Planning Theory - Summary Literature

Allmendinger - Chapter 1 - What is Theory?

There are theories of planning, which are about why it exists and what it does
There are theories in planning, which are about how to go about planning

The nature of theory

Theory is a diffuse phenomenon. There are only some general ideas of what it means:
- Theory is an explanatory supposition which can be defined broadly or narrowly.
- The key element of theory is that it abstracts a few characteristics of reality in an attempt to
isolate and describe its central features.

Types of theories: examples

Normative theories: How the world ought to be. E.g. communicative approach
Prescriptive theories: How to do it right. E.g. CBA, Mix Scanning.
Empirical theories: Explaining reality. E.g. investigating the impact of out-of-town retail on town centre.
Models: Stylised and simplified pictures of reality.
Conceptual frameworks / Perspectives: Ways of looking at or conceiving an object of study. E.g. the
class of freedom that questions the assumption, practices and theories (???). E.g. sustainable. I.e. draft
theories.
Theorising generally: This covers thinking and debating ideas and other theories, their suitability and
applicability. E.g. investigating some aspect of a phenomenon.

Social sciences vs natural sciences

Relativism vs objectivism > In planning we deal with both the social and the natural sciences.

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.

Theory, structure and agency

This is about the question whether individuals (agents) are autonomous in their thoughts and actions,
and how society (structure) influences them.

There are two approaches:

 - Structuralism : This is associated with Marxism. It emphasises the role of structure in dictating
and shaping actions and events
- Intentionalism: This focuses on the individual actions and micro-politics of interaction.

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 (??)

Theory, time and space

Theory is normative and discursive. It is produced by individuals within a wider social context.

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.

The theory-practice gap

The legitimation of planning came too easily and too soon, so planning actually has no endogenous
theoretical body. Theory is now often used to legitimize planning and provide power to the planners.

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.

Allmendinger - Chapter 2 - The current landscape of

Planning Theory
Faludi
Planning as the application of a scientific method.
- Planners are technocrats, who focus on procedures and processes (the means)
- Politicians focus on the goals (the ends).

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

Discourses / planning ideas that come directly from post-positivism:

- Collaborative planning
- Pragmatism
- Post-modern planning

Post-positivist principles on theory:

- All theory is normative
- All theory is embedded in a social and historical context
- Theory is mediated through space and time
- There is no distinction between substance and procedure

Typologies of planning theory

Sorensen (1982) states that planning has no endogenous body of theory. There are two reasons for this
(Reade, 1987):
1. Planning as a state activity was legitimized by government before it developed any justification
for itself.
2. Planners themselves are not interested in theory, bus focus only on the technical aspects of
planning

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.

Allmendinger - Chapter 3 - Systems and rational

theories of planning
Overview
PPT = Procedural Planning Theory. Systems and rational planning theories fall into this category.

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.

Systems theory (McLaughlin & Chadwick)

The heart of the systems approach is the notion that cities and regions are complex sets of connected
parts, which are in constant flux. Planning must therefore be dynamic itself, and be concerned with
change.
 In a systems view, plans should not be seen as static documents but rather as dynamic and
changing as the systems itself.

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.

Systems theory relating to planning

The form of planning that is related to the systems approach is highly centralised and regulated. The
planner is seen as a ‘steersman steering the city’. Therefore the systems view causes organisations to be
organised in a very central way. In systems planning, cities, towns and regions are seen as a comprise of
different but related components.
In summary:
- Focus on complexity
- Spatial plans should be dynamic
- Trying to predict in a complex world.
- A system is understood as a ‘complex whole’ or ‘a set of connected parts’.

Critiques on systems planning

Various authors had critiques on the approach of systems planning:
- Rittel and Webber saw systems planning as a failed attempt of self-glorification of planners,
with arrogant confidence.
- Faludi stated that systems theory is outdated, inappropriate and impossible, because planning is
too complicated and too politicalised with many different actors involved. There is no such
‘planner as a steersman’.

 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’.

Legacy of systems planning

The legacy (nalatenschap) of systems planning is particularly the idea that complex systems (cities) can be
modelled, given enough information and computing power.
 However, especially in the post-positivist period, the planning theory debate states that this is not
possible, and that we should focus on a more collaborative and communicative approach.

New view: Complex adaptive systems (CAS)

Although Faludi dismissed systems planning as being unachievable, the idea of complex adaptive
systems in nature and human society began to take off again in the late 1980’s.

Complex adaptive systems are characterised by:

- Many independent agents interacting with each other in various ways
- Spontaneous self-organisation
- Adaptation and co-evolution
- Dynamism

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.

Rational process theories of planning (Faludi)

Faludi built rational process theory on the foundation of Max Weber’s and Karl Mannheim’s work.
Weber stated that rational decision-making should be done based on facts. Values, ends and goal were the
work of politicians. There is a dualism between substantive and formal rationality. Formal rationality is
concerned with means and efficiency. Thus, a formal rational approach will seek to meet the ends in the
most efficient way.

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.

3 rational decision-making approaches (Faludi):

1. Routinisation: Short cuts emerge that speed up the decision-making process and allow for
attention to be focused on the important issues rather than other issues. This happens through
automated rule based systems.
2. Sequential decision-making: Using sequential matrix-based scoring systems to properly
evaluate different programs/alternatives.
3. Mixed Scanning (Etzioni, 1967): A sensible compromise between routinisation and sequential
decision-making. A broad scan of the problem is complemented with a detailed examination of
the aspects that arise from the larger scan.

Critiques on the rational planning approach:

- Lawrence (1998): There is a need to balance the rational with the intuitive.
 Rational planning is too infused with narrow, technical views and misses out on the more
spontaneous aspects of humanity.
- Healey (1993): Technical and administrative machineries advocated and created to pursue goals
are based on narrow and dominating scientific rationalism
- Flyvbjerg (1998): The rational planning approach is used as a front to hide the political side of
planning. Powerful relationships and political interests are masked by a cover of rationality and
theory.

Allmendinger - Chapter 4 - Critical Theory and

Marxism
The essence of critical theory is to change society rather than just analyse and understand it.

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.

Marxism on the ‘public interest’

Planners often justify planning by referring to the ‘public interest’. However, according to Marxist
perspectives, there is no such thing as the public interest, but only an interest of capital that projects or
creates a state mechanism to help continue and give the impression of public control.
The link to cities and planning
Creating places to sell stuff is capitalism’s ‘spatial’ way of disposing surplus goods and realizing profit.
Planning is about space so special forms of planning are needed to keep the capitalist system working
 Therefore towns and cities are not just the product of capitalism, but also its pre-requisite.

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.

Overall Marxists view on planning theory

The overall Marxist view is that planning theory, like planning, is subject to the dynamics and
manifestations of the foundations of society, that is the capitalist mode of production and its various social
corollaries such as the class system.
 There is no autonomous planning theory. All planning theory arises and evolves in response to
the needs of capitalism.

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.

Just like post-modernism, pragmatism has an emphasis on incommensurability, although pragmatists

introduce foundational principles such as liberalism.

Planning and pragmatism

Lindblom: Incrementalism
Central to Lindblom’s approach is the idea that policy makers cannot, do not and should not think big.
- There is no great goal or vision.
- The methods are based on trial and error
- There is an emphasis on agreement and consensus (like the collaborative approach)

 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.

 Overlap with pragmatism

There is an overlap with pragmatism, as also here there is a focus on action and
implementation.

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.

Forester: critical pragmatism

As planning has to deal with many powerful forces in the planning process, Forester proposes a
normative dimension to add to pragmatic planning. This dimension argues for a more open,
democratic approach that is concerned with opening planning to a greater plurality of voices and
opinions.
Pragmatism, in summary:
- There is a cultural and social influence on thoughts.
- There is a central role for language, making it similar to communicative rationality.
 But: No belief in absolute truths or consensus.
- Emphasis on incommensurability.

In relation to planning (Harrison)

- Pragmatism can provide planners with an ironic perspective on themselves and their actions
- Pragmatism sees planning as an evolving activity whose purpose will change over time
- Pragmatic planning does not seek to uncover reality, but to serve a practical purpose in our
understandings of reality
- The role of planning is to engage, encourage and arbitrate between competing theories and
perspectives
- Pragmatism is concerned with the practice of planning and this has led to a renewed interest in
the micro-politics of planning (what planners do rather than what theories say they should do)
- Pragmatism focuses on choice and contingency rather than ethical deliberation
- Pragmatism has an emphasis on human action as opposed to the abstract thinking that is found in
idealism, realism, Marxism, etc.

 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.

Allmendinger - Chapter 7 - Planners as advocates

Around 1960’s - 1970’s

Advocacy planning by Davidoff

Main result of Advocacy planning should be:
A competition of ideas.

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.

- Davidoff wanted planning to become more than just a technical exercise.

- Davidoff wanted planning to embrace social justice.
- Values and facts cannot be separated
- Planners should be open about how their values led them to make a particular decision.
- All groups in society should be able to submit their own competing plan to represent their
interest. + planners can help certain groups in doing so.
 Thus, groups can come up with a plan of their own, instead of objecting to the plans of the
municipality.

Advantages of advocacy planning (according to Davidoff)

- It would serve to better inform the public on alternative choices open to them
- It would force councils to compete with other groups (political parties, special interest groups,
ad hoc organisations) to win political support.
 - It would force those who have been critical of council plans to prepare their own better
alternative.

Critics and concerns:

- For Davidoff, the main problem will arise in how to choose between competing plans. Planners
are never objective, so they can never objectively choose between plans.
- Also, who would pay the advocacy planners?
- Critics from a Marxist perspective: To what extend do planners who act on behalf of the poor,
provide a form of cooperation that proved to be an illusion of influence? Also, even if planners act
on behalf of the poor, how likely is it that their alternative plan will succeed or that their lives will
be changed for the better?

Difference with communicative (Own conclusion of Oukes & Venema)

It is still a top-down decision about the plan to implement. The planner has the last word.

Pluralism
Davidoff’s proposal is that planners could contribute to inclusive pluralism, by providing services to
underrepresented groups.

According to Jordan, the main characteristics of the pluralism model are:

- Power is fragmented and decentralised in society.
- There are dispersed inequalities in that all groups have access to some resources to make their
case.
- Power dispersal in society is desirable
- Such dispersal of power varies across policy sectors
- Exercise of political power goes beyond elections and formal arenas
- In an ideal pluralist world, the interaction of interests would provide a competition of ideas and
legitimacy for any outcomes.
- Participants in the pluralist system will be bound to it by uncertainty of the bargaining process

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.

Planners and advocacy planning, key issues:

- Planning is essentially a political activity, full of value judgements
- The simple notion that planners advice and politicians decide it a myth that has never reflected
practical experience
- A planner who undermines or embarrasses a powerful politician is skating on thin ice
- Neither planners nor politicians should decide issues based on their own pecuniary or non-
pecuniary interests
- Those who own the most property generally also have the most influence in law and in planning
decisions.

Allmendinger - Chapter 8 - After modernity

A central theme in contemporary theorizing around planning is fragmentation. Not only are the places in
which people live and work characterised by diversity, also the ways in which planners and others
understand and think about places has begun to reflect an underlying uneasiness with the ways in which
planning and planners seek to unify such diversity into a plan.
 The theory had to account for and reflect such multiplicity.
 The gap between theory and practice is growing and the issues are becoming more complex.
 Planning theory is looking for a new or post-modern paradigm.
Modernism and post-modernism: an overview
Modernism
Essential to the modernistic idea is the belief that everything is destined to be speeded up, dissolved or
transformed. In this process, values or politics are only seen as merely details.
 The modern view, based on instrumental rationality, is that there are absolute truths
and that it is possible to plan rationally for ideal social orders.

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.

5 principles as minimum foundation of post-modern planning

1. Social justice
2. Emphasise the positive effects of difference
3. A more fluid conception of citizenship
4. A reformed conception of community
5. From public interest to a civic culture

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.

Links between post-structuralism and complexity

1. Complex systems consist of a large number of elements.
 Post-structuralism is underpinned by the notion of multiplicity
2. The elements in complex systems act dynamically.
Actors within a post-structuralist understanding consider that the self is constituted by the
relation to others.
3. There is a rich level of interaction.
Post structuralists emphasize the breakdown in distinctions between structure and agency and
the historically contextualised understanding of structure.
4. Interactions are non-linear
Post-structuralism highlights the open and asymmetrical nature of society - the same piece of
information may have different effects at different times.
5. Feedback and emerge
Complexity and complex adaptive systems are interdependent and co-exist, influence and are
influenced by other systems.

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.

Allmendinger - Chapter 9 - Collaborative planning (2nd

edition)
Collaborative planning starts with the question: “How can we make sense of what is happening and plan for
the future within a dynamic and increasingly complex society?”
When there is distrust in the political process, a fragmentation into single-issue politics and a plurality of
positions, how can we agree on matters of concern?

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.

Habermas’ critique on modernism

The basis of Habermas’ work is a critique of modernity.

Problems with modernism:

1. The view that our knowledge of society and the society itself is holistic, cumulative and broadly
progressive in character.
2. The idea that we can attain rational knowledge of society
3. The idea that such rational knowledge is universal and objective
4. The idea that sociological knowledge is both different from and superior to the distorted forms of
thought such as ideology, religion, common sense and superstition.
 5. The view that social scientific knowledge can lead to mutual liberation and social betterment
among humanity generally.

Foucault and Giddens

Foucault
Looked beyond language and meaning.

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.

Critique of post-modernists on the collaborative approach

Post-modernists critiques the collaborative approach because according to them the pluralism and
complexity of society is irreducible, and the search for common links is pointless and misleading.

Main difference between post-modernists and communicative

rationalists
The difference between post-modernists and the communicative rationalists is the believe in any form of
rationality:
- Post-modernists state that no form of rationality can exist
- Communicative rationalists state that rationality can be achieved through a communicative
process.

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’.

Destructive effects of the technical rationale (according to the communicative)

According to the communicative rationality, the modernist technical rationality has some destructive
effects:
1. It destroys the more congenial, spontaneous, egalitarian and intrinsically meaningful aspects of
human association
2. It is anti-democratic through the concentration of political power, either by professionals or by
bureaucracies.
3. It represses individuals by repressing freedom and the potential for individuals to express
themselves.
4. It is inadequate in representing complex social problems.
5. It makes effective and appropriate policy analysis impossible.

Friedmann’s critiques against modernism & instrumentally rational planning

- Knowledge from instrumentally rational approaches is based on the past but planners need to
have knowledge covering future events.
 - The hypotheses, theories and models through which all scientific knowledge is expressed are
radical simplifications of the world. The real world is much more complicated.
- All scientific and technical knowledge is either theoretical or methodological.
- All empirical knowledge is validated by talking about the evidence. The construction of
knowledge must therefore be seen as an intensely social process.
- Personal shared beliefs about the world are an important obstacle in obtaining objective
knowledge.

Habermas’ lifeworld & system

Lifeworld is a symbolic network in which subject interact and through shared practical knowledge
coordinate social action.
The system (such as the capitalist economy) operates through power and interests and it forms the
context within which the lifeworld operates.
 Habermas argues that the system dominates the lifeworld and therefore restricts the scope for
communicative action.

Communicative action characteristics (according to Habermas)

- Interaction is free from domination
- Interaction is free from strategizing by the involved actors
- Interaction is free from self-deception (‘zelf-bedrog’)
- All actors are equal and fully capable of making and questioning arguments
- There are no restrictions on participation
- The only authority is a good argument.

Communicative rationality: meaning for planning

There are certain issues that emerge many times in literature: equity, social justice, democracy,
sustainability, etc. Planning as a communicative process has definite ideas about what planning is, ideas
that challenge professional ‘neutrality’.
 Planners should acknowledge that there are different arguments in the plan. This can for example
be done shown by explicitly showing which reasoning is behind the chosen option of a plan.

Allmendinger - Chapter 9 - Planning, Depoliticization

and the Post-political (3rd edition)
Depoliticisation
Depoliticisation is a broad process of change and direction of travel that highlights the shifts in the nature
of contemporary planning, particularly in Europe and the US, around circumscribing transparency and
accountability and governing with sufficient (but no more) democratic input to maintain legitimacy.

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.

3 broad things of post-politicisation:

- Deferring = postpone
- Dispersing = being too vague
 E.g. what is the ‘public interest’?
 E.g. what is sustainability?
- Displacing = shift responsibility

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.

Fuzzy Planning - Chapter 6 - Shifts in planning practice and

theory: From a functional towards a communicative rationale
Even when there is a consensus, plans and decisions still end quite often in either a lack of action, or in
unwanted, negative and undesired outcomes.

 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.

Fuzzy models of governance

Hybrid governance systems that include different combinations of the various features of the
coordinative, competitive and communicative models of governance. The approach is based on shared
responsibilities by the various actors involved. This is becoming common in the planning arena.

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.

Fuzzy Planning - Chapter 7 - Understanding Fuzziness in

Planning
Disappointments in contemporary planning are partially the result of taking for granted the
understanding of crucial notions, because one is not aware of the fuzziness that surrounds them.
 Actors should be willing to work towards a mutual understanding of these notions and concepts,
preferably at all the stages of the planning process.

Development in planning theory and practice

Overview of main approaches in planning

The degree of complexity becomes a criterion for choosing the mode of planning and decision-making

In the above shown figure, the following approaches can be distinguished:

A. Technical approach: Issues are predefined, focus on content and goals, blueprint planning,
complete certainty and control, routine way of working,
 However, this approach fails when crucial information is not seen by planners. Actually, it
is nothing more than an ideal but unrealistic mode of planning.
B. Scenario approach: Issues still predefined, but more different routes (i.e. scenarios) are possible.
Still a focus on content and goals. The results are context-dependent. This approach results in a
cyclical process with feedback loops.
 C. Communicative approach : Implicit acceptance of uncertainty. Focus on interaction and consensus.
Planners are equal among all involved parties. Useful in very complex situations due to the
diversity and interests of all involved parties.
D. Actor consulting model: There is a need to review and to re-evaluate the individual and the
common frames of reference. The technique of actor-consulting (while the technique itself is not
new), a re-evaluation of its use in planning practice and its position in planning theory might be
needed. The communicative approach should not be considered as the only approach to all the
issues that require interactional approaches. There is fuzziness in planning: this is the result of
the indistinct (unclear) nature of planning objects and planning processes.

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.

Difference between complicated and complex

In complicated situations the direct causal relationships are still demonstrable, but one has to dig
substantially to overcome the obstacles.
In complex situations there are multiple interpretations of reality, which cannot be ignored. There are
remote causal relationships. There is uncertainty. A slight change in the system results in many actions
and unpredictable outcomes.

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.

Fuzzy Planning - Chapter 8 - Actor consulting: A model to

handle fuzziness in planning
Actors have their own opinions, values, prejudices and assumptions, and these should be taken seriously
in planning. These differences also add considerably to the fuzziness in planning. If we ignore the ‘black
box’ that represents each of the actors involved, disappointments about the planning process and the
outcome of planning are likely a result.
The actor-consulting approach is not a new approach, as it is fairly common in both public and private
planning practice. It is seen as a:
- Design approach for decision-making processes
- Problem structuring method for multiple stakeholder evaluation
- Mediation technique for conflict resolution.

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.

Actors present, desired and potential contributions

(CEA, 1998)
To analyse the role and the likely behaviour of actors within a planning arena, you can distinguish 2
criteria: Willingness and Competence. Out of these there are 4 options (4 combinations).

Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive

(European Commission, 2001)
This is a basic model consisting of the present, desired and potential
contribution of actors. This can help a planning authority to formulate
well-considered and ‘realistic’ policy by reducing the uncertainty.
- It is a process of interaction between the authorities and other
involved parties in terms of direct regulation, indirect
regulation and self-regulation. It is important to recognise the
various forms of regulation, and to use them appropriately.
- Even more important is to compare the prevailing regulatory
framework with the outcome of the analysis of the present,
desired and potential contributions. This helps to show us the
structure and quality of meaningful relations.

Actor-consulting integrated within the entire planning

process
Actors should not only be consulted at the beginning of the decision-
making process, but also when decisions are translated into a plan or
programme. It might be necessary to consult the actors again when the
planning process enters the implementation stage.
Overview of planning process of the 4 main planning approaches:

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.

Communicative rationale planning

The communicative rationale planning process starts with an initiative, after which participation starts.
Based on this participation process, a covenant (agreement) is made, followed by an action plan. This
action plan is then developed.

Too Good to be True - Chapter 4 - Planning-Oriented Action

in a Theoretical Perspective - Complexity and Pluriformity
Nice quote of George Chadwick (1971): “In the world in which man lives, for whilst it may be convenient to
see pattern, to reduce to simpler issues, to classify and to label, the world of nature knows no such limitations
or categorisations: It exists independently of these attempts of man to organise his own views of her and it
exists as a whole.”
3 elements in decision-making and planning:
1. The content of planning : The physical and social reality that is or could be subject to purposeful
intervention
2. Rationalisation of choices : The choices made in the decision-making process
3. The institutional element: The organisation and communication of and participation in decision-
making and policy.

3 action oriented questions

1. What must be achieved? (goal-oriented); e.g. desired level of environmental quality
2. How can it be achieved? (decision-oriented); defining what is considered reasonable and desirable
in political, administrative and social terms.
3. Who will be involved? (institution-oriented); choices regarding who will be involved and the role
of policy organisation and other involved parties in achieving defined goals.

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.

4 ideal types of environment (context)

There are 4 ideal types of environment, which vary in complexity and dynamics:
1. The placid, randomised environment: this is the least complex environment. Stable.
2. The placid, clustered environment: this is an environment in which clusters and accumulations of
influences occur, from which a selection can be made that may or may not lead to an optimal
starting position in the system.
3. The disturbed reactive environment: this is similar to the one above (2), but comprises several
equivalent systems that may compete with each other
4. Turbulent fields: this is the most complex contextual environment, similar to the one above (3),
but then strongly dynamic and apparently predictable in nature (huh?).

Internal and external complexity

Internal complexity is when the coherence of the individual elements that form the object of study are
perceived as complex and subject to change
External complexity is if the problem is linked to the contextual environment in which it arose. It is
logical that influences from that environment will affect the problem and, to a certain extent, the
assessment of the problem.

The parts, the whole & the context

Reductionism = about the (constituent) parts
Holism = about the whole
Expansionism = about the context.

When going towards the reductionism end, the

direct causal relationships predominate and
certainties increase.
When going towards the expansionism end, the
context-dependent relationships predominate, the
possibilities increase and the external complexity
increases.
Friedmann’s 4 planning styles (1973):

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:

A = the area of full control.

B = the area within which full control is lacking with the market mechanism functioning in its purest form.

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.

De Roo - Being or Becoming? That is the Question!

Confronting Complexity with Contemporary Planning
Theory
What is complexity?
Complexity is the unparalleled representative of a vision that portrays our reality as continuously
evolving. It is thus inextricably linked to dynamic processes of development and it is therefore a
qualification of a reality in which situations (including spatial situations) cannot be seen as unchanging,
non-temporal and independent of their context. With complexity, the meaning of a planning issue is
sought not only in being but also in becoming.

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)

Contemporary planning theory between two extremes

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.

Chaos and out-of-balance situations

Systems thinking is part of the general sciences. As such, systems theory is applied by the different
scientific disciplines and where possible these are linked with each other. It is a way of understanding
reality on the basis of a collection of nodes (entities) that are connected by their (joint) actions and
reactions.
- Bertalanffy (1968) assumes that systems flourish in states of equilibrium
- Lorentz (1963) argues that systems that are out of balance (chaotic dynamic systems) reveal a
very different reality. In these kind of systems (chaotic dynamic systems) small differences can
lead to very diverse results. These systems show a reality with great uncertainties but also with a
wealth of possibilities.

Complex system - 3 assumptions that represent a non-linear evolutionary process

1. It represents a transition (seen also in planning) from orderly to highly complex conditions
 It has evolved along the line of development from orderly (technical rationale) to very
complex (communicative rationale)
2. It evolves in both structure and function: co-evolution. This emerges ‘at the
edge of order and chaos’.
 Self-organisation means the spontaneous development of new
structures as a result of feedback and feedforward mechanisms. This
makes the complex system robust and flexible at the same time.
3. New, orderly systems emerge from these systems at a higher level and these
will start to evolve - again, and in accordance with the 1 st assumption - as
complexity increases.
Class IV systems
Class IV systems have a strong interest in emergent, adaptive and self-organising systems behaviour. It
differs fundamentally from the first 3 classes. They evolve, on the one hand, by transforming as an entity.
On the other hand, the meaning that is attached to the system also undergoes continuous change.

Example of class IV system: city

- Cities develop as physical entities over time.
- Cities are robust systems: even if a city burns down several times it is very likely that the city will
start again and carry on developing further without too much difficulty.
- Cities are very flexible systems that continuously adapt to public needs and, where possible,
create new needs, chances and opportunities.
- Once, cities were citadels of safety, then market places, and during the industrial revolution they
were transformed into important links in the production and consumption process.
- Nowadays, cities are also places of creativity and knowledge, communication and interaction, and
leisure and enjoyment.

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