oligarchical arrangement that prevents us from achieving real democracy.
Abstract: This article argues that planning should develop a robust conception of “publics without the State.” We should do so because the State is a necessarily oligarchical arrangement that prevents us from achieving real democracy. We should explore publics without the State in both theory and practice.
45 citations
TL;DR: How structural–functional concepts and approaches might be applied to underpin a practical analysis of the complex decision-making arrangements that drive planning practice, and to provide the evidence needed to target reform of poorly performing arrangements is discussed.
Abstract: Existing planning theories tend to be limited in their analytical scope and often fail to account for the impact of many interactions between the multitudes of stakeholders involved in strategic planning processes. Although many theorists rejected structural–functional approaches from the 1970s, this article argues that many of structural–functional concepts remain relevant and useful to planning practitioners. In fact, structural–functional approaches are highly useful and practical when used as a foundation for systemic analysis of real-world, multi-layered, complex planning systems to support evidence-based governance reform. Such approaches provide a logical and systematic approach to the analysis of the wider governance of strategic planning systems that is grounded in systems theory and complementary to existing theories of complexity and planning. While we do not propose its use as a grand theory of planning, this article discusses how structural–functional concepts and approaches might be applied to underpin a practical analysis of the complex decision-making arrangements that drive planning practice, and to provide the evidence needed to target reform of poorly performing arrangements.
42 citations
TL;DR: Most scholarship in spatial planning presupposes an established institutional setting, where a specific legal framework is in place, one is accustomed to certain procedures and routines, and planni... as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Most scholarship in spatial planning presupposes an established institutional setting, where a specific legal framework is in place, one is accustomed to certain procedures and routines, and planni...
41 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors contribute to the debate concerning the nature of planning in complex systems, and particularly to the theory of teleocracy (the approach based on direct provisions aimed at specific goals).
Abstract: This research contributes to the debate concerning the nature of planning in complex systems, and particularly to the theory of teleocracy (the approach based on direct provisions aimed at specific...
41 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors take some distance to the debate concerning the role of communication in planning and analyze it from the point of view of different legal cultures in different European countries.
Abstract: Among theorists, there are rather strong differences in opinion whether communicative planning theory helps to fight or advances neo-liberalism. This article takes some distance to the debate concerning the role of communication in planning and analyses it from the point of view of different legal cultures in different European countries. It is argued in the article that the sources of legitimacy of public planning might be fundamentally different outside the Anglo-American context, in which communicative planning theory has largely been developed. Planning works in different ways in different national contexts; this is why it is not obvious that communicative planning theory would help to fight neo-liberalism in planning. The article explores the topic from the Finnish perspective, and draws on writings about legal mentality and comparative law.
38 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the concept of public interest in planning from the point of view of Patsy Healey's collaborative planning theory was explored from the perspective of Habeabe and Healey.
Abstract: This article approaches the concept of public interest in planning from the point of view of Patsy Healey’s collaborative planning theory on one hand and, on the other, from the perspective of Habe...
34 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the extent to which leadership factors contribute to the success of collaborative planning processes and found that leadership encouraged a trustworthy and effective consensus building between the local government and the communities.
Abstract: This article examines the extent to which leadership factors contribute to the success of collaborative planning processes. By examining the best practice in urban management in decentralizing Indonesia, we found that leadership encouraged a trustworthy and effective consensus building between the local government and the communities. The local leaders grasped socio-cultural contexts of the city to formulate communication strategies in a way that encourages an open and informal atmosphere flourished. More importantly, this leadership framework effectively restructured the institutional arrangement and created divisible tasks for subordinates and communities who were involved in the collaborative process.
TL;DR: The concepts of Utopia, Scenario and Plan as discussed by the authors have been proposed as a way to visualize the future of a place and its future consequences for current expectations and hopes, and they have been argued to integrate all three along a continuum from holistic inclusive to selective incremental.
Abstract: The concepts utopia, scenario, and plan offer important ways to envision the future of place. Utopia describes the perfect, complete place. Scenario compares good alternative stories. Plans offer useful provisional intentions. All three help us imagine how future consequences of select actions might influence current expectations and hopes. I argue that pragmatism can integrate all three along a continuum from holistic inclusive to selective incremental. Utopia dramatizes emotional attachments to the daily details of a purposeful way of life for some future imagined place. Scenario describes the confluence of narrative and explanation, story and cause as coherent testable accounts of relevant consequences for plausible futures. Plan describes how we compose and compare alternatives to inform practical intentions for choices and decisions for immediate problems we currently face. Framing the three concepts pragmatically avoids the contrast between utopian rupture and narrative continuity by treating both a...
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors begin with the assertion that epistemological standpoints shape and are shaped by ethical principles and that epistemicologies of action are constantly evolving, while many contemporary p...
Abstract: We begin with the assertion that epistemological standpoints shape – and are shaped by – ethical principles and that epistemologies of action are constantly evolving. Yet, while many contemporary p...
TL;DR: The authors provided a theoretical interpretation on the limits and potentials of the internationally highly acclaimed Brazilian urban reform as implemented since the 1990s, and argued that represen-ed urban reform can be seen as a form of urban decentralization.
Abstract: This article provides a theoretical interpretation on the limits and potentials of the internationally highly acclaimed Brazilian urban reform as implemented since the 1990s. We argue that represen...
TL;DR: In this article, a taxonomy of private and public planning is proposed, which combines two modes of planning with two types of planning agent and discusses their possible interrelationships using some neo-institutional economic reasoning.
Abstract: Against two extreme forms of thinking, which have influenced planning theory, this article argues, in the context of a looming amount of literature generated in a movement for private planning, that the distinction between private planning and public planning is a valid one, but one in need of tweaking. However, the plan–market dichotomy (i.e. the assumption that state and private planning is mutually exclusive) is fallacious. Informed by the neo-institutional economic assumption of rational decisions and the stance of contractual solutions, it rides on the surge in private planning by proposing a taxonomy of planning that combines two modes of planning with two types of planning agent and discusses their possible interrelationships using some neo-institutional economic reasoning informed by the ideas of Coase. Some pedagogical and theoretical implications are also discussed.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the creation of property rights, whether by contract-upon-negotiation or edict, is far more significant than what has been described as "Coasian bargaining" in effecting sustainable development.
Abstract: This article advances the proposition that the creation of property rights, whether by contract-upon-negotiation or edict, is far more significant than what has been described as “Coasian bargaining” in effecting sustainable development. By “creation” we intend the neo-institutional economist’s sense of establishing a degree of exclusive property rights for common property or devising new contractual arrangements in which private property rights are entrenched. This is sometimes mistakenly confused with the assignment of property rights. “Sustainable development” is understood as the transformation of negative into positive externalities or a state of the tragedy of the commons into a vibrant resource nourishing industry. Two real-world cases involving government planning are used to illustrate this proposition.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate how planning is influenced by five categories of questions (what, who, when/where, how and why) and the interactions between them and how planning theories differ in their answer.
Abstract: This article investigates how planning is influenced by five categories of questions (what, who, when/where, how and why) and the interactions between them. Planning theories differ in their answer ...
TL;DR: In this article, the authors apply property rights analysis to the methodology of nomocracy, a leading branch of the theory of complexity in complex systems, and examine the methods of planning of complex systems.
Abstract: This paper examines the methods of planning of complex systems. More precisely, it applies property rights analysis to the methodology of nomocracy, a leading branch of the theory of complexity in ...
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine how Sandercock's therapeutic imagination in public institutions can be used to restore relationships after they have done things that cause harm to communities, and how to restore these relationships.
Abstract: How should planners in public institutions restore relationships after they have done things that cause harm to communities? This manuscript examines how Sandercock’s therapeutic imagination in pla...
TL;DR: Inspired by the philosophy of becoming, as well as by Spinoza's ethics, the authors advocates that planning be apprehended as a transitory construct to deal with social processe...
Abstract: Inspired by Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy of becoming, as well as by Spinoza’s ethics, this article advocates that planning be apprehended as a transitory construct to deal with social processe...
TL;DR: The decision to grant the first planning permission for fracking in the United Kingdom for 5 years was made by the planning committee of the North Yorkshire County Council, despite them receiving 4375 letters of objection compared to 36 letters of support.
Abstract: As I write this, the fallout from the decision to grant the first planning permission for fracking1 in the United Kingdom for 5 years rumbles on. The proposal to use an existing borehole to fracture the rocks 3000 m under the Yorkshire countryside was approved by the planning committee of the North Yorkshire County Council, despite them receiving 4375 letters of objection compared to 36 letters of support. Responding to the decision, John Ashton (2016), the former UK diplomat with responsibilities for climate change negotiations wrote,
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors adopt the typology put forward by Campbell and Marshall (2002a; 2000), outlining different ways in which the public interest may practically be addressed, leading to the use of scale as a way of recognising when different conceptions of public interest might be practically drawn upon.
Abstract: The recent history of the public interest is one of misappropriation. Practitioners have been found to value the concept but have struggled to articulate how it guides day-to-day planning practice. It has been used to portray a homogenous public, furthering the interests of the powerful at the expense of recognising social diversity, and leading to calls for the concept’s abandonment (Sandercock, 1998). Yet this article starts from the argument that the public interest remains the justification that fundamentally underpins planning activities, in light of a continuing need to address collective concerns. To this end the article adopts the typology put forward by Campbell and Marshall (2002a; 2000), outlining different ways in which the public interest may practically be addressed. Alongside this Dewey’s (1954) work is used to understand how the extent of the public may vary, leading to the use of scale as a way of recognising when different conceptions of the public interest might be practically drawn upon. Following this approach, the typology is brought together with scale, as a lens for understanding the extent of a public with a common interest, to form a framework for analysing practice. This framework is used to analyse how the interests of different publics are addressed in a case study of the Peak District, a national park in England. From the case conclusions are drawn around the need to pay greater attention to the extent of different publics with a common interest, and, in turn, how the interests of different publics can be reconciled.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors look at the reasons for the persistence of a city-suburb binary in suburban difference and show how simplified characterisations of the suburban serve the interest of particular groups, including within planning.
Abstract: Despite a longstanding and varied body of literature on suburban difference, a simplified narrative of the suburbs persists that is represented by a city–suburb binary. This is damaging as it undermines our understanding of the social dynamics of the places in which, in the United Kingdom, the majority of the population live. This article looks at the reasons for the persistence of a city–suburb binary. It engages with suburban housing as a Bourdieuian field in order to show how simplified characterisations of the suburban serve the interest of particular groups, including within planning. Bourdieu’s field theory offers a powerful means to understand how judgements of the suburbs are naturalised and so become common-sense truths. As field theory indicates ‘within-planning’ power relations that support particular truths, it offers the possibility of challenging these by exposing the taken-for-granted norms of the city-suburb binary.
TL;DR: For example, Davoudi's (2015) essay "Planning as practice of knowing" as discussed by the authors gives readers of planning theory an insightful and instructive reflection on the practice of knowledge.
Abstract: Simin Davoudi’s (2015) essay gives readers of Planning Theory an insightful and instructive reflection on the practice of knowing. How, in effect, knowledge should be linked with action is aptly summarized in her diagram that clusters four kinds of knowledge—“Knowing what (theories, concepts),” “Knowing how (crafts, skills),” “Knowing to what end (moral choices)” and “Practical judgment (wisdom)” around “Doing (action).” I can’t think of a better conceptualization of the application of the different kinds of knowledge there are, to deciding and committing ourselves to personal and collective action. My only question is: why is this essay addressed specifically to planning—as in its title: “Planning as practice of knowing”? This implies an undeserved limitation of her conceptualization, which in my view is of much wider and more general (if more abstract) relevance, and why not Law as practice of knowing, Politics as practice of knowing, Design as practice of knowing, Teaching as practice of knowing, Healing as practice of knowing, even Cooking as practice of knowing. I think I know the answer to my question: the popular definition of planning as linking between knowledge and action (Friedmann, 1987: 38–44). But this definition is problematic: not that it isn’t true, but that it can be just as well applied to other fields (Alexander, 2005). That is why this otherwise excellent essay is replete with statements about knowledge in planning that are equally valid with a substitute subject. For example (p. 318) “Planners do not uncover facts like geologists, but rather, like lawyers ... organize facts ... engage in persuasive rational arguments ... attached to value objectives” (Hoch, 1994: 105). Why not: Advocates do not uncover facts like geologists, but rather, as lawyers ... organize facts ... engage in persuasive rational arguments ... attached to value objectives. Or: Statespersons-policymakers/Designers/ Teachers/Therapists/Chefs do not uncover facts like geologists, but rather, like lawyers ... organize facts ... engage in persuasive rational arguments ... attached to value objectives. Again (p. 319) “... understanding from within what? In the context of planning ... from within the mind of each individual planner ... and from within the social rules which render planner’s action with meaning ...” Why not: In the context of legal practice...from within the mind of each individual lawyer...and from within the social rules which render lawyers’ actions with meaning ... Or: ... In the context of politics/design/ education/healing/cooking from within the mind of each individual politician/designer/ teacher/therapist/chef and from within the social rules which render politicians’/ 624187 PLT0010.1177/1473095215624187Planning TheoryAlexander other2015
TL;DR: Davoudi as discussed by the authors proposed a framework for planning as practice of knowing, which can be applied to other fields such as science, economics, philosophy, and philosophy of art.
Abstract: I am grateful to Ernst Alexander’s thoughtful comments (Alexander, 2016) on my essay ‘Planning as Practice of Knowing’ (Davoudi, 2015) and to the editors of Planning Theory for providing the opportunity for an open intellectual conversation which under the current climate of performance indicators is often seen as an indulgence. There are two main parts to Alexander’s comments. In the first part, he raises a question. In the second part, he presents his own answer to that question which he then uses to build his remaining arguments. While the question is fair, the answer does not accurately represent the essay. Also, the arguments that follow from that answer appear to misunderstand my suggested framework, as I elaborate below. Alexander (2016) asks, ‘Why is the essay addressed specifically to planning’, why not replace the term planning in the title with the term ‘action’ to make the ‘conceptualisation’ ‘of much wider and more general (if more abstract) relevance’? This is a fair point, put quite clearly in the second paragraph of the comments and then repeated in the subsequent five. I agree that a similar framing can be used to think about the relationship between knowledge and action in other fields such as those mentioned in Alexander’s comments. Indeed, the essay cites a number of other scholars who have argued along similar lines (if not the exact framework) in relation to other fields, notably Hendrick Wagenaar’s study of administrators. However, just because the framework is applicable to other fields, it does mean that ‘planning’ can be substituted with other subjects, and that is exactly the reason for the essay to speak about planning and not ‘cooking’. Alexander raises similar concerns about the work of Hoch and Friedmann who also speak of planning while, in his view, the points they make readily apply to other fields. After raising the question, Alexander provides his own answer: ‘I think I know the answer to my question’; it is because of Friedmann’s definition of planning, which ‘is problematic’ because ‘it can be just as well applied to other fields’. He follows this with a rhetorical question: ‘But is planning this kind of generic practice?’ (Alexander, 2016 ). Of course not and nowhere in the essay I have suggested or implied that planning is a generic practice. On the contrary, knowing what (epistemic knowledge) is an integral part of conceptualising planning as practice of knowing and this is clearly shown in my proposed framework and the diagram. I have written at length about the significance of ‘knowing what’ in planning (Davoudi and Pendlebury, 2010) and the need for advancing the epistemological understanding of space and place as key objects of planning’s intellectual enquiry (Davoudi, 2012). In the essay, I focused instead on conceptualising the relationship between knowledge and action because what distinguishes planning from other fields lies in not only its epistemic knowledge, important as it is, but also in the interaction between this and knowing how, knowing to what end and doing. So, although 625244 PLT0010.1177/1473095215625244Planning TheoryDavoudi research-article2016