Categories of Planning Theory - Coursework Example

Planning theory Introduction The term theory is broadly used and covers several meanings depending on the context or use. One way in which it can be used is through pejorative way, which dismisses something as simply being, unfeasible or unconnected to actuality as in a case of being too theoretical. In addition, a theory is arguably used positively to criticize a piecemeal or knee-jerk reaction in the context of not having any theoretical ground. Beyond its rhetorical use, a theory is also arguably used to cover a several ideas or propositions from Einstein’s theory of relativity to the explanation that the connection of birth, as well as, comparative point of stars will power daily experiences hence could be described as a diffuse phenomenon.1 Regardless of the conversy surrounding the definition of this word, a theory is an explanatory supposition which can be defined broadly or narrowly. Its key element is that it abstracts some distinctiveness of realism in the effort of isolating and describing its core features. A theory must be in practice for a given duration of time to evaluate its purpose. It should include some elements of prediction or prescription to guide action. Essentially the elements of a theory include its abstract from reality a set of general or specific principles which could be used as a basis of explaining and acting with the theory being tested.2 There are numerous categories of theory. They include; normative, respective, empirical, models, conceptual frameworks or perspectives, theorizing. These theories provide a useful way of going beyond the general idea of theories. Planning theory The term ‘planning’ means different things to different people. In this context planning is viewed as a discipline with strong technical basis. It works in terms of applying various techniques, models and formulas to solve problems. Moreover, it results to presenting itself as a science where it focuses in objectively solving problems by value-neutral planners.3 Yet another dimension describes planning as an art of decision and plan making. Planning systems have revolved over time in the need to organize and regulated human society and its surroundings. Diverse societies all over the worlds over centuries have diverse sets of values. Planning systems and their roles change over time due to change of societal values and the advent of technological developments, hence the need to understand the context of social and historical changes.4 Theories found in planning focus on how to go about carrying out planning. They focus on procedural matters as compared to substantial matters. They deal with issues such as design methods, decision making, organizations and community action. These could be said to be prescriptive theories because they explain of how to go about carrying our planning tasks. What is of most important to note is that, planning must work hand in hand with the element of time. Planning should be time sensitive since we do not plan for the past but for the future. Besides, ideas tend to change over time with the outdated ideas exiting o pave way for the current ideas, with a certain capacity of individuals and the society having to carry volumes of ideas within their span of consideration at one time.5 Categories of Planning Theory There are five schools of panning theory. They include; rational –comprehensive planning theory, advocacy planning theory, incremental list planning theory, and the two branches of communicative planning theory: planning as consensus –seeking and management of conflicts. Rational-comprehensive planning theory Rational-comprehensive planning theory developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth century under the close checks of Auguste Comte who was a father of sociology. He sought to apply the methods of observation and experimentation which was similar to the classical science of his time. He argued that the persistent of social problems could be solved through the application of the certain hierarchal rules.6 With the aid of sociology, Comte believed that mankind would progress towards a superior state of civilization. In his theory, Comte associated the methods of classical science with the study of societies and social phenomenon as the basis of this planning theory. In reference to the classical science, focus in planning analysis was quantifiable factors like population change, age group rates among other factors in relation to their user base, technical capacities of infrastructure systems among other relations. The factors were analyzed separately hence portrayed mechanisms of different elements in interactions.7 August Comte can be described as a father of sociology and social planning. This is because he was able to define the crucial aim of sociology as a science in service of social and societal progress, taking the normative role of being a scientific planner. This descriptive science becomes a tool of normative planning in striving for a better society giving evidence in the notion that the public interest is formulated as the goal of rational-comprehensive planning.8 Advocacy planning theory Advocacy planning theory is associated with Paul Davidoff, an early critic of the allegedly uncontroversial nature of the public interest. In his classic article, Davidoff argues that determination is what serves the public interest, in a society that contains numerous, diverse interest groups coped with a high contentious nature. He insists that, in a plural society, there cannot be any objective values, scientifically or otherwise been derived.9 Agreeing with Davidoff criticism means that with regard to the method that defines public interest the ability of grasping the quantifiable factors leads to viewing of man as an atomistic average person. In addition, another critic describes the situation as a dimension man who does not have a memory of historically, socially and personally meaningful events and places. They also do to have special cultural habits, social patterns and emotional and aesthetic motivation to guide his action.10 According to Davidoff, public sector planning needed genuine alternatives based on different value considerations. He reveals the deeply political character of planning, hidden under the scientific appearances of comprehensive rationality. This is clearly described when he takes a role as an advocate, analogous to the legal advisor in courts where the planner aids democracy in public planning not only by permitting the citizens to be heard, but also informing them about the principles for planning proposals, and being capable of responding to them in the practical language of professional planners.11 This model of planning was better suited to the context of the U.S.A where the local government has less autonomy and authority in the face of the private sectors. Incrementalist planning theory Incrementalist planning theory is associated with an American theorist Charles. E. Lindblom. In his book, Lindblom presented his theory of ‘partisan mutual adjustment’ as a model of decision making in public planning. He shares the same sentiment with his colleague, Davidoff, where he sought to bring pluralism to the sphere of public planning.12 However, Lindblom’s argument was later enhanced in respect that he did not only concentrate on how the interest of diverse groups would be brought in the agenda of public planning but also on how agreement could be reached between the diverse and conflicting interests.13 This theory is based on Lindblom’s broader theoretical initiative known as incementalism under the classic article ‘The Science of Mudding Through’ (1954) where he claims that the public sector planners have no time or material resources needed to engage in comprehensive analyses of the planning problem at hand.14 They have to develop their plans based on partial knowledge and uncertainty of the future consequences of their realization. This makes him aim at developing a realistic planning theory in place of the comprehensive rationality which was not successful as a guide towards practical planning. Lindblom’s advices planners was based on three folds namely: Firstly, concentrating on short term planning. Secondly, rely merely on the existing planning policy and experiences gained from previous planning tasks so as to direct the limited resources of analysis in the current planning task to the distinctive features, with no prior experience solutions or cause of action available. Thirdly, is widening the knowledge base of planning through the introduction of numerous interest groups to the planning process. This idea of Lindholm was welcomed among the urban planners because of the inevitable failure of the long term master plan which emphasized on the over-optimistic growth estimations and problems of social economic and large scale development hence, incementalism suited perfectly to the present situation. Communicative planning theory: planning as consensus seeking Planning as consensus seeking is one of the dimensions that have immensely being criticized by John Foster. In regard to Lindblom’s theory, Foster argued that facing uncertainty the planner is in need of more information and facing ambiguity denotes that the planner is in dire need of practical judgment. Hence, uncertainity and ambiguity are characteristics of problems that emerge in professional inquiry and need different kinds of practical responses.15 Advocacy planning and partisan mutual adjustment are inadequate in dealing with the problems of ambiguity. In essence, these theories base their argument on politics of planning through the dimension of uncertainty. They reduce pluralism of politics into the coexistence of mutually adversary interested groups that strategically address each other.16 Contrary to the above, Jurgen Habermas a German philosopher in his “Theory of communicative action” formed the cornerstone of communicative planning theory. In this theory, he discusses the dimensions of planning through the division of society into the system and life world. Lifeworld can be understood through Habermas idea as the domain of the undominated communication which seeks mutual understanding.17 It is the dominion of cultural construction and reconstruction of uses values. Haberman’s understands the system as the medium of authority and wealth. These medium are the “subsystems” of the lifeworld that has emerged from the lifeworld and has already begun to dominate it. The rationalization of the lifeworld makes it possible for emergency and growth of subsystems whose independent imperatives’ turn back destructively upon the lifeworlds itself. Habermans see mutual relations as the fundamental purpose of language. Due to this he argues that media of power and money are decisive in planning communication, in accordance to advocacy and incrementalist planning.18 Communicative planning theory: planning as management of conflicts The possibility of communicative rationality is based on the assertion that any shared framework of lifeworldy values and understandings is achievable as soon as each participant withdraws from the use of power. Communicative rationality of Haberman is based on creating and evaluating claims in regard to a given moral-practical prospect of shared understandings. However, the main problem in multicultural and pluralistic planning situations basis its argument on how such a mutual horizon could be found.19 Conversely, Haberman’s communicative rational dialogue is not genuine because according to Karatani, a colleague of his, the participants have shared rules which are supposed to be the outcomes of the dialogue. In conclusion, several ideas and models have developed through decades are brought together. Why Control Development Development control can be said to be direct successor to building control under the public health acts, as well as a reaction to the normative standards of building by laws. In essence, the control of development through the granting and refusing of planning permission came to control position in the British planning system created in the early forty’s. Additionally, the building by laws and their application were developed from the control exercise by private landowners in issuing building leases. The recent past has been occupied with the growing interest in looking at the historical development of planning systems, not n terms of plans and policies but through the mechanism in place for controlling individual decision towards any development. However, the planning system is intended to make sure that law is followed in terms of properties get developed in the right place, equality in economic and social developments, and above all, enhancing environmental sustainability. This should be in line with meeting the needs of the existing generation putting into consideration of the future generations. It is also vital that development control ensure that development is acceptable to the majority of people. Bibliography: Andreas, Faludi. Critical Rationalism and Planning Methodology. London: Routledge, 1986. António, Ferreira, Olivier, Sykes and Peter Batey, "Planning Theory or Planning Theories? The Hydra Model and its Implications for Planning Education." Journal for Education in the Built Environment 4, 2, (2009): 29-54. Clara, Greed. Introducing planning. London: The Athlone Press, 2000. Clara, Greed. Social Town Planning: Planning and Social Policy. New York: Routledge, 1999. Franco, Archibugi. Planning theory: from the political debate to the methodological reconstruction. Milan; New York: Springer, 2008. Marios, Camhis. Planning theory and philosophy. New York: Tavistock Publications, 1979. Michael, Dear and Allen, Scott. Urbanization and urban planning in capitalist society. London: Methuen, 1981. Nigel, Taylor, "Anglo-American town planning theory since 1945: three significant developments but no paradigm shifts." Planning Perspectives 14 (1999): 327–345. Nigel, Taylor. Urban planning theory since 1945. London [u.a.]: Sage Publ., 1999. Philip, Booth, “From regulation to discretion: the evolution of development control in the British planning system 1909-1947.” Planning perspectives 14 (1999): 277-289. Stephen Wheeler. Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable and Ecological Communities. New York: Routledge, 2004. Susan, Fainstein, “New directions in planning theory.”Urban Affairs Review 35, 4 (2000): 451- 478. Tony Sorensen, “Theory and planning practice in planning.” Sorenson, T. Australian Planner 36 (1999): 146-149. Read More