Theories of Planning Practice Flashcards
Basic goals: set goals, determine alternatives, evaluate alternatives, choose an alternative, implement the alternative, and evaluate.
Assumes planners have full/perfect knowledge of all alternatives and unlimited time and money. Pure rationality is NOT possible.
Instead, we “satisfice” (Herbert Simon - bounded rationality) since our mind is limited in problem solving. Instead, we choose alternatives that are good enough.
Simon thinks rational “economic man” should be replaced by “administrative man” who satisfies.
Rational planning can’t solve “wicked” problems (Ex. homelessness) that have many causes and many - or no - solutions.
Rational planning only works when problem can be easily defined and there is one best solution.
Rational goals are “value-free” and based on “public interest/whole community”; however, goal setting is not clearly defined and should not be used if there is not consensus within a community.
Dominant theory through 1950s; since been discredited but is still widely in use in full or part. Still exists in transportation planning.
Banfield/Perloff
Rational Planning
Introduced via Charles Lindblom’s “The Science of Muddling Through” (1959).
People make their plans/decisions in incremental manner and accomplish goals via series of successive, limited comparisons.
Argues planning must be piecemeal, incremetnal, opportunistic, and pragmatic. Real world planning is not rational and comprehensive; rather, it is disjointed and incremental.
People can’t understand a fully detailed alternative; rather, they consider the incremental differences between the present state and the proposed alternative or between alternatives.
Problems are solved through a series of policies at different points in time, rather than all at once.
Planning means solving existing problems rather than achiecing a future desired state.
Ex. zoning ordinances and land development codes are rarely overhauled all at once. Instead, properties are rezoned individually over time to implement a larger comprehensive plan goal. Codes and ordinances are tweaked/updated over several years and decades.
Does not specifiy whose values should be used in establishing goals.
Incremental Planning
Introduced by Amitai Etzioni as compromise between rational and incremental thoeries.
Views planning at two levels: big and small pictures.
Improved incrementalism by recognizing difference between policy-changing decisions and implementation decisions. Ex. Comprehensive plan = rational planning approach while the implementation of that comprehensive plan would use an incremental approach.
Assumes there is a centralized decision-making process. Does not identify who is involved or whose values are used.
Mixed-Scanning
Developed by Paul Davidoff (1960s) to represent a community’s interest groups rather than just the “public interest” or “the good of the whole”.
Plural plans for public consideration. Each plan serves a different advocacy group’s values and objectives.
Planners can work directly for that group or as an “inside advocate’’ at city hall.
Shifts for whom the planner plans but does not shift how the planner plans. Ex. Planner may still employ rational and/or incremental techniques.
Can benefit single groups but can cause conflict between groups when City must decide who gets funded/implemented.
Advoacy Planning
Method for when a planner advocates specifically for the disadvantaged in the community rather than just a single interest group (may include non-disadvantaged groups like a chamber of commerce).
Established by Norman Krumholz in Cleveland (1970s).
Planners should redistribute power, resources, or participation from eleite towards poor/working class.
Focus on personal/organizational development over larger/broader community objectives.
Improvment is measured on quality of life improvements vs. delivery of services.
Puts planners in a tough spot if council or mayor don’t agree.
Equity Planning
Developed by John Friedmann (1973) “Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning”
Public gets more involved rather than planner acting as technical expert, even in advocacy planning situations.
Planner uses “mutual learning” in community group sessions to develop a plan. Planners share their technical knowledge while citizens provide community knowledge.
Process takes a long time and requires a lot of public meetings with individuals. Also, planner must weigh and evaluate each community member’s “knowledge”. This could lead to issues.
Does not work when there are large differences in opinion or many stakeholders.
Transactive Planning
John Friedmann (1987) “Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action”
Take power from government and give to the people. Citizens come together and form their own plans.
Rare - difficult to find succesfull examples.
Components are in place. Ex. some public housing agencies have turned maintenance and operations decisions over to tenants who are responsible for proposing policy changes.
Radical Planning
Most popular and current method of planning across the Country.
Heavily involves members of the public.
Recognizes that planning is a public policy action with several stakeholders and political elements.
Rational model is the basis for brining mutual understanding among all stakeholders. Planners provide stakeholders with information and bring people together to discuss the issues.
American pragmeetism meets European critical theory.
Also evolved from advoacy planning and transactive planning; however, planner is not planning for different groups; instead, planner is facilitating stakeholders.
Primary function is to listen to people’s views and try to find consensus/mediation through talk and discussion/group understanding.
CommunicatiitvePlanning
