The historical association between planning and rationality is unquestioned, but postmodernist critiques have raised doubts about the future of rational planning. This review defines and arrays different types of rationality to reveal that rationality is broader and more diverse than the instrumental rationality which has been associated with planning. An integrative framework associates complementary (contingent) planning paradigms with various forms of rationality, to suggest that the association between planning and rationality continues unabated. Discussion should shift from questioning the link between rationality and planning to asking what kinds of planning and rationality particular cases, situations, or contexts demand.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, Ernest R.1982. Design in the decision makin-g process. Poliiy Sciences14(3): 279-292.
2.
Alexander, Ernest R.1984. After rationality, what? A review of responses to paradigm breakdown. Journal of the American Planning Association50(1): 62-69.
3.
Alexander, Ernest R.1995. How Organizations Act Together: Interorganizational Coordination in Theory and Practice. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Gordon & Breach.
4.
Alexander, Ernest R.1996. After rationality: Toward a contingency theory for planning. In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, 45-64. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
5.
Alexander, Ernest R.1998a. Where do we go from here? Evaluation in spatial planning in the post-rational future. In Evaluation in Spatial Planning, eds. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, and Anna Prat, 355-374. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
6.
Alexander, Ernest R.1998b. Doing the impossible: Notes for a general theory of planning, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25 (4): 667-680.
7.
Alexander, Ernest R.1998c. Evaluation in Israeli spatial planning: Theory vs. practice. In Evaluation in Spatial Planning, eds. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, and Anna Prat. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
8.
Alexander, Ernest R. 1998d. Planning for interdependence: Linking Amsterdam, its metropolitan region and Europe. AME-Universiteit van Amsterdam.
9.
Alexander, Ernest R., Rachelle Alterman, and Hubert Law-Yone. 1983. Evaluating plan implementation: The national statutory planning system in Israel. Progress in Planning 20 (Part 2). Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon.
10.
Alexander, Ernest R., and Andreas Faludi. 1996. Planning doctrine: Its uses and implications. Planning Theory16:11-61.
11.
Allison, Graham T.1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston, Mass.: Little-Brown.
12.
Alter, Catherine, and Jerald Hage. 1993. Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
13.
Alvesson, Matts. 1995. The meaning or meaning lessness of postmodernism: Some ironic remarks. Organization Studies16(6):1047-1075.
14.
Apel, Karl O.1984. Understanding and Explanation: A TranscendentalPragmatic Perspective. Translated by G. Warnke. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
15.
Barbanente, A., D. Borri, G. Concilio, S. Mazzi, and E. Scandurra. 1998. Dealing with environmental conflicts in evaluation: Cognitive complexity and scale problems. In Evaluation in Spatial Planning, eds. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, and Anna Prat, 73-95. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
16.
Baum, Howell S.1996. Why the rational paradigm persists: Tales from the field. Journal of Planning Education and Research15(2): 127-135.
17.
Beauregard, Robert A.1991. Without a net: Modernist planning and the postmodern abyss. Journal of Planning Education and Research10(2): 189-194.
18.
Beauregard, Robert A.1996. Advocating preeminence: Anthologies as politics. In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W.Burchell, 45-64. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
19.
Benn, S.I., and G.W. Mortimer. 1976. Introduction. In Rationality and the Social Sciences: Contributions to the philosophy and methodology of the social sciences, eds. S.I. Benn and G.W. Mortimer, 1-7. London: Routledge.
20.
Blanco, Hilda. 1994. How to Think about Social Problems: American Pragmatism and the Idea of Planning. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
21.
Bolan, Richard S.1991. Planning and institutional design. Planning Theory5/6: 7-34.
22.
Braybrooke, David, and Charles E. Lindblom. 1963. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
23.
Bridge, Gary. 1997. Towards a situated universalism: On strategic rationality and ‘local theory.’Environment and Planning D: Society and Space15(6): 633-639.
24.
Brown, Harold I.1988. Rationality. London: Routledge.
25.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1984. The Limits of Rationality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Thought ofMax Weber. London: Routledge.
26.
Bryson, John M.1988. Strategic Planningfor Public and Non-profit Organizations. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
27.
Bryson, John M., and Barbara Crosby. 1992. Leadershipfor the Common Good: How to lackle Public Problems in a Shared-Power World. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
28.
Bryson, John M., and Barbara Crosby. 1993. Policy planning and the design and use of forums, arenas and courts. Environment and Planning B. Planning and Design20(1):175-194.
29.
Cox, J.R., and C.A. Willard, eds. 1982. Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.
30.
Coyne, R.D.1995. Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age: From Method to Metaphor. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
31.
Cross, Nigel. 1986. Understanding design: The lessons of design methodology. Design Methods and Theories20(2):409-438.
32.
Dalton, Linda C.1986. Why the rational paradigm persists. Journal of Planning Education and Research5(3):147-153.
33.
Dalton, Linda C.1989. Emerging knowledge about planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research9(1):29-44.
34.
Davidoff, Paul, anid Thomas A.Reiner. 1962. A choice theory of planning. Journal of the American Instituite of Planners28(3): 103-115.
35.
Davis, O.A., M.A.H. Dempster, and A. Wildavsky. 1974. Toward a predictive theory of the federal budgetary process. British Journal ofPolitical Science4(4): 419-452.
36.
Dotson, A.B., David Godschalk, and Jerome Kaufman. 1989. The planner as dispute resolver: Concepts and teaching materials. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Dispute Resolution.
37.
Edwards, George C. III, and Ira Sharkansky. 1978. The Policy Predicament: Making and Implementing Public Policy. San Francisco, Calif.: Freeman.
38.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1967. Mixed scanning: A “third” approach to decision making. Public Administration*Review27(4):385-392.
39.
Faludi, Andreas. 1987. A Decision-centred View of Environmental Planning. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon.
40.
Faludi, Andreas. 1996. Framing with images. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design23(1):93-108.
41.
Faludi, Andreas, and Arnold van de Valk. 1994. Rule and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
42.
Feldman, Martha. 1981. Order without Design: Information Production and Policy Making. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
43.
Fischer, Frank, and John Forester, eds. 1987. Confronting Values in Policy Sciences: The Politics of Criteria. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage.
44.
Fischer, Frank, and John Forester, eds. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
45.
Flyvberg, Bent. 1996. The dark side of planning: Rationality and realrazionalitdt. In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, 45-64. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
46.
Flyvberg, Bent. 1998. Rationality and Power. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Forester, John. 1980. Critical theory and planning practice. Journal of the American Planning Association46(2):245-276.
48.
Forester, John. 1984. Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review44(1):23-31.
49.
Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face ofPower. Berkeley: University of California Press.
50.
Forester, John. 1993. Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Prac tice. Albaniy, N.Y.: SUNY Press.
51.
Forester, John. 1996. Argument, power and passion in planning practice. In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, 45-64. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
52.
Frederickson, H.G.1976. Public administration in the 1970s: Development and direction. Public Administration Review36(5):569-570.
53.
Friedmann, John. 1967. A conceptual model for the analysis of planning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly12(3):225-252.
54.
Friedmann, John. 1973. RetrackingAmerica: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor/Doubleday.
55.
Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
56.
Friedmann, John. 1994. Toward a non-Euclidean mode of planning. Journal ofthe American Planning Association59(4):482-485.
57.
Friedmann, John, and Barclay M. Hudson. 1974. Knowledge and action: A guide to planning theory. Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners40(1):2-16.
58.
Gellner, Ernest. 1992. Reason and Culture: The Historic Role ofRationality and Rationalism, Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
59.
Giere, R.N.1989. Scientific rationality as instrumental rationality. Studies in the History and Philosophy ofScience20:377-384.
60.
Goldberg, M.A.1987. The irrationality of “rationa” planning: Exploring broader bases for planning and public decisionmaking. In Rationality in Planning: Critical Essays on the Role ofRationality in Urban and Regional Planning, eds. M.Breheny and A.Hooper, 120-144. London, U.K.: Pion.
61.
Habermas, Juirgen. 1968. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
62.
Habermas, Jiirgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handels. Band IL Handelsrationalitat und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.
63.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1983. Moralbuwusstsein und Kommuyfkatives Handel. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.
64.
Habermas, Jiirgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization ofSociety. Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
65.
Hajer, Maarten. 1995. The Politics ofEnvironmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
66.
Harper, Thomas L., and Stanley M. Stein. 1995. Out of the postmodern abyss: Preserving the rationale for liberal planning. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research14(1):233-244.
67.
Harris, Britton. 1997. The theory of planning and its profession. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24(4):483-489.
68.
Healey, Patsy. 1992. A planner's day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation58(1): 9-20.
69.
Healey, Patsy. 1993. The communicative work of development plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design20(1):83-104.
70.
Healey, Patsy. 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design23 (2):217-234.
Healey, Patsy. 1997b. Comment on Britton Harris' “The theory of planning and its profession.”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24 (4):490-492.
73.
Hemmens, G.C., and B. Stiftel. 1980. Sources for the renewal of planning theory (review of J. Habermas, Toward a Rational Society). Journal n/the American PlanningAssociation46:341-345.
74.
Hill, Greg. 1997. History, necessity and rational choice theory. Rationality and Society9(2):189-213.
75.
Hillier, B., J. Musgrave, and P. O'sullivan. 1972. Knowledge and design. In Environmental Design: Research and Practice EDRA 3, ed.W.J.Mitchell, 29-3.1-29-3.14. Los Angeles, Calif: UCLA Press.
76.
Hudson, Barclay M.1979. Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association45(4):387-398.
77.
Innes, Judith E.1995. Planning theory's emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research14(1):183-189.
78.
Innes, Judith E.1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association62(4):460-472.
79.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association65(1):9-26.
80.
Jacobs, Keith. 1996. Planning: A role for the inrragination. Planning Theory15: 13-21.
81.
Khakee, Abdul. 1998. The communicative turn in planning and evaluation. In Evaluation in Spatial Planning, eds. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, and Anna Prat, 97-11. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
82.
Knoke, D., F.U. Pappi, J. Broadbent and Y. I sujinaka. 1996. Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany andJapan, New York: Cambridge University Press.
83.
Laudan, L.1984. Science and Valuies. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.
84.
Laumann, E.O., and D. Knoke. 1987. The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.
85.
Lauria, Mickey, and Michael J. Soll. 1996. Communicative action, power and misinformation in a site selection process. Jouirnal ofPlanning Edication and Research15(3):.4199-4211.
86.
Lenk, H., and H.F. Spinner. 1989. Rationalitatstypen, Rationalitatskonzepten und Rationalitatstheorien im Jberblick zur Rationalitatskritik und Neufassung der “Vernlutnft Heute.” In PragTnatik, Handbuch pragnatischen Denikens; Band IIIAllge,iniele philosophische Pragmatik, ed. H. Stachoviak, 1-31. Hamburg, Germany: Felix Meier.
87.
Lichfield, Dalia. 1998. Integrated planning and environmental assessment: The case of Torbay Ring Road. In Evaluation in Spatial Planning, eds. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, and Anna Prat. Dordrecht, 151-175, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lindblom, Charles E.1959. The science of muddling through. Publim Administration Review19(1):59-88.
90.
Low, Nicholas, 1991. Planning, Politics and the State. London: Unwin Hyman.
91.
Lowry, Kem. 1996. Planning doctrine in Hawaii. Planning Theory16: 98-101.
92.
Mack, Ruth P.1973. Planning on Uncertainty: Decision Making in Business and GovernmentAdministration, New York: Wiley.
93.
Mandelbaum, Seymour J.1991. Telling stories. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research10(2):209-214.
94.
Mannheim, Karl. 1949. Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. New York: Harcourt-Brace.
95.
Marin, B., and R. Mayntz, eds. 1992. Policy Networks. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verl.
96.
Marschak, Jacob. 1968. Decision making: Economic aspects. In International Encyclopaedia ofthe Social Sciences, ed. D. Sills, 42-55. New York: Macmillan.
97.
March, James C., and Herbert A. Simon, with Harold Guetzow. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.
98.
Mazza, Luigi. 1996. Designing a domain for planning theory: Introduction. In Explorations in Planning Theory eds. Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W.Burchell, 3-9. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
99.
McKerrow, Ray E.1982. Rationality and reasonableness in a theory of argument. In Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, eds. J. Robert Cox and Charles A.Willard, 105-122. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.
100.
Mortimer, G.W., and J.B. Maund. 1976. Rationality and belief. In Rationality and the Social Sciences: Contributions to the Philosophy and Methodology ofthe Social Sciences, eds. S.I. Benn and G.W. Mortimer, 11-33. London: Routledge.
101.
Nozick, Robert. 1993. The Nature ofRationality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
102.
OED. 1971. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol 11. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
103.
Papastephanou, Marianna. 1997. Communicative action and philosophical foundations: Comments on the Apel-Habermas debate. Philosophy and Social Criticism23(4): 41-69.
104.
Powell, William W.1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior12: 295-336.
105.
Reade, E.1985. An analysis of the use of the concept of rationality in the literature of planning. In Rationality in Planning: Critical Essays on the Role ofRationality in Urban and Regional Planning. eds. M. Breheny and A. Hooper, 77-96. London: Pion.
106.
Rescher, Nicholas. 1993. A System of Pragmatic Idealism Vol.11: The validity of values A normative theory ofevaluative rationality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
107.
Ruben, B.D., and I .A. Lievrouw, eds. 1990. Mediation, Information and Communication. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publications.
108.
Sabatier, Paul A., and Harold Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change anld Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
109.
Sager, Tore. 1993. Paradigms for planning: A rationiality-based classification. Planning Theory9: 79-118.
Sager, Tore. 1997. Planiiing the liberal paradox: A democratic dilemma in social choice. Journal ofPlanning Literature12(1):16-29.
112.
Siegel, Harvey. 1996. Instrumental rationality and naturalized philosophy of science. Philosophy ofScience63(3) (Supplement PSA): S 116-S 124.
113.
Schon, Donald A. and Martin Rein1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution ofIntractable Policy Disputes. New York: Basic Books.
114.
Simon, Herbert A.1957. Models ofMan, Social and Rational. New York: Wiley.
115.
Stein, Stanley M., and Thomas L. Harper. 1997. Pragmatic incrementalist planning in post-modern society: A normative justification. Planning Theory18:7-35.
116.
Susskind, Lawrence, and John Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the Impasse. New York: Basic Books.
117.
Throgmorton, James A.1992. Planning as persuasive storytelling about the future: Negotiating an electric power rate settlement in Illinois. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research12(1): 17-31.
118.
Uzzi, B.1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly42(1):35-67.
119.
Verma, Niraj. 1996. Pragmatic rationality and planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research16(1):5-14.
120.
Verma, Niraj. 1998. Similarities, Connections and Systems: The Searchfor a New Rationalityfor Planning and Management. Lanham, Md.: Lexington.
121.
Weber, Max. 1922. Grundriss der Sozialdkonomik IIIAbteilung: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tubingen, Germany: Verl. J.C.B. Mohr.
122.
Weber, Max. 1956. Soziologie. Wirtschftliche Analysen. Politik. Edited by J. Winkelmann. Stuttgart, Germany: Alfred Kroner Verl.
123.
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Translated and edited by G. Roth and C.Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.
124.
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1979. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston, Mass.: Little-Brown.
125.
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1986. Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes. 2nd edition. Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publications.
126.
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1992. The New Politics ofthe Budgetary Process. 2nd edition. New York: Harper-Collins.
127.
Yiftachel, Oren. 1989. Towards a new typology of planning theories. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design16(l):23-39.
