European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !

-" ##

Planning Theory for the naive?

Christer Bengs
Editor-in-Chief The European Journal of Spatial Development Globalisation implies the establishment of a neo-liberal society to match the neoliberal economy. In this context planning theory seems to be reduced to pure ideology. The question thus follows, is planning theory then essentially useless for all theoretical or practical purposes !oreo"er, can planning theory sol"e the moral dilemmas faced by planning professionals #nd what does the communicati"e turn in planning theory stand for $ho need it% only the na&"e These are 'ust some of the questions raised in the following introductory discussion on planning theory.

The global context

In the historical process of expanding capitalism, trade was organised through single cit -states or leagues of cities in partnership, and later through centralised nation 1 states or empires! The preconditions for the free flow of mone and assets has traditionall "een organised within states and " agreements "etween states, "ut this state-"ased practice is increasingl "eing superseded " international organisations % such as the #T$ and others! The emergence of democrac in single states around the world is often associated with expanding capitalistic conditions in those countries! The process of glo"alisation indicates that provision is made for productive investments and profits to flow freel all around the world, which implies the dismantling of all "arriers to the free flow of such monies and assets! This process of economic glo"alisation has not, however, "een complemented " the development of glo"al democratic institutions, representative of the glo"al communit as a whole! In this sense, we seem to live in a world where expanding capitalism is not matched " expanding freedom in terms of a wider territorial coverage of democratic institutions! The im"alance "etween glo"al capitalism and national democrac actualises a dilemma& the contradiction "etween the glo"al and unlimited accumulation of assets on the one hand and the state-"ased and limited redistri"ution of assets through taxes on the other! The reallocation of assets is a distinctive feature of all 'nown societies other than those persisting in a su"sistence econom climate, "ecause the reproduction of wage la"our is impossi"le to manage solel through mar'et mechanisms! The present da dilemma is that national governments feel compelled to reduce taxes and dismantle reallocation mechanisms for the national reproduction of la"our (such as elderl care, health services and education) in order to "e *appealing+ to investors! The national welfare regimes are not, however, compensated for on the glo"al level " an 'ind of s stem for the reallocation of assets, as mar'et mechanisms are supposed to generate enough wealth for each and ever one! ,s that does not necessaril ta'e place, glo"alisation seems to generate wealth for the few and povert for the rest! .ationall anchored democratic institutions also seem to "e

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

conceived as o"stacles to glo"alisation to the extent that the persist in collecting taxes and reallocating resources! The deregulation of propert mar'ets across Europe during the last /uarter of a centur or so is an instructive example of the effects of glo"alisation! The dismantling of "arriers to free investing in real estate has "een seen as an urgent tas' " governments in most European countries! This has "een accompanied " decentralisation of decision-ma'ing and the overhaul of the national planning s stems! The changing role of pu"lic authorities implies a switch from control to the promotion of development! The direct involvement of elected "odies is "eing replaced piecemeal " a planning s stem where *sta'eholders+ rather than the democraticall elected representatives of the population as a whole hold swa ! This change is often la"elled *governance+ in contrast to old-fashioned *government+, and it is propagated 0 as an extension and not as a reduction of democrac ! In the ideological 1ustification of a li"eralised land regime, planning theor stressing the communication aspect (*"ottom-up+) as apart from pu"lic control (*top-down+) has "een ver influential! #h less pu"lic control in matters relating to land use and the appropriation of land rent should "e seen as more *"ottom-up+ than previous land regimes is however rarel elucidated! The role of planning theor seems then to have "een reduced to that of pure ideolog ! #hat then is the use of planning theor 2

Is planning theory useless?

3ish San al has /uestioned the usefulness of planning theor for practitioners& *#hat do planners rel upon when engaged in compromising2 #hat theor of action can the loo' to for guidance2 The current literature on so called planning theor is rather 4 thin and somewhat useless for this purpose!+ ,ctuall his concern does not relate to the relevance of planning theor to planners in general, "ut to the usefulness of planning theor for practitioners dealing with moral 1udgements! ,ccording to his studies of planning practitioners, when trou"led with moral dilemmas and loo'ing for ethical compromises the do not find an planning theories useful! San al concludes that theories of negotiation have ver little to sa a"out the moral 1udgements planners must ma'e! In ma'ing this claim, he actuall more or less ridicules the whole 5 thrust of mainstream planning thought that has prevailed in recent decades! The moral dilemmas San al refers to are increasingl encountered in planning practice as an effect of glo"alisation, which has created a growing set of uncertainties! Compromises are needed and planners get involved, "ut how can the manage processes, which cannot "e directed with a fixed code of conduct appropriate for all times and all places2 6nli'e glo"alisation+s apologists or sceptics, the planners have, according to San al, to cope with the factual effects of glo"alisation and the have to wor' out compromises concerning time schedules, planning processes and envisaged outcomes! San al thin's that these compromises are of a moral nature& the relative autonom of planners is highlighted in this context, and the have to ma'e moral 1udgements within the limits of the possi"le! Should the , for instance, give in to developers+ demands for tax concessions2 Should the accept a reduction in la"our standards as an inevita"le part of an *enterprise 7one+, etc!2 #hat is needed is *the art of ethical compromises+! In the context of glo"alisation, conflicts of interest as well as conflicts of principles emerge! San al thin's it is almost impossi"le to find compromise if conflicts are defined as *conflicts of principles+ as
%
8

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

opposed to *conflicts of interests+! Conse/uentl , success in compromise would re/uire the transformation of principles to interests! The planner has to define the issue at hand in such a wa that tradeoffs are possi"le, which in its turn presupposes relevant 'nowledge! Instead of stud ing disasters, San al advocates the stud of planning successes such as attracting investments without compromising la"our or environmental standards! This 'ind of 'nowledge could then o"viousl encourage planners to find ethicall accepta"le compromises! 9lanners would then "e appreciated for their small successes instead of "eing maligned for their lac' of theor and inconsistenc !

Professionalism and theory

If planning theor is of little use to practitioners, perhaps it is to some use for others2 :es, sa s John ;riedmann, *<it is essential to the vitalit and continued relevance of = planning as a profession!+ This view is of course understanda"le coming from a universit professor who earns his living " producing planning theor ! 3ut there is more to it than that& there can "e no profession without a particular expertise, including formalised training and (prefera"l ) some experience of the trade! Experts are specialists, that is to sa , the possess, " definition, 'nowledge of a 'ind that la men lac'! The tas's of an expert must "e defined in a wa that includes moments of action, which demand particular s'ills ac/uired during the training! 9ractical s'ills can "e pic'ed up in professional practice, "ut professional s'ills include theoretical 'nowledge as well as particular ethical attitudes and aesthetical preferences, which form the core of a profession+s training programme! The prestige of an profession seems to depend on the perceived degree of theoretical 'nowledge associated with that profession! The more *specialist+ one is considered to "e, the less there is of suppl compared to demand, and the more prestige and income is li'el to follow! The professional dilemma of planners resem"les that of architects! Sometimes "oth of these professions find it hard to point to the particular "od of theoretical 'nowledge that would distinguish them from other professions or academic faculties! The *theor of planning+ has, as such, emerged " fusing together "its and pieces of social and political science, economics, ps cholog , geograph , art histor , aesthetics, etc! It is, however, /uestiona"le to what degree *planning theor + forms an autonomous "od of thought, which would "e distinct from all of these sources of inspiration from other academic faculties! The professional dilemma of architects is an instructive example! ,fter "eing master "uilders and experts in a whole range of matters, the profession of architects has "een deprived of much of their expertise " other professions! #hat is left for them is sometimes considered to "e the issue of aesthetics, that is, architects are presumed to "e experts on architecture (whatever that means)! 3ut can there "e *experts+ on aesthetical or ethical matters2 :es and no> $n the individual level, some are more interested and educated in matters of st le and taste, or with regard to ethical issues for that matter, than others! Some seem to "e more gifted than others in this respect! 3ut this does not mean that there would "e a growing "od of thought concerning aesthetics and ethics that would progress in ? terms of /ualit over time! The difference here with science and mathematics is stri'ing! ,ncient wor's of mathematics ma "e of historical interest, "ut the are fairl useless for modern mathematicians! The same cannot "e said a"out aesthetical and ethical matters! ,ncient art and writings on ethics have more or less the same topicalit now as the had more than two thousand ears ago! S'ills of an aesthetical

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

and ethical character can "e ac/uired over an individual lifetime, "ut when the individual passes awa , with her@him goes her@his s'ills and 'nowledge! Aatters of taste and morals are individual issues in the sense that ever human "eing has to start from scratch! ,rchitects ma "e experts on prevailing aesthetical preferences among architects (e/uals architecture), "ut their conception of "eaut is often in opposition to 1B the preferences of ordinar people! In sharp contrast to this, the findings of concurrent mathematicians are "e ond the hori7on of la men "ut affect the lives of ever one! To conclude, some "ranches of 'nowledge, for instance mathematics and technolog , can "e accumulated while 'nowledge related to other "ranches of human life such as ethical and aesthetical matters concern 1udgement, which is not accumulative in the 11 same sense as mathematics and high-technolog are! 9ossi"le expertise in ethics and aesthetics (if we oversee the histor of these faculties) is an exponent of life experience, not of theoretical insights alone, and therefore it is dou"tful to what extent an profession can claim expert 'nowledge concerning matters of 1udgement and taste! This does not mean that all communities or cultures are e/uall "ewildered in matters of ethics and aesthetics! I do thin' that some societies produce more of collective "eaut and fairness than others, "ut this is not an exponent of expert rule, rather the contrar ! 3eaut and fairness thrive where the are o"1ects of collective and pu"lic interest!

Can moral dilemmas be solved by theory?

Could planning theor provide guidelines for practicing planners facing moral dilemmas2 I strongl dou"t it> ;irstl , *theor + in the academic sense of the word would indicate an accumulating "od of 'nowledge! *9lanning theor + fit for assisting practitioners in solving moral controversies would impl that experts on moralit could solve planning pro"lems of a moral nature in an increasingl sufficient manner! I find this impossi"le to "elieve, not "ecause I possess particular li"eral values that hold me "ac' from advocating a 'ind of societ where experts rule over all aspects of life, "ut "ecause matters of an aesthetic and ethical character are simpl "e ond an 'ind of expertise! Cood or "ad, right or wrong, "eautiful or ugl , are categories that are often imposed on each of us " others, "ut might does not ma'e right! If the moral dilemmas of planning could be sol"ed by theory, we would li"e in a society of perpetually increasing moral standards. If architects really possessed the definition of beauty, we would li"e in a society of perpetually increasing aesthetical standards. I dare to dou"t that this is the case! Secondl , planners construct plans in response to alleged pro"lems related to a specificall emerging su"1ect matter or to procedural issues! In a similar manner, I assume, planning theoreticians construct theories in response to alleged intrinsic or extrinsic pro"lems related to planning and to previous theories! In "oth cases the aim is to sol"e pro"lems. This is utterl different from academia in general, where the point of departure is not to solve pro"lems "ut to define them! The theoretical wor' in even such an applied discipline as sociolog does not " necessit implicate the construction of a new theor , "ut rather the identification of shortcomings in prevailing thought& the a"ilit to define a (new) pro"lem is the core of theoretical insight, not the a"ilit to solve it! $f course the distinction "etween pro"lem solving and pro"lem formulation is to some extent ar"itrar ! 9ro"lem formulation ma impl (particular) solutions, and pro"lem solving ma generate new (theoretical) pro"lems!
0

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

The point here is, however, that professions such as engineers and architects with a "ac'ground in handicraft, or the rational management of practical matters, stic' to a tradition of pro"lem solving while the more theoretical disciplines operate the other wa around, defining pro"lems! Aoral dilemmas ma of course concern pro"lem formulation as well as pro"lem solving! 3ut the more a pro"lem is related to efficienc and there" instrumental approaches, the less it pro"a"l generates second thoughts of a moral nature among practitioners! If planners and planning theoreticians should "e "lamed for something, it would "e for "eing predominantl instrumental in their approach to professional matters! ,t its "est, planning theor could provide some insights into the dilemmas related to planning commissions as such, not onl to the practical wor' of producing plans in terms of processes and outcome! 3ut this seems to "e something ver far awa from 3ish San al+s re/uest for ethically rele"ant theory as he invo'ed the success stories and refuted planning disasters!

Planning theory in context

The meaning of planning theor is of course relative to the 'ind of theor under scrutin ! Auch of the output of planning theorists could "e characterised as an endless series of classification attempts and the ela"oration of t pologies of thought! John ;riedmann in his response to 3ish San al tries to relate the /uestion of "enefits to 1% mode of theor " ma'ing a classification of planning theor into three categories! ;irstl , theories in planning are of an instrumental character and the concern the su"1ect matters of planning such as land-use, transportation, environment, etc! Secondl , theories of planning address what is common to all of them! These theories are generic and normative! Thirdl , theories about planning deal with planning as it is actuall practiced in particular contexts! ,ccording to ;riedmann, categories one and three are une/uivocall relevant for planning practice! The dispute concerns t pe two, which according to ;riedmann is relevant as well, "ecause an proposition concerning what planning ought to "e is grounded in some set of theoretical assumptions! The theor in terms of particular standards and parameters is alwa s there, consciousl or unconsciousl , as soon as 1udgements are made! The position of ;riedmann is discussed " E!D! ,lexander who interprets the claim concerning theories of planning to mean that planning practice needs a theor of what 1planning is or should "e! ,ccording to ,lexander, viewing generic planning theories as ideologies offers the potential for some insight in addressing the issue of their relevance for planning practices! ,lexander also refutes the idea of ma'ing a difference "etween the theor of planning and theories about planning! This seems to ma'e sense, "ecause planning ideologies of course em"race not onl planning as such, "ut the societal context as well! The ideal planning s stem cannot "e disconnected from the ideal societ , and the wa the context of planning is drawn up in each case most pro"a"l implies a particular (ideal) view on the functions of planning! 9roviding an particular idea of the ideal planning s stem is alwa s connected to a particular idea of the ideal societ , we could then perhaps anal se planning theories in terms of implied worldviews and political ideologies! .ow, one could claim that there is a significant "od of writing on planning theor that draws its inspiration from a vast arra of political bric-a-brac, much of which lac's logical coherence! Therefore there is " no means a necessaril clear correspondence "etween a particular planning theor and particular traditions of political thought! This seems o"vious, "ecause

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

man of the most cele"rated authors of planning theor seem to "e dilettantes of political histor ! In addition, the connection "etween planning theor and political worldview ma not "e consciousl ela"orated or even recognised " the author! Conse/uentl it would "e unfair to put political la"els on theoreticians in a wa that the themselves do not recognise! I thin', however, that it is ver important to assess prevailing theoretical concepts in terms of "roader ideological trends! Deferring to anal tical philosoph , we could ma'e a distinction "etween ratio and causa& ratio refers to the explanations of those involved and causa to cause! Explanations could of course correspond to actual causes or correspondences, "ut much of the time the do not! Dhetoric demands arguments with a flair for moral integrit , which normall excludes arguments expressing self-interest or outright cheating! Ever "od involved wants to 'eep a clean shield! In order to comment on planning theor E that is, to produce meanings E the outspo'en intentions of the author of the theor under scrutin is, needless to sa , interesting, "ut, with reference to the discipline as a whole, a "roader grip on the su"1ect ma "e of interest! Does it ma'e sense to interpret prevailing planning theories in the context of political developments as a whole2 I thin' so>

The communicative turn

, switch from ontological to epistemological matters, or vice versa, seems to emerge periodicall throughout the histor of thought! *The communicative turn+ could "e characterised as such a change of interest from ontological to epistemological matters, em"racing social sciences in particular during the post-war period, and with accelerating speed in recent decades! In planning, *<its language would "e future see(ing, "ut not, li'e its ph sical "lueprint and goal-directed predecessors, future 10 defining!+ The need for change is in a rhetoricall suggestive wa "uilt up " degrading planning of the past& *<technical and administrative machineries advocated and created to pursue these goals in the past have "een "ased on what we 14 now see as a narrow scientific rationalism!+ These so-called machineries *<have further compromised the development of a democratic attitude and have failed to 15 achieve the goals promoted!+ The paradigm shift is here and *<the new wave<see's to escape from the strait-1ac'et of a narrow instrumental rationalit <It searches for wa s of going "e ond a preoccupation with the distri"ution on material 18 resources!+ The *communicative turn+ has ver often "een conceived as an enlargement and empowerment of democratic processes! The idea is that pu"lic government em"edded in representative democrac has failed to deliver social 1ustice and environmental sustaina"ilit , and that government has compromised the development of a democratic attitude as well! 9ats Feal has "een one of the most influential proponents of the communicative turn in planning, "aptising her own version 1= *colla"orative planning+! ,ttac'ing *pricing strategies+ in planning, *aesthetic relativism+ and the *extending of modernit +s tolerance+ as well as *idealist fundamentalism+ impl ing the application of one single *uni-dimensional hegemon +, she spea's in favour of communicative rationalit as the onl (>) possi"le 1? alternative! The notion of reason as inter-su"1ective mutual understanding in a given historical context is propagated, "ut at the same time the demand for *respectful discussion+ is not applied with regard to competing endeavours!

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

Fere, the interest is not to assess whether the communicative turn in planning theor is right or wrong, "ut rather to in/uire wh it has gained momentum during the last /uarter of a centur ! Is there a genuine democratic deficit that has to "e overhauled or are the reasons for this "est sought somewhere else2 Concerning the alleged deficit of democrac , notions li'e *democrac +, *development+, and *sustaina"ilit + are not anal tic "ut s nthetic concepts, which are generall accepted as legitimate rhetorical means to pursue whatever one+s aims! ,dd *gender e/uit + and ou have it all> It cannot however "e asserted *once and for all+ to what extent planning traditions in general, or even individuall , are democratic or not! Each case is different and has to "e 1udged according to factual circumstances! Conse/uentl , communicative planning ma advance democratic attitudes or it ma not! ,ctuall colla"orative planning as s'etched " Feale in a num"er of writings seems to me to impl a whole arra of manipulative elements, which would seem to sit uneasil with democrac in terms of %B deli"eration and prudence! There ma however "e other reasons for the prevalence of communicative planning theor 2 I thin' one such reason could "e found in the prevalence of neo-li"eral ideolog , and in particular in the need to esta"lish social institutions consistent with the neo-li"eral societ , that is to sa , institutions that match and advance the free flow of investments and development! , new planning regime with a minimum of predefined restrictions and guidelines and ample possi"ilities for stri'ing deals on the local level is in conformit with the neo-li"eral ideals! Two "asic concepts E *pu"lic interest+ and *political communit + E are of particular interest when commenting on the political implications of communicative planning approaches! The degrading of something traditionall la"elled public interest and the reduction of citi7ens to sta'eholders through the introduction of the concept of political community or other la"els ma shed some light on the concurrent development of communicative planning theor !

The notion of public interest

,ccording to Stefano Aoroni it is commonplace toda in the planning field to sa that %1 *the pu"lic interest does not exist+! Aoroni has discussed various arguments counter to the idea of pu"lic interest, and concludes that it is not possi"le for planners to do %% without some notion of the pu"lic interest! Fe thus asserts that the rethin'ing of the concept is more important than its a"andonment! , ma1or criti/uing argument against the idea of pu"lic interest is that it cannot "e the interest of all, given the diversit of interests among individuals! There would conse/uentl "e no planning in the interest of all and the planner is in an case not alone in "eing una"le to understand and formulate the public interest! In this 'ind of reasoning, pu"lic interest is conceived of in a distri"utive sense! $ne could argue, however, that the pu"lic interest is not the real interest of each individual "ut the potential interest of an one, that is, the public interest is a collecti"e interest regarding an indefinite number of non-assignable indi"iduals. ;rom a theoretical point of departure, the pu"lic interest could "e seen as corresponding to the production of *pu"lic goods+, which is an esta"lished concept in economics, determining those goods that cannot "e supplied " mar'et mechanisms! 9u"lic goods are non-excluda"le (no"od can "e excluded from consuming them), non-rival (the consumption " one individual does not deprive other individuals of the
8

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

possi"ilities of consumption) and sometimes non-re1ecta"le (one must consume them), and therefore nearl impossi"le to turn into mar'et commodities! Conse/uentl , it seems to "e a *fact+ that such goods exist, "ut it is of course disputed to what extent the should "e considered a public interest to produce& consider for instance the "eaut of the landscape! In line with the traditional utilitarian view, there is a pu"lic interest in safeguarding the a"ilit of individuals to maximise their individual interests, which would produce the maximum outcome of "enefits for societ as a whole! The ideal that the sum of individual optimums would lead to a total optimal is of course disputed, "ut even the crudest utilitarianism recognises a pu"lic interest! Societ must also provide for the suppl of some other essential pu"lic goods as well (securit , law and order, etc!), and the acceptance of this idea means the acceptance of the existence of something called a pu"lic interest! ,ccording to the communicative approach to planning, the notion of pu"lic interest is cast in dou"t and the theor is professed as "eing contrar to the idea of pu"lic %interest! 9u"lic interest is recognised primaril as the interests of the ma1or "usinesses and promoted " the representative model of democrac ! Involving the pu"lic in articulating the pu"lic interest would challenge the politician+s responsi"ilit %0 for the tas' and the role of the representatives! ,ccordingl , pu"lic interest is associated with the traditional planning regime and its connections to sta'eholder %4 groups and corresponding political lo""ies! To refute the existence of pu"lic interest as a fact, or to den it as something that can "e formulated within the context of representative democrac , seems to me to represent a view of total alienation to concurrent achievements! .ational, regional and local planning regimes are tied up " international charters, which for instance concern environmental issues and cultural heritage! *Sustaina"le development+ is considered to "e an overriding value, which has infiltrated almost ever polic document of the E6 and other international institutions! 9erhaps *sustaina"le development+ is not a factual interest in line with the perceptions of each and ever individual, "ut it is certainl a collective interest "ecause of its elevated position in an environmental discussion! To claim the non-existence of pu"lic interest with the argument that it does not exist as a fact, or that there exists no extra-individual or overriding values, it then to den the factual implications of ideas approved " democraticall elected "odies, and it is to refute the importance of su"stantial international agreements (ela"orated in a communicative process>)!

Stakeholders R !not" #s
In the context of glo"alisation, national and regional as well as local planning regimes have to compete for investments and development! Territoriall organised democratic governments ma hamper the free flow of investments where politicians find (for instance environmental, social and political) costs to "e too high compared to the foreseen "enefits! ;or the local population, short-term interests (such as emplo ment) ma "e contrasted against overriding principles of an ordered societ and peaceful cooperation among its residents! In man cases, farsighted voters ma prefer to consider principles ahead of interests, which is pro"a"l a clever long-term strateg from their point of view!

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

#ithin the neo-li"eral conception, compromises and ad1ustments are more li'el to occur through the ad1ustment of interests than " getting involved in tampering with principles! 9romoting the idea of *sta'eholders+ instead of *citi7ens+ or *ever "od + is a wa of pla ing down the /uestion of principles and pu"lic interest while upgrading the /uestion of particular interests! If the pu"lic interest could "e conceived of as the collective interest of all, then the /uestion emerges how this collective interest could "e formulated "e ond that of individual interests, or as something other than the sum of individual interests! To refer to *sta'eholders+ does not do, "ecause not all of those in need of pu"lic goods are sta'eholders in terms of partners in an particular development pro1ect! The factual externalities of an investment affect as a rule man more people than the *sta'eholders+ usuall involved! 9roviding that we accept the notion of a public interest, how could it "e formulated and " whom2 , trivial answer to the /uestion is that it is formulated within the s stem of representative democrac , supplemented " various forms of direct decision-ma'ing (referendums, etc!) when needed! The notion that man politicians are corrupt, or that representative democrac is intimatel lin'ed to huge institutional interest and lo""ies ma "e correct, "ut the solution is in m view not to den the democratic potential of that government, "ut to anal se its shortcomings and to suggest improvements! 9eople are 'illed in all countries, "ut this is not a sufficient reason to ma'e 'illing legal! It is pure nonsense to advocate *governance+ (as alleged *"ottom-up+ involvement) as superior to *government+ (as alleged *top-down+ procedures) as if democratic ideals and fairness could "e implemented " organisational reforms onl ! Auch more is demanded for that, and we cannot close our e es to the fact that the elites are the architects of governance structures, never the crowd! ;airness for all ma emerge when the huge ma1orit of the lower parts of the social ladder are strong enough to esta"lish their interpretations of fairness, providing the elite does not corrupt their ideas, "ut this seems ver unli'el to occur! ,ccording to the colla"orative theor of planning, the concept of *political communit + is introduced as an alternative to representative democrac and oldfashioned government! The definition of *political communit + is extremel wide, %5 ena"ling almost an group of sta'eholders to "e called a political communit ! This opens the wa for ar"itrariness as to sta'eholders and the *design+ of a manipulative pla where the actors ma "e totall ignorant of their factual functions in the pla ! 9lanning theor for the naGve2 :es, the idea of *political communit + must "e understood in the context of the refutation of *pu"lic interest+, and the involvement of particular interests represented " groups that can stri'e deals when needed! The pla would "e pla ed in a wa where most actors are pure *extras+! Supernumeraries have little to contri"ute when deals are struc' "etween leading parties, financers and developers!

Concluding remarks
#hen academic ideas are traded on the intellectual mar'etplace, the are su"1ected to the laws of rhetoric as are all other 'inds of discourses! #e all want to promote democrac , development, sustaina"ilit and e/uit ! In the name of democrac we oppose all other ideas than our own! In the name of development and sustaina"ilit we do the same! Fowever, in order not to "e fooled " the outspo'en pretensions of others, it ma "e "etter to stic' to factual anal ses of ideas and discourses rather than ta'ing outspo'en pretensions for granted! 9ersonall , I do prefer communicative acts

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

to more "rutal alternatives li'e "lunt violence in the wa people see' to solve their disputes, "ut this does not mean that peaceful communication is totall innocent! Ever stor line is part of a context, and it is the stor that gives the stor line a meaning in the end! To me, it seems fairl futile to promote democrac " tr ing to esta"lish institutions for the few rather then for the man ! Concurrent democratic institutions across Europe certainl fail legitimac and efficienc tests in delivering pu"lic goods according to prevailing needs and demands! 3ut this does not mean that newl installed institutions would do a "etter 1o"! ,s such, it is more important to formulate the pro"lem in respect of the present d sfunctions of the political s stem than to start designing new institutions! $ne reason for the crises of representative democrac could "e that traditional parties are organised in accordance with the position of their supporters with regard to production tas's& merchants, cler's, farmers, wor'ers! 9erhaps this no longer has an organisational relevance2 9erhaps then it is the part s stem that is in crises, not representative democrac as such2 9erhaps we can even see a part s stem evolving that is "ased on the position of their supporters with regard to consumption and life-st les& the greens, heritage, sports, etc!2 The idea that universit people who train planners should "e engaged in the design of a new societ E at the same time as the a"solutel re1ect the idea of an 'ind of "lueprint design for an other dimension of life E is slightl a"surd! ,s ,ristotle put it when delivering a "roadside against (allegedl the first) planning theoretician 'nown to histor , that is, Fippodamus& *Fe wished to "e considered expert in the whole range of natural sciences tooH and he was the first person not actuall ta'ing part in %8 the wor'ing of a constitution to attempt some description of the ideal one!+ Theoreticians of planning have persuasive idols in the histor of planning, "ut planning academia would pro"a"l thrive "etter in an air of less political opportunism and more scientific rationalism!
1

3 capitalism is meant *a social and economic s stem in which individuals are free to own the means of production and maximi7e profits and in which resource allocation is determined " the price s stem+! 3annoc', 3axter I Davis 1??=, p! 4%! % The relative independence of international "odies regulating glo"al capitalism from single states or 1oint ventures of states is of course a disputed issue! Chossudovs' 1???! 0 Feale 1??8"! 4 San al %BB%, p! 1%B! 5 #ith regard to the Fa"ermasian approach, San al refers (footnote 11) to Feal 1??8a! 8 i"id! = ;riedmann %BB-, p! ?! ? ,lread in the latter part of the 18th centur in ;rance, the /uestion of progress in societ was discussed intensivel , and the conclusion of this discussion was E rightl so I thin' E that matters of an ethical and aesthetical nature cannot *progress+ in the same sense that technical innovation or economic accumulation do! 1B ,n empirical stud shows that students of architecture are socialised through their studies into aesthetic preferences that are opposed to those of the ma1orit in societ ! 11 This insight was alread realised in ;rance during the latter part of the 18th centur as a result of an extensive discussion on the issue of progress in the ;rench ,cadem ! See Jowenthal 1??4, p! 80-1%0! 1% ;riedmann %BB-! 1,lexander %BB-! 10 Feale 1??8a, p! %4%! 14 Feale 1??8a, p! %-0! 15 Feale 1??8a, p! %-0!

1B

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

18 1=

Feale %BB-, p! %-?! Feale 1??8a! 1? *<to engage in an other strateg is to generate once again forms of planning that have inherent within them an antidemocratic dominator potential!+ Feale 1??8", p! %4%! %B $ne example of the manipulative potential& *, powerful discourse, energeticall diffused, has the capacit to change what people thin' and what the do, and to maintain these changes!+ See Feale %BB-a, p! %41! Fere persuasion is made totall instrumental, void of an moral stand! %1 Aoroni %BB0, p! 14%! %% Aoroni %BB0! %Feale %BB-a! %0 Feale 1??8a, p! %%%, %%4! %4 Feale 1??8a, p! %?8! %5 *)olitical community in this context means those who, " prior law, or common consent or " organi7ational mem"ership, find themselves part of a collective entit ! 9olitical communities ma "e associations of those with a common interest, a communit of ac'nowledged sta'eholders! Such communities have no necessar territorial definition<The ma also "e territorial communities, defined " cultural associations with place or " the "oundaries of political 1urisdictions, such as all those living in a particular national "oundar or local authorit area!+ Feale 1??8a, p! %B5! %8 ,ristotle 1??%, II, viii!

References
,lexander, E!D! (%BB-)! Desponse to *wh do planning theor +! In )lanning Theory Kol %(-)& 18?-1=%! S,CE 9u"lications! ,ristotle, (1??%)! The )olitics. 9enguin 3oo's! 3annoc', C!, 3axter, D!E! I Davis, E! (1??=)! *ictionary of +conomics! 9rofile 3oo's! Chossudocs' , A! (1???)! The Globalisation of )o"erty% Impacts of I!, and $orld Ban( -eforms! Led 3oo's! ;riedmann, J! (%BB-)! *#h do 9lanning Theor 2+ In )lanning Theory Kol %(1)& 8-1B! S,CE 9u"lications! Feale , 9! (%BB-a)! *The Communicative Turn in 9lanning Theor and its Implications for Spatial Strateg ;ormation!+ In Camp"ell, S! I ;ainstein, S!S! -eadings in )lanning Theory! Second Edition, 3lac'well 9u"lishers, p! %-8-%44! Feale , 9! (%BB-")! *Colla"orative 9lanning in 9erspective!+ In )lanning Theory Kol! %(%)& 1B1-1%-! S,CE 9u"lications! Feale , 9! (1??8a!) Collaborati"e )lanning% .haping )laces in ,ragmented .ocieties! Aacmillan 9ress Jtd! Feale , 9! (1??8")! *9lanning Through De"ate& The Communicative Turn in 9lanning Theor !+ In Camp"ell, S! I ;ainstein, S!S! -eadings in )lanning Theory! 3lac'well 9u"lishers, p! %-0-%48!

11

European Journal of Spatial Development - http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/-ISSN 16 !-" ##

Feale , 9! (1??5) *The Communicative Turn in 9lanning Theor and its Implications for Spatial Strateg ;ormation!+ In Camp"ell, S! I ;ainstein, S!S! -eadings in )lanning Theory! 3lac'well 9u"lishers, p! %-8-%44! Jowenthal, D! (1??4)! The )ast is a ,oreign Country! Cam"ridge 6niversit 9ress! Aandel"aum, S!J! (%BB-)! +$n Compromise!+ In )lanning Theory Kol %(1)& 11-1%! S,CE 9u"lications! Aoroni, S! (%BB0)! *Towards a Deconstruction of the 9u"lic Interest Criterion!+ In )lanning Theory Kol -(%)& 141-181! S,CE 9u"lications! San al, 3! (%BB%)! *Clo"ali7ation, Ethical Compromise and 9lanning Theor !+ In )lanning Theory Kol 1(%)& 115-1%-! S,CE 9u"lications!

1%