Australian Geographer

ISSN: 0004-9182 (Print) 1465-3311 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cage20

Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual

history

Marcus B. Lane

To cite this article: Marcus B. Lane (2005) Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history,
Australian Geographer, 36:3, 283-299, DOI: 10.1080/00049180500325694

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180500325694

Published online: 19 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14851

View related articles

Citing articles: 59 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cage20
Australian Geographer, Vol. 36, No. 3,
pp. 283
/299, November 2005

Public Participation in Planning: an

intellectual history

MARCUS B. LANE, University of Adelaide, Australia

ABSTRACT This paper tracks the changing role of public participation in planning
thought. In doing so, the paper shows that the role of public participation in planning is
largely determined by the nature of the planning enterprise being undertaken. The
definition of the planning problem, the kinds of knowledge used in planning practice, and
the conceptualisation of the planning and decision-making context are the important
determinants of the extent of participation offered to the public. The paper therefore
contributes to thinking about how to evaluate public participation by showing that it can
only be understood in terms of the decision-making context in which it is embedded.
Specifically, it makes little sense to evaluate public participation in terms that are not
shared by the planning model itself

KEY WORDS Public participation; planning; blueprint planning; synoptic planning;

communicative rationality.

Introduction
In recent years, public participation has made a comeback. Whereas a decade ago,
the literature was replete with laments about limited opportunities for public
involvement (see, for example, Munro-Clarke 1992; Webber & Crooks 1996),
participation has become a central feature of making and implementing policy.
Indeed, government has been replaced by governance :
. . . the world has become too complex and our leaders too fallible for
anything approaching a universal good even to exist, let alone be reliably
located. The new political culture no longer places much faith in solutions
imposed from above, increasingly relying instead on a network of
decision-making relationships that link government and civil society
across many scales. (Van Driesche & Lane 2002, p. 237)
As Rose (2002, p. 1405) observes, we can now discern a host of ‘new
technologies of governance’, including governance through communities (Rose
2000; Reddel 2002), ‘Third Way’ approaches (Giddens 1998; Rose 2000),
decentralisation of governance to civil society (Fischer 2000), and public
/private
partnerships (Edwards 2001; Teisman & Klijn 2002). These approaches, while
diverse, are unified by the need to involve, variously, citizens, non-governmental

ISSN 0004-9182 print/ISSN 1465-3311 online/05/030283-17 # 2005 Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc.
DOI: 10.1080/00049180500325694
284 M. B. Lane

organisations, and social movements directly and centrally in the development and
implementation of policy (Beck 1992).
This paper tracks the changing role of public participation in planning thought.
Just as the formal role of citizens has changed, so too have concepts and theories of
urban and regional planning (see, for instance, Sandercock 1998). Apart from
tracking the correlated changes in thinking about public participation and
planning, this paper seeks to demonstrate that the role of public participation in
planning is largely determined by the nature of the planning enterprise being
undertaken. The way in which planners and policy-makers define their field and
approach their work is to a large extent indicated by the role they provide to non-
planners. The definition of the planning problem, the kinds of knowledge used in
planning practice and the conceptualisation of the planning and decision-making
context are the important determinants of the extent of participation offered to the
public.
The importance of planning practice to the type and nature of public
participation has not been widely recognised in the literature. No systematic
examination of the link between planning epistemology and public participation
has previously been made. Although there has been recognition that public
participation usually serves explicit management purposes (Painter 1992; Sander-
cock 1994), recognition that opportunities for participation may differ according to
particular conceptions of planning has not often been recognised. By correlating
various models of planning with Arnstein’s famous ‘ladder of participation’, the
paper shows that the model of planning being used determines the role of the
public.

The ladder of participation

The idea of citizen participation is a little like eating spinach: no one is
against it in principle because it is good for you. (Arnstein 1969, p. 216)
With these words Arnstein delivered her seminal critique of citizen participation in
a range of federal (US) urban planning programmes. Her analysis remains pivotal
to what continues to be one of the most central debates in the field: to what extent
are efforts to involve the public tokenistic, lacking the required degree of delegated
authority to make citizen participation meaningful? As Arnstein phrased it, ‘there is
a critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and
having the real power needed to affect the outcomes of the process’ (Arnstein 1969,
p. 216). This has been a common refrain. Sandercock (1994, p. 117), for instance,
in lamenting the failure of public participation to generate social change, and the
dominance of the ‘haves’ rather than the ‘have nots’ in planning, argued that the
demand for public participation amounted to little more than a ‘populist red
herring’ (see also Robinson 1993; Beatley et al. 1994).
The central point of these pithy criticisms was that if policy-makers and planners
seek public participation, it is necessary, indeed axiomatic, that there be a
redistribution of power (Arnstein 1969). According to this view, unless citizens
have a genuine opportunity to affect outcomes, participation is centrally concerned
with ‘therapy’ and ‘manipulation’ of participants (Arnstein 1969). Amy (1987) also
regarded power as the central variable. He argued that the distribution of power will
determine the fairness of a given process because imbalances of power create
 Public Participation in Planning 285

persistent patterns of unequal access (Amy 1987). Arnstein (1969) conceived of

power in public participation as a ladder or a spectrum ranging from ‘non-
participation’ through to ‘degrees of citizen power’. Figure 1 shows Arnstein’s
(1969) typology.
Her point, although rather simple, is of fundamental importance. There are
gradations of participation in terms of the degree of power or control participants
can exercise in seeking to shape the outcome (Arnstein 1969). Importantly,
Arnstein’s typology regards consultation (step 4) as ‘tokenism’. Towards the top of
the ladder is ‘partnership’, in which participants are able to exert a high degree of
control and power, being able to bargain and broker trade-offs with power-holders.
The rungs on the ladder serve to sensitise one to the fact that those who invite the
public to participate are able to set the terms of that participation: they can seek to
‘educate’ (step 2), ‘inform’ (3), and ‘consult’ (4), or they can delegate power
through ‘partnership’ (6) and other means.
Decision-making agencies often prefer to describe the opportunities afforded to
relevant publics as ‘consultation’. Consultation has for many years been the
dominant approach used by government agencies to gather advice from the public
about draft proposals. For those, such as Arnstein (1969) whose analysis pivots on
the power of participants, consultation is often dismissed as a tokenistic exercise
because it confers little real power (see Arnstein 1969; Pateman 1970; Dennis 1972).
Painter (1992) rejects this analysis on two grounds. First, he argues that these
models crudely conceive of power, and confuse ‘power’ with ‘powers’. He argues
that it is important to distinguish between potential and actual power. While the
ultimate, formal decision-making ‘power’ may rest with institutional decision-
makers in a consultative process, to regard this as tokenistic ignores the fact that if
the ‘exercise of influence [by participants] is effective, then this formal power is an

Citizen Control

Degrees of citizen power

7 Delegated Power

6 Partnership

5 Placation

Degrees of tokenism
4 Consultation

3 Informing

2 Therapy
Non-participation

1
Manipulation

FIGURE 1. Arnstein’s ladder of participation. Source: Arnstein (1969, p. 217).

286 M. B. Lane

TABLE 1 Conception of planning and the role for public participation

Level of participation Planning tradition Planning school Planning models

“ Citizen control Societal transformation Pluralism “ Communicative

“ Delegated power “ Bargaining
“ Partnership “ Marxist
“ Advocacy
“ Transactive
“ Placation Societal guidance Synoptic “ Mixed scanning
“ Consultation “ Incrementalism
“ Informing “ Synoptic planing
“ Therapy Societal guidance Blueprint “ Blueprint planning
“ Manipulation “ Geddes, Howard
“ Precinct planners

Source : Compiled by the author from Arnstein (1969), Friedmann (1987), and Hall (1992).

empty shell’ (Painter 1992, p. 23). He argues therefore that formal powers are a
significant dimension of consultation and participation, but that understanding
power requires an assessment of outcomes, rather than simply resting on an
analysis of relative power prior to the occurrence of relevant interactions.
The second criticism Painter (1992) levels at these analyses is that they tend to
assume decision-making in policy-making and planning occurs at a single, final
point in the process. Such a mistake, ‘which is encouraged by the conflation of
participation and power’, ignores the fact that there is rarely an identifiable, or
single, ‘point of decision’ in policy-making. As he points out, the
decisive events and contributions might come at any point . . . in
policy-making, from setting the agenda, defining problems, collecting
information and analysing it, identifying and selecting possible options,
legitimising the preferred option by a formal decision, through to
implementation and evaluating outcomes. (Painter 1992, p. 24).
To assert, therefore, that genuine participation is only achieved by having power in
decision-making ignores the range of benefits which may be associated with being
consulted throughout other stages in policy-making and planning. Dialogue and
information exchange, which Arnstein (1969) regards as tokenistic, pre-judges the
outcome of such interaction (Painter 1992).
The principal utility of this debate in this context is that it reveals that any
analysis of public participation in planning must be concerned with both formal
and informal policy-making arenas. It also demonstrates that participation in
planning can involve the exercise of both formal and informal power. In addition, it
suggests that the uses to which public participation can be put depend on the
nature of the decision-making processes that they are meant to serve. This
conclusion should cause us, therefore, to examine our models of planning. The
model of planning, including conceptualisations of the task of the planner and
the nature of the planning environment, are of fundamental importance to defining
the role of public participation.
 Public Participation in Planning 287

Conceptions of planning
In order to validate the link between public participation and models of planning, a
systematic interrogation of major planning models needs to be made. Table 1
correlates various approaches to planning to the Arnstein typology. It applies three
levels of classification to planning (tradition, school, and model) and relates these
to the rungs on Arnstein’s ladder.
At the highest level of resolution, Table 1 distinguishes between two planning
traditions. This conceptual classification of the history of planning thought was
devised by Friedmann (1987), who distinguishes between two competing tradi-
tions: planning as a form of societal guidance , in which the state adopts a pivotal role,
and planning as societal transformation , whose principal intellectual premise is that
the state and other institutions need to be transformed in order that the conditions
of others can be ameliorated.
At the intermediate level of resolution, Table 1 refers to a number of ‘schools’
which have enjoyed influence over planning practice for a period before being
usurped by alternative approaches. The term ‘school’ is used to refer to an
approach to planning with a single, although often broad intellectual basis from
which particular planning methods or models are derived. The schools referred to
are, following Hall (1992), blueprint planning, systems or synoptic planning and,
more recently, theoretical pluralism (see also Forester 1989).
The final and lowest level of resolution in Table 1 is the planning model. A
planning model consists of a set of principles and assumptions about the planning
process that together form the basis of planning practice. The models considered
here are (1) the pioneers of the blueprint school, Geddes and Howard, as well as
the Blueprint model itself, (2) the synoptic approach and its variations (incre-
mentalism, and mixed scanning), and (3) the range of approaches which
characterise the contemporary era: advocacy, transactive, Marxist, bargaining and
communicative planning.

Blueprint planning: early conceptions of planning without public

participation
Howard and Geddes have been identified as two of the earliest and most influential
early thinkers in planning (Hall 1992). Howard, living in rapidly growing urban-
industrial London in the late nineteenth century, was responsible for the garden-
city concept that remains influential in urban planning. The concept, as Howard
proposed it, was to decentralise industry from the city and to develop a new town
around the decentralised plant (Hall 1992). In this way, Howard proposed to
integrate employment with a healthy environment. His idea was to integrate the
best aspects of town and country (Hall 1992).
Geddes was arguably the most influential of all of the early thinkers. His
contributions, which have been both dramatic and persistent, relate to the scale and
method of planning. With regard to scale, Geddes argued that planning had to
proceed following close study of settlement patterns. Such an analysis, he argued,
suggested that the scale of planning needed to extend beyond the town, to the
‘natural region’ (Hall 1992, p. 49). The notion of regional planning was born. In
relation to method, Hall (1992, p. 59) suggests that Geddes ‘gave planning a logical
structure’ by developing the survey-analysis-plan sequence of planning. According
288 M. B. Lane

to this method, which, as we shall see, is the cornerstone of the rational-

comprehensive approach, the planning sequence involves: a survey of the region,
an analysis of the survey, and finally the development of the plan.
In attempting to pass verdict on the pioneers of planning, Hall (1992) notes their
central concern with the production of blueprints or fixed master plans. He
suggests that early planners:
were far less concerned with planning as a continuous process which had
to accommodate subtle and changing forces in the outside world. Their
vision seems to have been that of the planner as the omniscient ruler, who
should create new settlement forms . . . without interference or question.
The complexities of planning in a mixed economy where private interests
will initiate much of the development . . . or in a participatory democracy
where individuals and groups have their own, often contradictory, notions
of what should happen */all of these are absent from the work of these
pioneers. (Hall 1992, p. 61)
Blueprint planning owes much to the contributions of Howard, Geddes et al.
Codification and the ‘creation of the post-war planning machine’ was demanded by
the dramatic problems posed by rapid urbanisation and industrialisation between
the wars and by the need for urban reconstruction following World War II (Hall
1992). Codification of these blueprint ideas is responsible for establishing much of
what we now take for granted as the planning apparatus of contemporary western
governments.
Faludi (1973, p. 131) defines blueprint planning as ‘an approach whereby a
planning agency operates a programme thought to attain its objectives with
certainty’. The blueprint mode is concerned with the generation of fixed end-state
plans. The ends are assumed (by the planner), and the art and science of planning
is concerned with the pursuit of these ends (Hall 1983; Webber 1983). The failure
of the blueprint planners to even consider which ends it were that society wished
pursued was a source of persistent critique (Hall 1983). As Webber (1983, p. 91)
argues, ‘the classical planning model . . . will not work in the absence of agreement
on objectives’.
Faludi (1973, pp. 33
/4) summarised the criticisms made of blueprint planning
as being concerned with ‘gross-simplification and heavy-handedness’. The assump-
tions made by blueprint planners about the predictability of the world in which they
worked required them to have complete certainty (Faludi 1973). This requirement
for certainty caused planners to proceed on the basis of simplifying the world
around them. Later analysts (see Hall 1983; Webber 1983) were to conclude that
long-term predictions are impossible, and the failure of the predictions of the
blueprint planner was an important basis for critique.
Implementation of the blueprint planners’ desired end state also required high
degrees of control. Hall (1983) suggests that the requirement for high degrees of
control did not allow this approach to planning to cope with decentralised political
systems. He adds that a further failure of the blueprint mode was its failure to
recognise that the achievement of agreed goals and reconciling tensions between
means and ends were central (rather than peripheral) dimensions to the work of the
planner (Hall 1983).
The early traditions of blueprint planning included no scope whatever for the
participation of the public, except, of course, for expressions of approval or dissent
 Public Participation in Planning 289

lodged at election time. Providing citizens a voice in determining the ends and
means of planning was contrary to the basic conceptions of blueprint planning. At
its heart, blueprint planning assumes science to be all seeing and the planner
omnipotent.
Although it is generally acknowledged that blueprint planning was overthrown
in the early 1960s, two important dimensions of these early conceptions of planning
remain important to the subsequent and contemporary practice of planning.
The ethic of planning as apolitical and the concept of a single, unified public
interest (Kiernan 1983) remain important issues in contemporary debates about
planning theory and practice. These legacies have played an important role in
retarding the opportunities for pubic involvement in subsequent conceptions of
planning.

Planning with ‘tokenistic’ public participation: the synoptic model

Perhaps the single most important ‘revolution’ in planning thought occurred in the
late 1950s and 1960s when, in the US and then in Britain, systems or synoptic
planning usurped blueprint planning (McLoughlin 1969; Hall 1983). Hall suggests
that the changes in urban geography wrought by the increase in private automobile
use forced planners to deal with problems at a ‘previously unparalleled scale’ (Hall
1983, p. 42). The new problems of scale forced planners to examine
. . . problems from a systems viewpoint, using conceptual or mathematical
models relating ends (objectives) to means (resources and constraints),
with heavy reliance on numbers and quantitative analysis. (Hudson 1979,
p. 389)
Although synoptic planning represented, at one level, a continuance of the
rational-comprehensive paradigm, at another level it represented a sharp and
important departure from blueprint planning. As Hudson (1979) notes, synoptic
planning remains the starting-point for a number of variant approaches that
developed from critical analyses its shortcomings.

Synoptic planning
The central elements of the original synoptic model of planning are: (1) an
enhanced emphasis on the specification of goals and targets; (2) an emphasis on
quantitative analysis and prediction of the environment; (3) a concern to identify
and evaluate alternative policy options; and (4) the evaluation of means against
ends (Hudson 1979; Hall 1983).
Despite the important criticisms that have been levelled at synoptic planning,
it remains a viable approach. Hudson (1979, p. 389) explains its persistence thus:
. . . the real power of the synoptic approach is its basic simplicity. The
fundamental issues addressed */ends, means, tradeoffs, action-taking */
enter into virtually any planning endeavour. Alternative schools of
planning can nitpick at the methodological shortcomings of the synoptic
approach, or challenge its particular historical applications, or take issue
with its circumscribed logic, yet the practical tasks it encompasses must be
addressed in some form by even its most adamant critics.
290 M. B. Lane

It was in the context of systems planning that the calls for public participation in
planning were first heard (Faludi 1973). Hall (1983) notes that consultation
conducted by British planning authorities (following legislative change in 1968)
became part of a systematic process, led by the professional planner, in the
development of the goals and objectives of the planning. This represents, he argues,
a fundamental shift in the role of the planner, and his/her relationship with the
public (Hall 1983). Although the ‘benign, omniscient scientist-planner’ was
(arguably) consigned to history, public participation was constrained to providing
a commentary on the goals of planning.
Importantly, the synoptic ideal still clung to the notion of a unitary public
interest. In Faludi’s terms, the synoptic model’s image of society was a ‘holistic’
one, implying homogeneity of interest (Faludi 1973). The importance of unitary
public interest model is that it assumes that ‘the goals of planning are essentially
universally shared and transcend any special, sectional interests’ (Kiernan 1983, p.
77). For others, it is axiomatic that there exists a pluralistic distribution of both
power and interest (Friedmann 1973; McDonald 1989). The importance of this
notion lies in its consensual, rather than conflictual, societal image that obscures
the fact that planning is fundamentally distributional and that there are both costs
and benefits of planning interventions which are disproportionately shared among
all classes and groups in society (Kiernan 1983).
This has three implications for the role of public participation in planning. First,
it immediately reduces the imperative for, and importance of, public participation.
The assumption that society is homogenous means that participation is only
required to validate and legitimise the goals of planning. Second, the ideology of
homogeneity tends to uncritically legitimise planning activities and objectives
(Kiernan 1983). Finally, the unitary interest tends to de-legitimise and stigmatise
objections to planning proposals as parochial (Kiernan 1983; see also Gariepy
1991).

Incrementalism
The architect of incrementalist variant of synoptic planning, the so-called
‘disjointed incrementalist’ approach, was Lindblom (1959). Lindblom argued
that the rational model was: (1) poorly adapted to man’s intellectual capacities and
to the adequacy of information; (2) not cognisant of the relationship between facts
and values in policy-making; (3) not capable of coping with the range of relevant
variables; and (4) not adapted to the diverse circumstances in which policy
problems arise (Lindblom 1959; see also Faludi 1973).
Lindblom’s (1959) critique of the rational-comprehensive paradigm was
centrally concerned with its impractical nature. The incremental approach, by
contrast, provided a relevant and practical guide to decision-making (Lindblom
1959). ‘Muddling through’ meant: (1) making margin-dependent choices; (2)
choosing from a restricted range of policy alternatives and a restricted range of
consequences; (3) continuously adjusting policy objectives; (4) a reconstructive
treatment of data; (5) serial analysis and evaluation; and (6) remedial orientation
and evaluation (Lindblom 1959; Faludi 1973). According to Lindblom (1959, p.
87), ‘successive limited comparison is, then, indeed a method or system; it is not a
failure of method for which administrators ought to apologise’.
 Public Participation in Planning 291

For this normative prescription, Lindblom was accused of a conservative bias

(Alexander 1986). He was not, however, an uncritical advocate, suggesting that
decisions taken according to this method ‘will continue to be as foolish as they are
wise’ (Lindblom 1959, p. 88). Twenty years later, Lindblom (1979) re-asserted his
view that incrementalist analysis, although limited, remained an effective and
pragmatic analytical formula. The task was, indeed, to develop ‘new and improved
muddling’ (Lindblom 1979, p. 517).
Implicit in the model, as Hudson (1979) acknowledges, are the influences of
institutions and actors from outside the formal policy-making arena. The
incrementalist approach therefore acknowledges a plurality of interests rather
than a unitary interest, and it is prepared to accept limited decentralisation of
policy-making. Plans are the product of this push and tug, as well as political and
information constraints and the experience and intuition of the planner (Hudson
1979). Lindblom calls it the ‘science of muddling through’, observing that it entails
a different conception of decision-making:
. . . agencies will want among their own personnel two types of
diversification: administrators whose thinking is organized by reference
to policy chains other than those familiar to most members of the
organization and, even more commonly, administrators whose profes-
sional or personal values or interests create diversity of view . . . so that,
even within a single agency, decision-making can be fragmen-
ted . . . (Lindblom 1959, p. 88)
While public participation under incremental planning is largely restricted to
consultation, the decentralised, pluralistic nature of incrementalism provides a
mechanism for incorporation (however informally) of other actors. This repre-
sented, as far as both conceptions of public participation and planning are
concerned, an important shift.

Mixed scanning
The ‘mixed scanning’ approach, like incrementalism, represented a variation from
rigid applications of the synoptic model (Alexander 1986). It was also an approach
seen to be more versatile and which would overcome the central problem with the
incremental approach: that the alternatives considered only marginally differed
from the status quo (Faludi 1973; Alexander 1986). The approach also overcame
the problem of information overload created by the requirement to consider all
alternatives in pursuit of the goal of rational decision-making (Faludi 1973).
The model was developed by Etzioni (1968), who suggested that decision-
making could occur at both the tactical and strategic levels. While the incremental
mode might be appropriate at the tactical level, there was also a need, he argued, for
a broader, more strategic picture. He suggested, therefore, that organisations
should scan their environments over different decision-making levels, choosing
from both tactical operational issues and fundamental strategic choices (Alexander
1986). In this way, planning and decision-making could be both functional and
normative (after Faludi 1973). Despite Etzioni’s contribution, some observers
suggested that both incrementalism and mixed scanning were merely alternative
technologies to synoptic planning and did not resolve its fundamental flaws (Healey
et al. 1982).
292 M. B. Lane

Mixed scanning was not concerned with achieving consensus within the planning
community about the goals of planning or with reconciling competing objectives
between particular actors. As a variant of the rational-comprehensive paradigm,
therefore, mixed scanning was an approach to planning in which the planner
remained firmly in control. The role for citizen participation remained limited, and
as we shall see, it was not until the later 1960s and early 1970s that a serious
challenge to the centrality of the planner and the unitary public interest model was
made (Hall 1983).

Summary: synoptic planning and public participation

Synoptic planning, which dominated planning in the 1960s, generally represented a
continuation of the rational-comprehensive paradigm, albeit in a modified form.
Importantly, in terms of the objectives of this paper, synoptic planning was the
starting-point for more pragmatic planning models (notably incrementalism and
mixed scanning) that provided more substantial opportunities for public participa-
tion. The two most important developments in the period of synoptic planning as
far as participation is concerned were (1) the institutionalisation of a limited role for
public comment in planning and (2) the inclusion of actors from outside the formal
policy-making arena in the incremental mode of planning. Both of these represent
important changes in the context of planning thought. With the advent of systems
planning, public participation has become an orthodox element of planning
activity.
Despite these important intellectual departures from previous conceptions of
planning, two central concepts of the rational comprehensive paradigm remained
firmly embedded in planning practice: planning as distinct from politics and the
unitary public interest model (Kiernan 1983; Beauregard 1989). These concepts,
Kiernan argues, persisted despite the changes occurring within theoretical
discourse. The persistence of antipolitical planning ideologies and the unitary
public interest model ensured that the important intellectual changes advocated in
the synoptic and incrementalist approaches did not result in new opportunities for
public participation until the 1970s.

The search for a new paradigm: theoretical pluralism

By the late 1960s, the trenchant criticisms of the rational-comprehensive paradigm
had begun to precipitate new models of planning (McDonald 1989; Friedmann &
Kuester 1994). A single, unifying model of planning was not to emerge, however.
Instead, a range of new approaches were suggested, all of which shared the
common goal of overcoming the many and varied criticisms which had been
levelled at the synoptic ideal. All of them */transactive, advocacy, Marxist,
bargaining, and communicative accounts */are best understood as emerging from
the social transformation planning tradition, rather than the increasingly jaded
social guidance tradition (Friedmann & Kuester 1994).

Transactive planning
Transactive planning theory was developed by Friedmann (1973) as a response to
failures of synoptic planning. Rather than planning for an amorphous, ill-defined
 Public Participation in Planning 293

public, transactive planning proposes face-to-face contact with the planning

community. Reflecting Friedmann’s (1973) perspective of planning as
linking knowledge to action, planning from the transactive perspective does not
rely on orthodox empirical techniques but rather relies on interpersonal dialogue
in which ideas are validated through action (Friedmann 1994). In keeping with
the conservative social learning school of the social transformation tradition
(Friedmann 1987), a central objective of transactive planning is mutual
learning. Instead of pursuing specific functional objectives, transactive planning
places greater emphasis on personal and institutional development (Friedmann
1994).
In terms of opportunities for participation, transactive planning is far removed
from earlier models. Not only is the participation of the planning community
integral to the planning method, but an important goal is to decentralise planning
institutions by empowering people to direct and control social processes which
determine their welfare (Hudson 1979; see also Friedmann 1992). Participation
and empowerment, according to this concept of planning, become goals to be
attained rather than methods to be used. In terms of the scope and role of public
participation, transactive planning broke new ground. The professional planner
became a conduit for information dissemination and feedback and the public were
encouraged to actively engage in policy and planning processes. A new era for
public participation had begun.

Advocacy planning
Advocacy planning can similarly be understood as a response to the failings of the
synoptic model. In the case of advocacy planning, the central issue being addressed
is the ‘image of society’ (after Faludi 1973, p. 137). The advocacy model assumed
social and political pluralism (Faludi 1973; Mazziotti 1982). The original
statement on advocacy planning was made by Davidoff (1965), although a more
sophisticated description is provided by Mazziotti (1982).
The central tenets upon which advocacy planning is built are: (1) there is a
profound inequality of bargaining power between groups; (2) there is unequal
access to the political structure; and (3) there are large numbers of people who are
unorganised and therefore unrepresented by interest groups (Mazziotti 1982).
These inequalities are the foundation for the objective of advocacy: to aspire to
equality of representation and accommodation of all people in planning processes
(Davidoff 1965). Advocacy planning therefore falls within the radical social
transformation tradition by being concerned with advocating the interests of less
articulate actors in the cause of seeking social change to improve the conditions of
the disenfranchised.
In terms of participation, advocacy planning represents an important break from
the traditions of the past. Public participation became a fundamental objective,
rather than a marginal planning technique. The essence of advocacy was to ensure
that unheard or invisible interests were articulated and, as far as possible,
accommodated in decision-making. Implicit in the approach is the rejection of
the notion of a unitary public interest. Beginning with the assumption of political
plurality, advocacy planners are essentially facilitators whose central task is to either
catalyse the participation of inarticulate actors or, alternatively, advocate their
interests directly.
294 M. B. Lane

Marxist approaches to planning

Hall (1983) suggests that the brief Marxist ascendancy in planning theory was the
result of the increasing problems of large urban-industrial areas and the power-
lessness of planners to respond. The conclusion of those confronting these issues
was that only a grass-roots challenge to the capitalist state would accomplish
meaningful change (Paris 1982; Hall 1983). According to this view, the capitalist
state and mode of production were primarily responsible for the inequitable
distribution of money, status, and power, and it was this failure of distribution that
was the fundamental source of the inner-city malaise (Harvey 1973; Davies 1982).
The dominant tradition of Marxist thought in planning emphasised the
importance of academic analysis and critique of planning (Hall 1983). In part,
this emphasis reflected a central dimension of the Marxian analysis: the planning
system was a construct of the capitalist state and therefore reflected views of the
dominant class structures produced by capitalism (Davies 1982). Planning,
therefore, ultimately served the capitalist state (Davies 1982). Marxists explained
the persistence of technical approaches to planning in the face of their political
(distributional) analyses by suggesting that ‘anti-political ideologies’ (Kiernan
1983) allowed them to side-step the distributional issues and affirm their claim to
professionalism (Davies 1982).
There was no scope for public participation in Marxist analyses of planning.
Although the raison d’être of this approach was the amelioration of the lives of the
impoverished and disenfranchised, no role was provided for the public. The logical
explanation for this lies in the tradition’s concern with procedural rather than
substantive theory (Hall 1983). The tradition offered almost nothing in the way of
prescription. This focus on critique meant that the approach had little to offer the
practising planner (Hall 1983). In terms of public participation, while the Marxists
advocated grass-roots action, they offered no suggestions for coping with the
dominance of the ‘haves’ rather than the ‘have nots’ in planning.

Bargaining
As McDonald (1989, p. 333) observes, the failure of the synoptic ideal left
‘planners struggling to find a new paradigm’. The unifying feature of subsequent
theorising has been the view that planning is an element of policy-making, rather
than a separate technical field (Faludi 1987; McDonald 1989). This policy or
decision-making approach to planning is responsible for bequeathing the bargain-
ing model (Dorcey 1986; McDonald 1989). This approach asserted that bargain-
ing, within the parameters established by legal and political institutions, was the
most important aspect to decision-making in mixed economies (Dorcey 1986;
McDonald 1989).
Bargaining is used in this context to mean a transaction between two or more
parties that establishes ‘what each shall give and take or perform and receive’
(Dorcey 1986, p. 83). According to this view, planning the decisions is the product
of give and take between active participants involved in the planning process. This
model therefore eschews the antipolitical ideologies of earlier models and
recognises the fundamental political nature of planning. Like advocacy and Marxist
planners, the bargaining school recognises the uneven distribution of power to
bargain but insists that the plural nature of most planning situations means that all
 Public Participation in Planning 295

participants have the capacity to influence decisions ‘even if it is only to vote, to

embarrass, to provide information, to demonstrate or to block decisions’
(McDonald 1989, p. 333).
The participation of interested citizens was fundamental to the bargaining
analysis of planning. However, unlike some of the other planning approaches
considered here, bargaining is less of a normative model of planning and more a
substantive analysis of the decision-making process. This is a crucial distinction.
Whereas, in normative models, such as the synoptic ideal, public participation has a
particular function, such as the provision of information to the planner, according
to the bargaining analysis the participation of actors is the principle ingredient of
decision-making. Whereas public participation is a decision-making adjunct in the
former, according to the latter analysis, participation is the central dynamic in
decision-making.

Communicative theory
Healey (1992, p. 157) argues that these forms of ‘power-broking planning’ did not
aid the creation of an ‘inventive form of environmental planning’. In particular, she
argues that these approaches
treat interest as a source of power, bargaining with others to create a
calculus which expresses the power relations among the participants. Its
language is that of prevalent political power games. It is not underpinned
by any effort at ‘learning about’ the interests and perceptions of the
participants and with that knowledge, revising what each participant
thinks about each other’s and their own interests. (Healey 1992, p. 157).
Herein lies the central conceptual development proffered by communicative theory.
The declining authority of scientific-rationalism forced a reconsideration of the
nature and role of reason (Healey 1992; Hillier 1993; Giddens 1994). The
communicative perspective is largely built on a converging set of ideas: Habermas’s
(1984, 1987) notion of communicative rationality, Dryzek’s (1990) concept of
discursive democracy, and Giddens’ (1994) notion of dialogic democracy.
Following Habermas (1987), Healey (1992), p. 150) summarises the commu-
nicative perspective thus:
. . . far from giving up on reason as an organising principle for
contemporary societies, we should shift perspective from an individua-
lised, subject-oriented conception of reason, to reasoning formed within
inter-subjective communication (see also Dryzek 1990; Giddens 1994)
Rationality is thus expanded to include all the ways in which people come to
‘understand and know things and use that knowledge in acting’ (Healey 1992,
p. 150; Hillier 1995). If planning activity is focused on inter-subjective argumenta-
tion, an understanding of the concerns of individual actors may be achieved.
Moreover, by recognising that the concerns of an individual actor may be
personally, societally, and culturally situated, inter-subjective communication can
help actors ‘understand each other’ (Healey 1992; Hillier 1993). Importantly, this
approach to planning recognises the existence of differing types of rationality.
The communicative approach to planning infers a substantial role for public
participation. The importance of inter-subjective communication to the commu-
296 M. B. Lane

nicative model is that it demands forms of participation that provide forums for
dialogue, argumentation and discourse (Hillier 1993; Healey 1996). It is also
concerned with broadening the range of actors (and their concerns) that are viewed
as legitimate in planning (Hillier 1995). Public participation in communicative
planning must be concerned with more than consultation and placation; instead,
public participation in communicative theory is likely to involve negotiation,
bargaining, and debate (Dryzek 1990; Giddens 1994; Healey 1996).
Moreover, participation is, according to communicative perspectives, funda-
mental to planning. To plan , according to this view, is to communicate, argue,
debate, and engage in discourse for the purpose of ‘organising attention to the
possibilities for action’ (Forester 1989, p. 19). In communicative planning,
therefore, without the involvement of concerned actors, planning cannot proceed.

Summary: participation and theoretical pluralism

Since the hypothesised demise of synoptic planning, planners have flirted with a
variety of new ideas and approaches. Although described as a theoretically plural
era (Hall 1992), a number of important tendencies have emerged. With the
exception of transactive planning, all contemporary schools begin with substantive
theoretical explanations, rather than the development of normative models.
Although Marxist conceptions were criticised for lacking prescriptive force, the
insistence on description of social and political realities has seen planning thought
merge with policy analysis and other social sciences, and begin to overcome the
criticisms and failures of past models.
In terms of participation, the important characteristics of recent thought are:
(1) All schools in the contemporary era emphasise the political quality of planning.
Clearly, such a view is concomitant with planning as a component of policy
analysis essentially concerned with decision-making. Recognition of the
political (ideological and distributional) dimensions of planning demands an
active role for the public.
(2) An important change that can be traced to Lindblom’s (1959) seminal analysis
and to the work of Etzioni (1968) is the assumption of political plurality.
Whereas earlier models assumed a holistic society (after Faludi 1973) and a
unitary public interest, the contemporary era assumes society to be atomistic
and the interests of individual actors to be varied, competing, and even
contradictory. Again, this assumption is central to a far greater role for
participation in planning.
(3) A final and crucial characteristic of the contemporary era pertains to the
function of participation. Whereas participation was previously considered a
decision-making adjunct, all schools of the contemporary era view participation
as a fundamental element of planning and decision-making.

Conclusion
Thinking about what planning is, and how to do it effectively, has changed
dramatically. Conceptions of planning have changed from the highly normative,
rational models emphasising the pre-eminent role of the planner, the application of
scientific method and logic, and future desired end-state blueprints that dominated
 Public Participation in Planning 297

in the early part of the last century (Friedmann 1993). With the collapse of the
synoptic ideal and the profound challenge of post-modernism, thinkers in the field
have ‘struggled to find a new paradigm’ (Beauregard 1989, p. 393; McDonald
1989). In the theoretical pluralism of the contemporary era, a number of tendencies
have emerged: the political nature of planning, the atomistic and competing
interests of stakeholders, and decisions as negotiated outcomes facilitated and
mediated by the planner (Friedmann 1994; Beauregard 1989).
This review shows that the model of planning being used is the fundamental
determinant of the role of public. The definition of the planning problem, the kinds
of knowledge used in planning practice, and the conceptualisation of the planning
and decision-making context determine the extent of participation offered to the
public. One of the problems that has bedevilled the literature on participation*/
since Arnstein’s widely used ladder metaphor */is how to evaluate the success or
effectiveness of public participation efforts. What this historical review shows is that
public participation can only be understood in terms of the decision-making
context in which it is embedded. It makes little sense to evaluate public
participation in terms that are not shared by the planning model itself. Of course,
it might be that the planning model is inappropriate for the circumstances; this,
however, is an entirely different question.

Correspondence : Marcus B. Lane, Geographical and Environmental Studies,

University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. E-mail: marcus.lane@
adelaide.edu.au

REFERENCES
ALEXANDER, E.R. (1986) Approaches to planning: introducing current planning theories, concepts
and issues , Gordon & Breach Science, New York.
AMY, D.J. (1987) The politics of environmental mediation , Columbia University Press, New
York.
ARNSTEIN, S.R. (1969) ‘Ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of American Institute of
Planners 35, pp. 216
/24.
BEATLEY, T., BROWER, D.J. & LUCY, W.H. (1994) ‘Representation in comprehensive
planning: an analysis of the Austinplan process’, Journal of the American Planning
Association 60, pp. 185
/96.
BEAUREGARD, R.A. (1989) ‘Between modernity and postmodernity: the ambiguous position
of US planning’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 7, pp. 381
/95.
BECK, U. (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity, Sage, London.
DAVIDOFF, P. (1965) ‘Advocacy and pluralism in planning’, Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 31, pp. 331
/8.
DAVIES, J.G. (1982) ‘The Oppression of progress’, in Paris, C. (ed.) Critical readings in
planning theory, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 119
/23.
DENNIS, N. (1972) Public participation and planners blight , Faber & Faber, London.
DORCEY, A.J. (1986) Bargaining in the governance of Pacific Coastal Resources: Research and
Reform , Westwater Research Centre, Vancouver.
DRYZEK, J.S. (1990) Discursive democracy: politics, policy and political science , Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
EDWARDS, M. (2001) ‘Public Sector Governance */Future Issues for Australia’, Australian
Journal of Public Administration 61, pp. 51
/61.
ETZIONI, A. (1968) The active society: a theory of societal and political rocesses , Free Press, New
York.
298 M. B. Lane

FALUDI, A. (1973) A reader in planning theory, Pergamon, Oxford.

FALUDI, A. (1987) A decision-centered view of environmental planning, Pergamon, Oxford.
FISCHER, F. (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment , Duke University Press, Durham,
NC.
FORESTER, J. (1989) Planning in the face of power , University of California Press, Berkeley.
FRIEDMANN, J. (1973) Retracking America: a theory of transactive planning , Doubleday
Anchor, New York.
FRIEDMANN, J. (1987) Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action , Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
FRIEDMANN, J. (1992) Empowerment: The politics of alternative development , Blackwell,
Cambridge.
FRIEDMANN, J. (1993) ‘Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning’, Journal of the America
Planning Association 59, pp. 482
/5.
FRIEDMANN, J. (1994) ‘The utility of non-Euclidean planning’, Journal of the American
Planning Association 60, pp. 377
/9.
FRIEDMANN, J. & KUESTER, C. (1994) ‘Planning education for the late twentieth century: an
initial inquiry’, Journal of Planning Education and Research 14, pp. 55
/64.
GARIEPY, M. (1991) ‘Toward a dual-influence system: assessing the effects of public
participation in environmental impact assessment for Hydro-Quebec Projects’, Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Review 11, pp. 353
/74.
GIDDENS, A. (1994) Beyond left and right: the future of radical politics , Polity Press, Oxford,
UK.
GIDDENS, A. (1998) The third way: the renewal of social democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge,
MA.
HABERMAS, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action I. reason and the rationalisation of
society, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
HABERMAS, J. (1987) The theory of communicative action II. Lifeworld and the system , Beacon
Press, Boston, MA.
HALL, P. (1983) ‘The Anglo-American connection: rival rationalities in planning theory and
practice, 1955
/1980’, Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design 10, pp. 41
/6.
HALL, P. (1992) Urban and regional planning (3rd edition), Routledge, London.
HARVEY, D. (1973) Social justice and the city, London, Edward Arnold.
HEALEY, P. (1992) ‘Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory’,
Town Planning Review 63, pp. 143
/62.
HEALEY, P. (1996) ‘The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for
spatial strategy formation’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23, pp. 217
/
34.
HEALEY, P., MCDOUGALL, G. & THOMAS, M.J. (1982) ‘Theoretical debates in planning:
towards a coherent dialogue’, in Healy, P., McDougall, G. & Thomas, M.J. (eds) Planning
theory: prospects for the 1980s , Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 5
/23.
HILLIER, J. (1993) ‘To boldly go where no planners have ever . . .’, Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space 11, pp. 89
/113.
HILLIER, J. (1995) ‘The unwritten law of planning theory: common sense’, Journal of
Planning Education and Research 14, pp. 292
/6.
HUDSON, B.M. (1979) ‘Comparison of current planning theories: counterparts and
contradictions’, Journal of American Planning Association 45, pp. 387
/98.
KIERNAN, M.J. (1983) ‘Ideology, politics, and planning: reflections on the theory and
practice of urban planning’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 10, pp. 71
/
87.
LINDBLOM, C.E. (1959) ‘The science of ‘muddling through’’, Public Administration Review
19, pp. 78
/88.
LINDBLOM, C.E. (1979) ‘Still muddling, not yet through’, Public Administration Review 39,
pp. 517
/26.
MAZZIOTTI, D.F. (1982) ‘The underlying assumptions of advocacy planning: pluralism and
reform, in Paris, C. (ed.) Critical readings in planning theory, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 207
/
27.
MCDONALD, G.T. (1989) ‘Rural resource land use planning decisions by bargaining’,
Journal of Rural Studies 5, pp. 325
/55.
 Public Participation in Planning 299

MCLOUGHLIN, B. (1969) Urban and regional planning: a systems approach , Faber, London.
MUNRO-CLARKE, M. (ed.) (1992) Citizen participation in government , Hale & Ironmonger,
Sydney.
PAINTER, M. (1992) ‘Participation and power’, in Munro-Clarke, M. (ed.) Citizen
participation in government , Hale & Ironmonger, Sydney, pp. 21
/36.
PARIS, C. (1982) ‘Introduction’, in Paris, C. (ed.) Critical readings in planning theory,
Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 3
/13.
PATEMAN, C. (1970) Participation and emocratic theory, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
REDDEL, T. (2002) ‘Beyond participation, hierarchies, management and markets: ‘new’
governance and place policies’, Australian Journal of Public Administration 61, pp. 50
/63.
ROBINSON, D. (1993) ‘Public participation in environmental decision-making’, Environ-
mental Planning and Law Journal 10, pp. 320
/40.
ROSE, N. (2000) ‘Community, citizenship, and the third way’, American Behavioral Scientist
43, pp. 1395
/411.
SANDERCOCK, L. (1994) ‘Citizen participation: the new conservatism’, in Sarkissian, W &
Perglut, D. (eds) The community participation handbook: resources for public involvement in the
planning process (2nd edition), Institute for Science and Technology Policy in association
with Impacts Press, Murdoch, pp. 7
/16.
SANDERCOCK, L. (1998) Towards cosmopolis , Wiley, Chichester, UK.
TEISMAN, G.R. & KLIJN, E.H. (2002) ‘Partnership arrangements: governmental rhetoric or
Governance Scheme?’, Public Administration Review 62, pp. 197
/205.
VAN DRIESCHE, J. & LANE, M.B. (2002) ‘Conservation by conversation: collaborative
planning for reuse of a former military property in Sauk County, Wisconsin’, Planning
Theory and Practice 3, pp. 133
/53.
WEBBER, M. & CROOKS, M.L. (eds) (1996) Putting the people last: government, services and
rights in Victoria , Hyland House, Melbourne.
WEBBER, M.M. (1983) ‘The myth of rationality: development planning reconsidered’,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 10, pp. 89
/99.