Planning Theory - Summary Literature: Allmendinger - Chapter 1 - What Is Theory?
Planning Theory - Summary Literature: Allmendinger - Chapter 1 - What Is Theory?
Planning Theory - Summary Literature: Allmendinger - Chapter 1 - What Is Theory?
Vienna circle
This is about logical positivism: “If something is not observable, it is not verifiable and if it is not
verifiable, it is metaphysical and therefore meaningless”.
Naturalism
This is the statement that the methodologies of the natural sciences are appropriate for the social
sciences.
Terms
- Discourse: A discourse is identified by Van Dijk (1997) in 3 dimensions: As
(1) a language use
(2) the communication of beliefs (cognition)
(3) interaction in a social situation.
Planning example: Green belts. 100 years ago people would not have known what a green
belt is, while nowadays they are one of the most famous planning practices.
- Falsification: Falsification rejects the idea that theories are true. By falsification, theories are seen
as speculative truths that stand for as long as they are not disproven.
- Relativism: Different theories and paradigms can exist side by side each claiming an equal
validity.
Giddens states that these two approaches (Structuralism and Intentionalism) are two sides of the same
coin. He focuses on the interrelationships between both structure and agency, and he states that there is a
Duality in structure: structures enable behaviour of agents, while the behaviour of agents can also
influence and reconstitute the structure. < Agents can also be planners in this sentence. There is also a
duality in structure and agency: transcend the deterministic views of structure and the voluntarist
views of agency (??)
The interpretation of theories is context dependent. E.g. at the national level ideas will be interpreted
differently because of historical, cultural, economic and political windows. Also other factors such as
religion and geography can influence how theories are interpreted.
Thus, a theory is not fixed.
Therefore we should realise that planning is executed at a local level, and therefore theories are
interpreted differently across places.
Planners pick theories to what fits to them, depending on the situation. In this way they can legitimize
almost every decision.
Planners are not independent. They are constantly in between the wishes of the employer (e.g.
state), their own opinions and professional feelings, and the code and ethics of their professional
institute. This influences the formulation and interpretation of theory for planners.
Furthermore, planners often claim to act for the ‘public interest’, while this is hard to define, and they
must also meet with private stakeholders, and housing and land supply regulations.
Post-positivism
In the post-positivism approach, the focuses shifted from causal reasoning as a basis for plan-making to
discovering and confirming meaning. There was more focus on discourses and formation, interpretation
and application of theory. There was a rejection of the “master-narratives” in theory.
Interpretation is in direct contrast with the traditional views of planning, that saw it based on
the ‘neutrality of observation and givenness of experience’
Now, we say that nothing / no one is neutral.
Thus, post-positivism is
- A rejection of the positivist understandings and methodologies.
- Embracing the approaches that contextualise theories in a larger social and historical context
- About normative criteria for deciding between explanations and theories
- An understanding of individuals as self-interpreting, autonomous subjects
Faludi
Until the 1980’s the dominant typology of planning theory had been provided by Faludi, about Substantive
and procedural planning theory.
Substantive = the content of planning
Procedural = (define and justify) the methods of decision-making
Faludi states that both substantive and procedural theories are required for planning.
This distinction was opposed by Thomas and others, because this portrays planning as non-
political and technical.
Cooke
Another distinction was made by Cooke (1983):
- Theories of the development process
- Theories of the planning process
- Theories of the state.
Allmendinger
Allmendinger created 5 categories of theories that provide a typological framework to help identify
theories in planning:
1. Exogenous theory: Theories that are not specifically concerned with planning per se, but have a
relevance for space, policy processes and governance.
2. Framing theory: Framing the understanding of planning, e.g. ‘planning doctrine’
3. Social theory: Theories that have developed from sociology, such as the structuralist approaches
(Marxism, functionalism, structuralism) and bottom-up understandings (ethnomethodology,
phenomenology)
4. Social scientific philosophical understandings: Positivism, falsification, realism, idealism.
5. Indigenous planning theory: most planning-specific theories, such as advocacy planning,
systems planning, collaborative planning.
Non-linearity in planning
“There is now a much more eclectic ‘pick and mix’ basis to theory development and planning practice that
is better seen as relating to issues, time and space in a linear and non-linear manner’
Fewer distinctions are made between theories of planning and theories in planning. It is now
possible to separate substance and procedure.
Also, time and space are key factors in spatial planning: e.g. does advocacy planning mean the same in
Scotland as it does in San Francisco? Probably not.
Both systems and rationale approaches became prominent in the 1960’s and early 1970’s.
The systems approach is concerned with the generation and evaluation of alternatives prior to making a
choice.
Rational planning: According to Faludi, rational planning makes a crucial distinction between formal
rationality (the means) and substantive rationality (the ends). Systems planning does not make this
distinction.
Systems theory still has an influence on the way how contemporary planning is approached through its
emphasis on modelling and the interrelated nature of towns and cities.
For example: most impact analyses techniques in current planning are based on the systems
approach.
Rational planning has an equally strong influence on contemporary planning, as it claims to underpin
planning with scientific and objective methods.
Andreas Faludi is one of the foremost advocates of the rational process view of planning. He agreed with
Max Weber’s concern that means should be separated from ends in planning. This is not done in systems
theory. Thinking in planning theory and practice (such as collaborative planning) nowadays largely
reverses this and instead sees both ends and means as being much more closely linked.
According to the systems approach, the combination of constraints and rationality means that systems can
be theorised, modelled and predicted. For example, Christaller’s central place theory is such a model.
However, in practice it is almost impossible to model a complex systems such as a city.
The problem of systems theory is not that the theory was doomed to fail, but that it gave planners
the illusion that they would someday be able to completely understand and control the complex
systems as a city.
Also, the role of public participation is missing in systems theory. Systems planning is namely highly
‘planner-centric’.
The main difference is that McLaughlin’s conception of a city is that what would now be
named simple (i.e. linear and predictable behaviour). The post-positivist complexity
theory instead emphasises more irregular and unpredictable behaviour.
According to Weber, there will always be a friction between the ‘facts’ (formal rationality) and the
‘politics’ (substantive rationality).
Rationality typically involves the clarification of policy goals, systematic analysis, logical generation of
policy alternatives, systematic evaluation of these alternatives and monitoring their performance.
Just like Weber, Mannheim also stated that planning should be objective and unbiased in the face of the
inevitable social and personal influences.
Also Faludi (just like Weber and Mannheim) states that the planner should take a non-ideological and
objective stance.
Differences between Rational Theory (Faludi) and Systems Theory (McLaughlin &
Chadwick)
Rational theory includes substantive theory (besides procedural theory (?))
Faludi tries to make a clear distinction between means and ends.
But there is also a critique on this part of the rational planning approach: Means and ends are
interwoven in complex situations, so they cannot be separated.
Marxist theory
A Marxist theory states than urban areas and planning cannot be treated as objects of study that are
separated from society. Rather, they are produced by the society and more fundamentally have an internal
logic and function that is primarily derived from the economic structuring forces within that society (in
most cases: capitalism). Cities, planning theory and planning are reflections of society (capitalism) and at
the same time help to constitute it.
So, Marxist analysis looks at cities being both constituent and reflective of capitalism.
Although Marxists claim that urban space is a reflection of capitalism, there is still some form of state
intervention needed. This is because of 2 reasons:
1. Capitalism cannot provide all of the conditions that it needs to make it continue. Infrastructure
in particular (roads, bridges) are not commodities like land or labour that can be bought and sold
because they involve a great deal of capital investment.
2. The dynamic of capitalism will mean that land uses will change and conflict between land-uses
will emerge.
Critical theory
Marxists began to rethink Marxism when it became clear from the experience of the Soviet style of
communism that socialism did not lead to freedom and democracy, and capitalism was much more
resilient in surviving crises than Marxists had assumed. Consequently, a new understanding of political
economy was required > Critical theory.
Critical theory was developed by the Frankfurt School, which was anti-capitalism and anti-Soviet style
communism. Instead, they were struggling for total freedom. Critical theory has a critique against closed
systems, in order to sustain capacities for criticism.
Pickvance (1982)
Pickvance states that planning has no positive powers to enforce change to happen, but only negative
powers to stop development from happening. Therefore, most planning is trend planning, which follows
market decisions. Greenbelt interventions are untypical types of planning.
This is a classical Marxist interpretation of planning.
The question now is: Are planners a part of or a solution to the problem?
According to Marxists and Critical Theorists they can be both. There are 2 broad perspectives on the
contradictory role of planners:
- Planners cannot achieve much, even if working with the market. Therefore the solution is a
stronger more positive planning
- Planners need to work with the market and capitalists in a more pragmatic way.
Harvey:
There is a spatial dimension to labour and commodity markets. People live eat and work in places, and
consequently capitalism is associated with such patterns. Capital accumulation and the production of
urbanisation go hand in hand. Capitalism will constantly seek to reduce the physical barriers to the
production surplus value of profit.
Allmendinger - Chapter 6 - Pragmatism
Both Pragmatism and neo-liberal pragmatism are highly practical approaches to planning.
Pragmatism emphasises direct action regarding specific problems that works best in a given situation or
circumstance. So: pragmatism is about getting the job done without thinking about it more broadly.
Critics: Some accuse pragmatism of being conservative and blind to deeper forces structuring
influences in society.
Pragmatism is not only about getting things done. It has developed into an approach to complex and
intractable problems based around the role of the planner and the use of language. In this aspect it has
some close parallels with the collaborative approach. But it has also some links with post-modern
thinking.
Neo-pragmatism accepts that an incremental approach that focuses on action misses inequality and
powerful relations in society. What is now called for is a more critical perspective that still focuses on
action but seeks to do so in a way that is inclusive rather than perpetuating inequality.
What is pragmatism?
Pragmatist emphasise the cultural or social influence on thoughts. Such influences provide us with
what could be terms as a mass of ideas that help to structure our thoughts.
The central role given to language in pragmatism has some similarities with the collaborative approach.
However, a big difference is the rejection of absolutes (universally valid truth) and consensus.
Thus, while pragmatists believe in the examination of truths through discourse (conversation),
collaborative theorists advocate the existence of certain absolute truths.
Critiques: Forester
Forester and other collaborative planners rejected Lindblom’s normative approach, because they
think that Lindblom lacks a critical awareness of unequal political power relations.
The individual used to have a marginal role in planning processes, because of the mediating layer of
professionals. Pragmatism addresses this issue in the person of Hoch: In pragmatism, individual
communities come together and share experiences, and thereby develop trust.
A general critique on pragmatism is that it is power blind, however, it can also be stated that it
just accepts power (inequality)
Overall pragmatism has been part of a practical approach to real problems. It is neglecting grand
theorising has also been the foundation of another school of planning theory: advocacy
planning.
Advocacy planning is associated with the work of Paul Davidoff, who argued for a deeply personal and
highly political view of planning. Such a view usually contrasted with the more apolitical, technical and
bureaucratic perspective and approach of, for example, the systems- and rational approaches. But
planning is a highly political process, as stated by Davidoff and Reiner.
Planning is about both formal (means) and the substantive (ends) rationality.
Pluralism
Davidoff’s proposal is that planners could contribute to inclusive pluralism, by providing services to
underrepresented groups.
Pluralists have never argued that power in society was equally shared. In response to a number of critics
who pointed to the more structural inequalities in society, pluralists began to pay more attention to the
inequalities of power within an increasingly pluralist political landscape.
Post-modernism
According to post-modernists, current planning is anti-democratic, race- and genderblind and culturally
homogenous. They identify 5 pillars of modernism that need to be demolished:
1. Planning is concerned with making public & political decisions more rational
2. Planning is most effective when it is done comprehensively
3. Planning is mostly a science
4. Planning is a project of state-directed futures, with the state seen as possessing and progressive
and as being separate from economy
5. Planning operates in the ‘public interest’ and planners’ education privileges them in being able to
identify what the ‘public interest’ is.
Post-modern planning theory builds upon openness and flexibility and should be ‘suspicious of any
attempt to formalize a single totalising way of knowing’. Planners should work towards a more plural and
diverse society.
Post-structuralism
While post-modernism is concerned with the wider shifts in contemporary society and the philosophy of
science that move on from modernism, post-structuralism is more specifically concerned with a rejection
of structuralism and the ways in which society is composed of much more diverse and dynamic forces.
At its core, post-structuralism rejects the idea that there are structures (economic and
social) that shape the society and our thoughts and actions.
Thus, post-structuralists argue that society is not closed or linear, but much more open,
dynamic and fluid.
Also, post-structuralists argue that spaces and places are open and engaged with other spaces
and places. Space is constituted by physical, biological, social and cultural processes that also
influence each other.
Complexity
Complexity is based on an understanding of places as being complex, open systems which are nested
spatially and relationally with other places at different scales, as well as with individuals, households,
neighbourhoods, etc. At the same time, urban systems are also linked to ecological systems. No system or
scale is privileged as changes and dynamics in any part of the system can affect other parts.
Conclusions
The influence of post-structuralism in current understandings of planning is shown by the following
quote:
“The places of cities and urban areas cannot be understood as integrated unities with a singular driving
dynamic, contained with clearly defined spatial boundaries. They are instead complex constructions created
by the interaction of actors in multiple networks who invest in material projects and who give meaning to the
quality of places. The webs of relations escape analytical attempts to ‘bound them’”
Contemporary planning has been very good at ‘opening up’ processes and thinking and postmodern and
post-structuralist approaches emphasise an ‘epistemology of multiplicity’. In such understandings there is
a breakdown between the planner and the planned. Experiences are taken as knowledge and there is a
relativist approach to validating different knowledges.
Despite attempts to improve the public involvement and widen the participation, planning processes
remain dominated by instrumental rationality, born in the enlightenment and modernity, and typified
by the systems approach to planning of McLaughlin and Faludi.
Habermas
The work of Habermas stands out as the backbone of the communicative approach and has heavily
influenced the work of those concerned with planning as a communicative process.
Giddens
Looked at interrelations and co-existence. Casper’s conclusion: so more inter-subjective.
Post-modernist arguments
Post-modernists argue that we should abandon the modernist search for ‘truth’ and instead embrace
uncertainty and agnosticism (about not-knowing everything). One of the problems of modernism is that
its instrumental rationality has crowded out other forms of thinking and knowing, and distorted the
power relationships in society.
Communicative rationality
According to Hall, a discourse is a ‘group of statements that provide a language for talking about a
particular kind of knowledge about a topic’
According to Foucault, a discourse is ‘about the production of knowledge through language, though a
discourse itself is produced by a practice - the practice of meaning’.
Post-politicisation / post-politics
Post-politics focuses on a series of techniques that postpone and displace the debate from planning into
other more managerial or technical (post-political) arenas. It is concerned with techniques and methods
that project openness and consensus through limit, displace, postpone and diffuse opposition to
development and growth in either case.
Both de-politicisation and post-politicisation highlight that contemporary planning finds itself in a
distinct era, one (?) characterised by a role for planning in managing growth in ways that avoid
conflict through a stage-managed search for consensus.
It emerged because of: it helps to explain the contradiction between, on the one hand, the
outward shifts in planning toward more open, transparent and supposedly consensus-
building approaches, and, on the other hand, the simultaneous rise in opposition to
development, conflict, antagonism and a distrusts of government and officials, including
planners themselves.
5 broad changes in the nature of planning that are highlighted by post-political analyses:
1. The broadening and fuzzing of the objectives of planning and the implications of this upon
expectations of what planning could actually achieve
2. A shift in the processes and tools of planning more broadly from antagonistic to consensus-based
politics
3. The change in nature and its professional self-identity
From reactive regulation to proactive facilitation
4. The shift to managerialism and managerial tools more generally.
As part of the vagueness and emptiness of notions such as sustainable development, a
range of new technical and managerial techniques have been developed to help determine
what actually constitutes sustainability. It helps to turn political questions into technical
questions.
5. The increasing emphasis in some planning systems on delivery.
A range of tools and strategies have been introduced to help ensure that planning not only
regulates but delivers including continued reforms driven by the search for a lighter touch,
cheaper system that provides greater certainty around development strategies and
decisions.
There is a growing realisation that within the planning domain there are aspects that can be seen
as fuzzy, fluid, illusive or unclear. If we are willing to recognise these fuzzy elements, then we
have made an important step forward in coping with fuzziness in planning.
Difficulties in controlling
Many planning authorities are experiencing difficulties in shaping their environment according to their
wishes. Developments are taking their own way instead of being guided by the authorities.
One single entity (the national government) does not have the resources to control the physical
environment in such a way that it satisfies all parties involved. More and more, issues need to be
solved in accordance with the local or regional context.
Communicative theory
The communicative theory does not see planning issues as ‘realities’ in the outside world. Instead, they
are seen as the abstract constructions of the various people involved. Through interaction among crucial
actors, each actor’s difficulties are evaluated.
This results in: A common understanding towards a commonly ‘constructed’ issue. A collective
strategy on how to deal with the issue, and a plan that turns this strategy into action.
Fuzziness
By using complexity as a criterion for decision-makers we can pinpoint a category of planning issues that
is likely to suffer most from fuzziness: these are the ‘complex’ planning issues (i.e. those in the middle)
Complexity and fuzziness are very much related: Fuzziness is a part of complexity and fuzziness
contributes to complexity.
These issues are likely to be found in between the simple issues and the very complex issues.
Here fuzziness might require explicit attention, by taking for example the actor-consulting
approach.
While under complicated conditions the fuzziness might be excluded if actors work together, this is not
possible under complex conditions.
Planners need to accept that uncertainty is real and unavoidable in complex planning processes.
Fuzziness in detail
Complexity theory (Byrne, 1998)
The degree of complexity is seen as a measure for uncertainty, which consequently adds to the difficulty of
predicting outcomes of actions and interactions.
The main concept behind fuzziness can most easily be grasped by the following: In everyday life someone
does not directly meet sets with a sharp ‘boundary line’ (i.e. at once), but often there is something like a
gradual transition between membership and non-membership.
There is multi-valence: vagueness.
Multi-valence = the state of having many values, means or appeals. (dictionary)
The opposite of fuzziness is bivalence or two-valued-ness. E.g. Boolean: true or false, 1 or 0. Fuzziness
contradicts these concepts.
Consultation is often used in theories relating to conflict resolution, but in that sense it is carried out by
the decision-maker (in public policy & planning this is an authority) to allow others affected by proposed
(policy) measures to bring forward their opinions, while it remains up to the decision-maker only to
incorporate the information gained into the final decision.
Content-related approaches
Technical rationale planning
The technical rationale planning process is straightforward: There is an issue (based on facts), a decision
is made based on these facts, a plan is developed and implemented, and this has a certain effect.
Scenario planning
In a scenario planning approach, there is again an issue based on facts. For this, several scenarios are
developed that show several futures. Based on these, a particular decision is made, and a plan is
developed. Then the plan is implemented and evaluated, which brings us back to the first step again (it is
circular)
Actor-related approaches
Actor-consulting
The actor consulting approach starts with a proposal, after which the actors are consulted. Then
information is gained from these actors about their desired contribution, their actual contribution and
their potential contribution. Based on this, general objectives are developed, and the plan is implemented.
3 dimensions
A. Object-oriented dimension (O): The physical and social reality that could be subject to policy-
based or planning-based intervention
B. Subject-based (rational) dimension (S): The actual choices made in the decision-making process
C. Intersubjective dimension (IS): The organisation and communication of, and participation in
decision-making and policy.
Command planning
Command planning is associated with strongly centralised systems of governmental power. Strict goals.
Compliance is essential.
Policies planning
Policies planning already assumes a more flexible organisation within which obtaining full information
and control is no longer a realistic option. However, goal formulation remains important, and there is
indirect control.
Corporate planning
Corporate planning emphasises the planning process rather than the realisation of targets. The results of
negotiations through which corporate planning is sustained are not determined in advance. There is a
distribution of effective power among all the participants in the bargaining process.
Participant planning
Participant planning occurs under conditions where power to implement decisions resides in community
forms of social organisation and, consequently, is dispersed. The process is central. Participation is greater
and more diverse. Also, participation is more important than results.
Framework for planning-oriented action:
Determining the degree of complexity: should parts of the issue be dealt with or should its context also
be considered? – is a decision-oriented choice in the planning process. The decision-oriented choices
therefore constitute the diagonal that extends from the upper-left quadrant to the lower-right quadrant.
The imaginary diagonal axis represents the degree of complexity, and will therefore also determine the
relationship between interaction and the scope of the goal.
Nowadays, planning issues are interpreted from the perspective of open, network systems in which actors
share their perceptions, positions and interests. As such, there are issues ranging from complex to very
complex.
Perspective is best expressed in a systems class that is still unknown to planning: the complex system.
Characteristics such as adaptation, emergence, self-organisation and co-evolution are associated with this
complex system. These characteristics are directly linked to the theme of time.
Systems in planning theory
- Class I: Unchanging systems that, in theory, can be fully known (steady-state equilibrium)
- Class II: Feedback systems, with the scenario approach as the best example of new amendments
in planning.
- Class III: Network systems that focus on the interaction between actors, rather than on how the
physical identity of the issue is represented. In this way the attention shifts from an object-
oriented and knowable reality to an intersubjective and perceived reality.
Intersubjectivity became a serious issue within planning when planners discovered those
philosophers emphasising intersubjective communication being as important as the
traditional object-oriented focus, in constructing a fair idea about reality (Habermas,
Foucault, Derrida)
Causality, entity and stability are some of the important mechanism used by our brains to understand,
structure and rationalise our orientation towards the material world.
Class IV systems enables entities in the system to maximise the benefits of stability
while also retaining a capacity to change
Beyond contemporary planning theory