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.
