Journal ArticleDOI
Planning in the Face of Power.
Deborah M. Kolb,John Forester +1 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
In this paper, the role and ethics of planners acting as sources of misinformation are considered, and a practical and politically sensitive form of progressive planning practice is defined. But the authors do not discuss the role of planners in this process.Abstract:
Abstract Information is a source of power in the planning process. This article begins by assessing five perspectives of the planner's use of information: those of the technician, the incremental pragmatist, the liberal advocate, the structuralist, and the “progressive.” Then several types of misinformation (inevitable or unnecessary, ad hoc or systematic) are distinguished in a reformulation of bounded rationality in planning, and practical responses by planning staff are identified. The role and ethics of planners acting as sources of misinformation are considered. In practice planners work in the face of power manifest as the social and political (mis)-man-agement of citizens' knowledge, consent, trust, and attention. Seeking to enable planners to anticipate and counteract sources of misinformation threatening public serving, democratic planning processes, the article clarifies a practical and politically sensitive form of “progressive” planning practice.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
A Space for Place in Sociology
TL;DR: Sociological studies sensitive to the issue of place are rarely labeled thus, and at the same time there are far too many of them to fit in this review as discussed by the authors, and it may be a good thing that this research is seldom gathered up as a socology of place, for that could ghettoize the subject as something of interest only to geographers, architects, or environmental historians.
BookDOI
The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss policy institutions and practices, policy discourse and the politics of Washington think tanks, Frank Fischer Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice, Maarten Hajer Political judgement and the policy cycle -the case of ethnicity arguments in the Netherlands, Robert Hoppe Counsel and consensus -norm of argumentation in health policy, Bruce Jennings.
Journal ArticleDOI
Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature
TL;DR: A review of the literature on public deliberation can be found in this article, where the authors place it in the context of other forms of what they call "discursive participation" while distinguishing it from other ways in which citizens can voice their individual and collective views on public issues.
Hazards and disaster planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice
TL;DR: The gap between theory and practice in planning is closing as a new type of planning theorist is beginning to dominate the field as discussed by the authors, who make the gap complaint moot because they take practice as the raw material of their inquiry.
Journal ArticleDOI
Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal
TL;DR: Consensus building with stakeholders as discussed by the authors is a model for planning that responds to each of Altshuler's critiques and is based on assumptions about the nature of knowledge, about the organization of interests, and about the public interest.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
The Science of "Muddling Through"
TL;DR: Lindblom, C.E. as mentioned in this paper discussed the science of "muddling through" in the context of monetary policy. But he did not consider monetary policy with respect to inflation.
Book
Power: A Radical View
TL;DR: The One-Dimensional view, the Two-dimensional view, and the three-dimensional views of power and interest were compared in this article, where the Underlying Concept of Power - Power and Interest - Three Views Compared
Journal ArticleDOI
Two Faces of Power
Peter Bachrach,Morton S. Baratz +1 more
TL;DR: The authors argued that there are two faces of power, neither of which sociologists see and only one of which political scientists see, and that the political scientists themselves have not grasped the whole truth of the matter; that while their criticisms of the elitists are sound, they utilize an approach and assumptions which predetermine their conclusions.