Markets, Politics and the Environment

An Introduction to Planning Theory

Barry Goodchild

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317217565
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

Markets, Politics and the Environment answers three groups of question:

• 
  
  

• What is planning?' and as part of this 'What are its key features as a style of social practice and action?' and 'How does planning as a style of social practice relate to social and economic change?

• 
  
  

• How, as part of the justification for planning, might claims of valid technical knowledge be constructed? What is meant by 'rational'? What is the contribution of pragmatism as a supplement or replacement to rationalism? How might rationality and pragmatism be adapted to postmodernism and the requirements of diversity?

• 
  
  

• Finally, how may concepts of planning be reoriented towards sustainable development as a collective duty? How might sustainable development be reworked in relation to planning as a means of managing and stimulating change?

Each group of question is discussed in a separate chapter and is associated with different theories, debates and examples of practice. Markets, Politics and the Environment concludes that the full implications of sustainable development and climate change point in the direction of a different type of state- a green state whose future functioning can draw on planning theory but at present can only be conceived as a sketchy outline.

Part I

Introduction

1 Interpretations of Urban Planning

The aim of this book is, in the most general terms, to provide a new introduction to planning theory. The aim is to update previous accounts and, in doing this, to restate the case for planning itself.

As understood here, urban planning refers to the various arrangements that govern, shape and manage urban spaces and places. The subject matter is potentially very broad and, in principle, might include national or regional projects—for example, those dealing with airport capacity and expansion, high-speed rail lines and energy production (fracking, wind turbines, nuclear power and so on). These specific issues are not, however, the main focus. Instead, the focus is on urban planning as the various arrangements that govern, shape and manage the framework of daily life in towns, cities and communities and that, within variable limits, moderate or otherwise influence processes of economic competition and political conflict. The subject matter, as is indicated in the title, is the interaction between economics, politics and the environment in the formulation and implementation of plans and associated urban policies.

Theory and Practice

How may theory help urban planning practice? The answer is deceptively simple in principle. The very essence of theory is to promote understanding and, depending on the subject matter, to go beyond understanding to explanations and predictions. Theory involves a set of linked ideas, a systematic conception or statement that is intended to make sense of the world (Beauregard 2012) and that enables critiques, understanding or application. Imagining alternative futures, imagining alternative ways to realise that future, notably future governance arrangements, and evaluating existing and previous measures are all necessary aspects of planning practice, where a consideration of theory can help clarify issues and specify rules of enquiry.

A Store of Knowledge?

The usefulness of theory is related to its quality. Taking the discussions in business studies and psychology as a model, a high-quality theory might be defined in relation to a combination of three criteria—simplicity (a small number of elements), scope (its generalising ability) and accuracy (credibility of the account to those familiar with the object and situation being analysed) (Thorngate 1976; Weick 1999). The three criteria are demanding and not easy to pursue simultaneously. Yet other researchers, writing from a concern with qualitative research, are even more demanding. They would add that theories have to be related to described experience and that accounts of practice and accounts of human life should involve such criteria as ‘vividness’ (the ability of an account to draw readers in, generating a sense of reality and honesty) and ‘richness’ (the aesthetic depth and quality of the account that the theory generates) (Polkinghorne 1983, 45–6). A further complication is that the context of practice is liable to change and some forms of planning may even seek to change the context (Avelino and Rotmans 2011). And as the context changes, so may the most appropriate theory.

In response to a multiplicity of theories and equally to a multiplicity of criteria for assessing those theories, the metaphor of a ‘store’, as used by Healey (1997, 6–7) and Pallagst (2012, 37–72) is useful, in part. Planning theory is a store of knowledge—an apparently obvious phrase that has subtle implications. A store is a collection of valuables (goods, foods, knowledge and so on) accumulated over time. It is also ‘a stock (of anything material or immaterial) laid up for future use’ (Oxford English Dictionary online), for example a stock of tools or equipment that can be used for a variety of different purposes. A store does not therefore have to involve any degree of integration between its parts. Indeed a store of varied items (or theories) is likely to be more valuable than a store that only comprises a large number of the same items.

The metaphor of a store suggests, as Pallagst (2006) has also shown, that a specific case study of planning can be interpreted in a variety of different ways: as regulation (controlling development or other economic activities); as promoting investment decisions (for example, through the use of incentives); as design (as a means of shaping the urban environment); as collaboration (as a means of involving a variety of different stakeholders or interested parties); and finally as a means of monitoring change through the collection and analysis of data (as for example in Geographical Information Systems).

All these different interpretations imply different theories of how planning operates. Yet they can and do coexist alongside one another. The choice of theory therefore depends on which aspect of planning practice is to be examined. A variety of conflicting situations and conflicting pressures encourage both practitioners and researchers to ‘pick and mix’ ideas from different sources, accepting the possibility of a plurality of different ideas (Allmendinger 2009, 28). This being so, the aim of planning becomes about raising possibilities rather about providing prescriptive answers. Readers are left to make up their own mind about which argument and which theory provides the best insights and which methodology provides the most useful results in different situations.

There is a qualification, however. Merely presenting a list of items of knowledge is a recipe for confusion as it lacks direction. Raising possibilities and letting the reader go through a variety of different concepts and analytical frameworks is itself a worthwhile activity. However, theory also has to make a point, with appropriate lessons. Moreover, for planning theory, the basic point is the justification for planning, or its criticism as the case may be.

The Theory/Practice Gap

Irrespective of whether planning theory is understood as a store of knowledge or as a means of justification and criticism, the assumption is that practice and theory go together. That assumption is not universally accepted. There is another meaning of ‘theory’, as an abstraction distinct from or in opposition to practice. And this less favourable meaning has also found its way into the planning literature. For example, Allmendinger comments (2009, 22) that ‘to bemoan the theory-practice gap is now de rigueur for any exploration of planning theory’. Planning theorists in the US, for example Brooks (2002, 21–2) have also noted a gap. There is a variety of reasons for this.

In part, the theory/practice gap can be explained by specific historical factors that have influenced practice in Britain. For earlier generations of critics, such as Reade (1987, 156–62), the basic problem was that town planning in Britain acquired political legitimacy so quickly after World War II that it failed to provide a reasoned justification for its existence. The planning profession lacked a self-conscious awareness of its rationale and failed to undertake an evaluation of its economic and social effects and did not need to develop any such awareness to become established. The profession was, as a result, anti-theoretical. Reade’s analysis has to be qualified in that there have been more attempts to undertake systematic policy evaluation since about 2000 than at the time that Reade wrote. Planning in Britain has come under far more party political attack than in, say, the 1960s. The point remains, however, that working out the preconditions and methods of plan and policy evaluation is one of the central tasks for planning theory.

In addition, in the period from about 2000 to 2007, a new anti-theoretical tendency arose in Britain in the form of a move towards skills-based practice and skills-based education. This particular period was one of a booming property industry, supplemented by publicly funded measures to promote urban regeneration. The demands of policy and practice ran ahead of the numbers of available professionals, but also, in the view of some, ahead of the skills available in the professional workforce. The assumption of a series of reports, notably the Egan review (ODPM 2004) in relation to urban regeneration, but also in relation to neighbourhood regeneration (NRU 2002) and urban design (CABE 2003) was that the ‘good’ professional was defined by their ability to work effectively in teams, with developers, the public and with one another. The assumption is sensible enough, but could also be interpreted, as was later made explicit in Kitchen (2007), as suggesting that professional education could proceed without theory, merely through the acquisition of skills to complete the task of making ‘places better for people’ (ibid., 1).

Issues connected to theory do not disappear, however. For example, the Egan review (ODPM 2004, 92–9) identified the creation of ‘sustainable communities’ as the fundamental aim of planning and urban regeneration and, on that basis, identified various statistical indicators of progress under a series of headings. However, there is no single technical answer as to the definition of either ‘sustainable communities’ or ‘sustainable development’, as different indicators can be given a different weight.

The distinction between practice and theory can, in part, be reformulated as a distinction between the world of work and universities. Writing mainly about the English-speaking world, Schön (1992, 119), suggests that in urban studies and urban policy there ‘is a widening gap between thought and action, theory and practice, the academy and the everyday world’ in most if not all forms of professional education. Likewise, in France, Ascher has noted that the world of research in urban planning is a world, with ’its paradigms, its timescales, its vocabularies and its rules, quite different from that of practice’ (Masboungi 2009, 26).

To give an example: theory of the type that is linked to the social sciences is always in flux, always being defined and redefined and always being debated. In contrast, practice commonly requires that decisions are made within a short timetable. Practice assumes, moreover, that the knowledge base of those decisions can be treated as effectively closed so that action can go ahead (Gadamer 1975). Much of planning operates within public bureaucracies where closure of decision-making is particularly marked at lower levels in the administrative hierarchy. As a result, theory can raise problems and uncertainties that practitioners believe are either unimportant or even non-existent or that they have previously considered and discounted. Theory may also pose viewpoints with which practitioners may disagree or of which they may not be aware.

The very questioning of practice is therefore likely to involve some form of theory/practice gap. Though this may appear a contradiction from the viewpoint of some practitioners, the existence of some gap is also, to an extent, desirable as well as inevitable. Without any gap it would be impossible to retain a sense of critical distance. Enquiry would become immersed in the implications of the latest policy shifts or in the minutiae of the law and guidance. In Britain, the pages of professional journals give exactly that impression, as Webb (2010) has noted. Moreover, the unfinished character of theory is itself an advantage. Social theory, of which planning theory is, in part, a derivative, is unfinished partly because society is unfinished and partly because one of the educational functions of theory is to free minds from the acceptance of the status quo for its own sake.

A note of caution is, nevertheless, necessary. Even in the most favourable circumstances, theory alone is unlikely to change practice, because practice itself depends on routines, legal precedents and political opinions. Practice is embedded in a society that can be analysed and understood but has its own momentum.

A parallel can be drawn between planning theory and discussions of knowledge in sociology. Planning theory is analogous to the ‘science of opinions’, discussed by Durkheim (1964, 438 [1912]) in a study of religious life.

The science of opinions does not make opinions; it can only observe them and make them more conscious of themselves.

Likewise, the preparation of planning theory does not of itself create practice; it is based on observations of practice, and seeks to promote new understandings of practice and make practitioners of all types more conscious of what they are doing. Planning theory can have an impact, most likely if theory is joined to a study of an issue of public concern. However, the impact always depends on acceptance by others and will most likely be tied to the specifics of a case or policy.

The reference to a science of opinions has to be linked to another aspect of Durkheim’s sociology—namely a recognition of ‘social facts’, observable, secular trends and relationships that vary over time. For Durkheim, suicide rates were the social fact, par excellence. However, any number of trends and relationship are conceivable—migration rates, homelessness, levels of car use, rates of energy consumption and so on. Facts as well as opinions have to be considered in analysis and many social facts are likely to be relevant to processes of urban development, urban growth and decline. Discussions of planning theory, it should go without saying, do not preclude analyses of facts, including aggregate trends.

In addition, Giddens (1984, 221) has argued for a view of sociology as the interpretation of interpretations, or to be precise as an exercise in ‘double hermeneutics’, hermeneutics being the philosophy of interpretation. Single hermeneutics is about the interpretation of raw data such as texts or aspects of social practice or statistical trends or the visual impression of a landscape. Single hermeneutics therefore incorporates the interpretation of social facts, on the grounds that facts do not speak for themselves (Alvesson & Sköldberg 2008, 20–3). ‘Double hermeneutics’, the interpretation of interpreting subjects, is t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Summary
• Part I: Introduction
• Part II: Definitions, Styles and Forms
• Part III: Applying ‘Reason’ to Politics
• Part IV: Environmental Risks, Urban Transitions
• Index