SPATIAL ORGANISATION
Lecture 2
THEORIES OF
PLANNING
DR. IRIS MENSIMAH FYNN
1
Learning Outcomes
By the end of the course, students should be able
to:
•Explain the evolution of theories of planning
•Outline the tenets of the major theories of
planning
•Identify the strengths and limitations of the
various theories of planning
2
What is planning theory?
Planning theory is the body of scientific concepts, definitions,
and assumptions that define the body of knowledge of physical
and development planning.
Various planning theories have evolved , especially since the
late part of the 19th century.
It is quite difficult to classify planning theories but a distinction
is often made between procedural planning theories and
substantive planning theories.
3
Procedural Planning Theory
Procedural Planning theory focuses on planning process. Andreas Faludi, the Dutch
planning theorist labelled this theory-of-planning and theory-in-planning (Faludi 1973).
Procedural planning is concerned with the course of actions or steps to be followed in
the planning process. It is thus concerned with how the planning process and the
practice of planning itself should be done.
There are different procedural planning theories ( e.g. rational planning theory; systems
planning theory etc) but many of them have the following inter-related steps:
Identification of problem; specification of goals and objectives; development of
alternative means to attain each goal; estimation of the cost of each alternative and;
selection of the most promising alternative (s) (Cayer and Weshcler, 1988)
4
Substantive Planning Theory
•Substantive planning theory focuses on the substance of
planning.
•It is more concerned with the growth and development of cities.
•It deals more with the substance or content of the city plans.
•Faludi (1973) refers to substantive planning theory as theory-inplanning.
5
Comparing Procedural and Substantive Planning Theories
•Both theories are related and as such, the distinction is
controversial, with many scholars and practitioners arguing
that one cannot study process without an understanding of
substance, and vice versa(Hightower 1969; Fischler 1995).
•The present trend in planning theory is a move towards a
concern with procedure rather than with substance.
•While this distinction was made by 1970, most of the
theories of planning focus on procedures.
•We shall focus on several procedural theories
6
1. Rational Planning Theory/Model
•Also called synoptic planning or rational-comprehensive planning,
rational planning is one of the earliest planning theories which became
popular in the 1950s but it is still the most widely accepted model
among planning practitioners and scholars, and is considered by many
to be the orthodox view of planning.
•The theory is also used for public policy analysis.
•Rational planning theory assumes that planning is a rational process
that involves several well defined steps.
•It has roughly four classical elements: (1) goal-setting, (2) identification
of policy alternatives, (3) evaluation of means against ends, and (4)
implementation of policy. The process is not always undertaken in this
sequence, and each stage permits multiple iterations, feedback loops
and elaboration of sub-processes
7
Rational Planning
•Rational theorists derive their arguments from ideal type models of
rational economic man, Homo economicus, who in making a decision,
acquires all necessary information, compares different options and then
selects the option that gives him maximum gains (Parsons, 1995).
•The model generally assumes that planning or policy-making starts with
identification of problem definition and setting and ranking of goals and
objectives. The various alternatives for dealing with the problem are
then examined, and the consequences, in terms of costs and benefits
that will follow each alternative, are then evaluated. Based on this
evaluation the alternative that maximises the attainment of the goals,
objectives and the values is chosen and implemented.
8
Rational Planning
•Lane (2005) describes rational planning as having four central elements:
(1) an enhanced emphasis on the specification of goals and targets; (2)
an emphasis on quantitative analysis and predication of the
environment; (3) a concern to identify and evaluate alternative policy
options; and (4) the evaluation of means against ends.
•The process is cyclical and can be operationalized in a modified form as
shown diagram ( refer to Geog 451, semester 1).
9
10
Components of Rational Planning
•Literature Review and Understanding: The planner gathers data on
the area of interest in relation its physical features, the population
and the socio-economic condition of the area in order to understand
the problem and what is necessary to make life comfortable for the
inhabitants of the area.
•Formulation of Goals/Objectives and definition of problem: Goals
are the ends towards which the planning processes are directed. The
specification of objectives involves a determination of the nature of
what is desired at the end of a given situation in the near future. The
problem entails the current challenges that will be solved to achieve
the goals and objectives. Sometimes the problems are identified
before the goals are formulated.
11
Rational Planning Theory
•Identification of the Possible Course of Action: There is the need for an
identification of the various alternative solutions to the problem since
different possibilities are open to the planner.
•Evaluation: After identifying various planning options, the planner uses
various types of models or techniques including cost benefit analysis to
explore, predict, evaluate and determine the most viable course of
action. This is the stage where different sets of weights may be provided
to relate the different alternatives developed in the previous sections
and compare them, after analysing the changing needs and preferences
of the planning community.
12
Rational Planning Theory
•The cost-benefit analysis should be done in terms of balance between
the socio-economic cost and the socio-economic benefit, by choosing
the course of action which maximises the benefit and reduces the cost.
•Evaluation in the planning process could be before, during and after
implementation.
13
Rational Planning
•Implementation stage. This is the stage where action is taken to
implement the chosen plan. Action at this stage is often in terms of
investments which may be in the form of capital, money, land or labour.
•Without action, the result of earlier phases of the planning process will
not materialise. This phase of the planning process is most often affected
by the elements of bureaucracy, paucity of finance and low political
commitment, all of which stifle efforts at implementation.
•In the process of implementing the plan, feedback is generated between
each of the three broad stages mentioned. Thus, there is the possibility
for the goals and strategies to be modified based on the feedback
effects.
14
Strengths of Rational Planning model
•It is comprehensive.
•It typically looks at planning problems from a systems viewpoint,
using conceptual or mathematical models relating ends (objectives) to
means (resources and constraints).
•It presents logical steps to be followed for scientific planning
•It provides guidelines for considering all alternative solutions to the
planning problem
•It presents guidelines for evaluation
15
Criticisms/Limitations of rational
planning
•Limits to rationality: The planner may lack the knowledge, skills and
value consistency needed for rationality. This has been termed
“psychological limitations” to rationality (Hogwood and Gun, 1984).
•Again, even if the planner could overcome personal limitations, he/she
will still face obstacles because of the fact that he/she has to work as
part of an organisation where coordination is usually not perfect. This
has also been termed “organisational limitations”.
•Planners and policy makers may seek to be rational but do not succeed
because of bounds or limits to their individual or collective capacities.
The planner or policy maker is not perfectly rational in the economic
sense but in good part intentionally so ( see Simon, 1956 )
16
Criticisms/Limitations of
rational Planning
•It is difficult to talk about collective rationality as society is
made up of different people with different interests.
•The model portrays planning as a technical exercise and
provides very little avenues for public participation.
•Planning may reflect the interests of individual planners
rather than public interest.
17
Incremental Models of Planning
•These models were propounded by Lindblom (1959, 1965) to contest the
anomalies in the rational models.
•In his paper The Science of Muddling Through (1959), Lindblom
argued that since comprehensive rationality in planning and policymaking is not possible, planning proceeds though a succession of
incremental changes and it also involves trial and errors.
•He later developed the ideas raised in the muddling through thesis into a
more comprehensive model known as disjointed incrementalism. He
sees this as a method of planning or policy-making in which there is no
clearly defined problem and there are no clear objectives or goals to be
attained. It is disjointed because decisions or policies are not subject to
any concrete plan, control or analysis.
18
Incremental Models of Planning
• Planners/Policy makers consider only some of the alternatives for
dealing with a problem. These alternatives will differ only marginally
from existing policies.
• Lindblom also argued that although policy makers are self-interested,
they are not “blindly partisan”. Hence, they are capable of adjusting to
one another through bargaining, negotiation and compromise. This he
calls “partisan mutual adjustment” or “sensible politics” (Lindblom,
1965, Lindblom and Woodhouse, 1993).
19
Strengths and criticisms of
incremental models
•Credited for pointing of the limits to rationality
•More realistic especially in developing countries where resource
constraints affect comprehensive analysis of alternative solutions.
Consider examples of educational planning in Ghana
Limitations
•Not comprehensive enough and may lead to waste of resources due to
trial and errors
•Does not explain why there are sometimes abrupt changes in
policy/plans
•Not good for bringing about significant changes
•Planning is still portrayed as a technical exercise with little involvement
of the public
20
Mixed Scanning Model
•This is another incremental model which was propounded by Etzioni
(1967). It combines features of rationalism and incrementalism.
•Etzioni argued that, since the planner or policy maker cannot get all
information needed for a rational decision, he can only make a very
detailed and rational examination or scanning of important areas of the
problem. Incremental procedures are then applied to other less
important areas that do not need rapid changes.
•In his subsequent works, he emphasised the importance of community
institutions and rebuilding of society, in terms of knowledge and moral
dimensions, as critical for improvements in policy making (Etzioni,
1993).
21
Strengths and limitations of Mixed
Scanning
•Model can also be credited for pointing of the limits to rationality
•More realistic especially in developing countries where resource
constraints affect comprehensive analysis of alternative solutions.
•Credited for reminding policy makers and planners of the fact that
different methods may be appropriate for different areas of the problem
Limitation
•The model ignores the fact that it is difficult to separate fundamental
decisions from incremental decisions (Ham and Hill, 1984).
•Model does not adequately provide guidelines on persons who should
determine issues that are more important and those that are less
important.
22
Transactive Planning
•Transactive planning was a radical break from previous models.
•It became popular in the 1970s and sought to criticise previous models
for not adequately encouraging public participation in planning and for
portraying planners as the only experts to plan for the society.
•Instead of considering public participation as method that would be
used in addition to the normal training planning process, participation
was a central goal of transactive planning.
•For the first time, the public was encouraged to take on an active role in
the policy setting process, while the planner took on the role of a
distributor of information and a feedback source.
23
Transactive Planning
•Transactive planning focuses on interpersonal dialogue that develops
ideas, which will be turned into action.
•One of the central goals is mutual learning where the planner gets
more information on the community and citizens become more
educated about planning issues.
•Transactive planning also refers to the evolution of decentralized
planning institutions that help people take increasing control over the
social processes that govern their welfare.
•Planning is not seen as an operation separated from other forms of
social action, but rather as a process embedded in continual evolution
of ideas validated through action (Friedmann 1973.)
24
Strengths of transactive
Planning
•Promotes enhanced public participation in planning.
•Interests of various stakeholders are considered and incorporated in
planning.
•Enhances public ownership of development plans and policy which is
good for policy implementation as people are likely to support
implementation
• Mutual learning by both planners and local people is enhanced
25
Limitations of Transactive
Planning
•It may be difficult to reconcile local community interests/demands
( e.g cultural etc) with principles of rational planning.
•The process may be delayed due to conflicting interests of
different stakeholders.
•Local communities are made up of actors with different powers
and transactive planning may result in elite capture
26
Advocacy Planning Theory
•Popularised in the 1960s by lawyer and planning scholar Paul Davidoff,
the advocacy planning model argued that there are large inequalities in
the political system and in the bargaining process between groups that
result in large numbers of people unorganized and unrepresented in the
planning process.
•It therefore argued that existing planning models tend to focus on
public and powerful business interests and therefore did not consider
the interests of poor people, marginalised groups, environmental
groups (Davidoff 1965; Heskin 1977 ).
27
Advocacy Planning Theory
•It was rooted in procedures modelled upon the legal profession, and
usually applied to defending the interests of weak against strongcommunity groups, environmental causes, the poor, and the
disenfranchised against the established powers of business and
government (Alinsky 1971; Heskin 1977).
•It concerns itself with ensuring that all people are equally represented
in the planning process by advocating for the interests of the
underprivileged and seeking social change.
28
Advocacy Planning
•Public participation is a central tenet of this model. A plurality of
public interests is assumed, and the role of planner is essentially the
one as a facilitator who either advocates directly for underrepresented
groups directly or encourages them to become part of the process.
•Advocacy planners became common in the service of environmental
groups, trade associations, and even corporations.
•Working through the courts, advocacy planning has proven successful
as a means of blocking insensitive plans and challenging traditional
views of a unitary public interest. In theory, advocacy calls for
development of plural plans rather than a unit plan (Davidoff 1965).
29
Strength of Advocacy Planning
•Advocacy planning has both reflected and contributed to a general
trend in planning away from neutral objectivity in definition of social
problems, in favour of applying more explicit principles of social justice.
•It recognises the fact that society is made up of several interest groups
and as such a single plan may not satisfy all groups.
•It supports the consideration of the interests of minor groups in
planning.
•Insensitive plans that affect certain groups have been challenged in the
courts or by advocacy groups. For instance, UN Habitat requires
payment of compensation to people displaced by new projects.
30
Strength of Advocacy Planning
•It has shifted the development of plans from backroom
negotiations out into the open where several group interests are
considered.
•It has led to greater consideration of unintended side effects of
planning decisions on marginal groups .
•It has created the situation whereby environmental, social, and
financial impact reports are required to accompany large scale
project proposals for funding.
31
Criticisms/limitations of advocacy
planning
•Advocacy planning has been criticized for posing stumbling blocks
without being able to mobilize equally effective support for
constructive planning alternatives (Peattie, 1968).
•It is sometimes difficult to reconcile the interests of different interest
groups
•In reality, the interests of marginalised groups may be defined by a
few group leaders and elites ( e.g. chiefs may decide for the entire
community) and as such policy decisions may not favour the real
interests of marginalised members. Politicians and business men can
literally buy the leaders of marginal groups (see Teye, 2012).
•Planning processes are sometime unduly delayed due to court
injunctions and negotiations
32
Bargaining Models
•The bargaining model views planning as the result of give and take on
the part of a number of interest groups who are all involved in the
process.
•It argues that this bargaining is the best way to conduct planning within
the bounds of legal and political institutions.
•The most interesting part of this theory of planning is that it makes
public participation the central dynamic in the decision-making process.
Decisions are made first and foremost by the public, and the planner
plays a more minor role.
•Different interests groups are invited at the beginning of a planning
process and then they bargain on planning decisions.
33
Strengths and limitations of
Bargaining model
Strengths
•Plans may reflect the interests of different groups
•Bargaining may reduce the number of planning cases going to courts
Disadvantages
• It may be difficult for people from different backgrounds to
communicate freely as they may have different terminologies
•It is sometimes difficult to reconcile the interests of different interest
groups
•In reality, the interests of marginalised groups may be defined by a few
group leaders and elites
•Planning processes are sometime unduly delayed due to inability to
reach consensus
34
Communicative Planning
Approach
•This argues that other social learning models ( e.g. transactive,
advocacy, bargaining) wrongly assume that actors from different
backgrounds can communicate freely and take planning decisions.
•The communicative approach focuses on using communication to help
different interests groups in the process to understand each other.
•The idea is that each individual will approach a conversation with his or
her own subjective experience in mind and that from that conservation
shared goals and possibilities will emerge.
35
Communicative Planning
Approach
•Like bargaining and advocacy planning, participation plays a
central role under this model.
•The model seeks to include a broad range of voices in the
planning process to enhance the debate and negotiation that is
supposed to form the core of actual planning.
•Different strategies are employed to communicate the key issues
to different interest groups and to ensure that they take part in
the planning system.
36
Strengths and limitations of
communicative planning
•It provides a platform for different interest groups to communicate
effectively
•Plans may reflect the interests of different groups
•Enhanced communication and participation may reduce the number of
planning cases going to courts
Disadvantages
• It is difficult to reconcile the interests of different interest groups
•In reality, the interests of marginalised groups may be defined by a few
group leaders and elites
•Planning processes are sometime unduly delayed due to inability to
reach consensus.
37
Radical Planning
•Radical planning is an ambiguous tradition which emerged in 1970s,
with two mainstreams of thinking that occasionally flow together.
•One version is associated with spontaneous activism, guided by a vision
of self-reliance and mutual aid.
•Like transactive planning, it stresses the importance of cooperative
spirit.
•Its main tenet consists of specific substantive ideas about collective
actions that can achieve concrete results in the immediate future.
•Rather then following any rational planning, the community may rise
and propose actions that can be achieved in the immediate future and
then mobilise resources to implement it.
38
Radical Planning
•While this type of planning can achieve concrete results in the short
run, it may not be good for finding lasting solutions to problems.
•The second stream of radical thought takes a more critical and holistic
look at large-scale social processes such as: the effect of class
structures and economic relationships; the control exercised by culture
and media; confrontations, alliances, and struggles.
•The focus is less on ad hoc problem solving through community action,
and more on the theory of the state, which is seen to permeate the
character of social and economic life at all levels, and in turn
determines the structure and evolution of social problems .
39
Radical Planning
•Radicals in this tradition view conventional planning (e.g. rational
planning) as inappropriate because it satisfies the interests of top
politicians and capitalists.
•They argue for bottom up planning by the communities and people
affected.
•This approach is credited for focusing on how inequalities in the
distribution of power may affect planning, but it fails to provide
guidelines for effective planning.
40
Feminist Planning Theory
•Feminist planning theory blames planners for valuing economic
production while undervaluing or ignoring familial and community reproduction, as well as ignoring the different ways men and women
use space.
• The feminist theorists argue that economic efficiency measures
universally used in planning analyses attach zero value to home child
care, or to volunteer work in community organizations, among others.
•They also cite transportation models as oriented around the joumeyto-work. Women, in particular, tend to make more trips other than
the conventional journeys from home to workplace (Moore Milroy
1991; Ritzdorf 1995).
41
Feminist Planning Theory
•Planners must therefore consider the interest of women and
reproductive roles during spatial planning.
•While these theories have shown that interests of men may be
different from interests of women, they did not offer comprehensive
guidelines for planning.
42
Collaborative Planning
•This planning type emerged in the 1990s and is related to
communicative planning.
•It focuses on a concern with the democratic management and control
of urban and regional environments.
•It is concerned with why urban regions are important to social,
economic and environmental policy and how political communities
may organise to improve the quality of their places’ (Healey, 1997a:
xii).
43
Collaborative Planning
•Collaborative planning is not so much about planning theory but it is
about ‘how political communities may organise to improve the quality
of their places’.
•Collaborative planning deals with the following issues : notions of
community; relations of power; global economic restructuring and
regional impact; environmentalism; cultures and systems of
governance; institutional design; technocratic control and the nature
of expertise; mediation and conflict resolution; and spatial planning
44
Conclusion
•Rational planning model offers the most comprehensive guidelines for
planning and that is why it is the most commonly used in planning.
•Social learning models ( i.e. transactive, advocacy, bargaining,
communicative) emphasise public participation in planning.
•It is however, quite difficult to involve the public through transactive,
advocacy, bargaining and communicative models.
•All planning models are useful and can be used together in some ways.
45