During the last decade or so, many planning theorists have taken a so-called communicative turn, to the point where somiie have declared the emergence of a dominant new paradigm supported by increasing consensus among theorists. We wish to raise a number of broad questions about the communicative paradigm and claims for its theoretical dominance. We point to alternative analytical positions that focus on issues of power, of the state, and of political economy, in ways that are often underplayed in the communicative literature and that demonstrate a healthy diversity in the field. We offer six critical propositions about communicative planning theory as a contribution to the ongoing debates, in theory and practice, about the conitested nature of planning, its practices and effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, E.1984. After rationality, what? A review of responses to para digm breakdown. Journal ofAmerican PlanningAssociation50(1): 62-69.
2.
Allen, J.1996. Our town: Foucault and knowledge-based politics in London. In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. S. Mandelbaum, l. Mazza, and R. Burchell, 328-344. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
3.
Allmendinger, P.1996. Development control and the legitimacy of planning decisions. Town Planninig Review67(2): 202-219.
4.
Baum, H.1996. Practicing planning theory in a political world. In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. Burchell, 365-382. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
5.
Beauregard, R.1989. Between modernity and postmodernity: The ambilglous position of U.S. planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space?7: 382-395.
6.
Beauregard, R., ed. 1992. Planning theories, feminist theories: A symposlum. Planning Theory 7/8: 9-62.
7.
Beauregard, R.1995. Edge critics. Journal of Planning Education and Research14(3):163-166.
8.
Boyer, C.1983. Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning.Boston, Mass.: MIT Press.
9.
Campbell, S., and S. Fainstein, eds. 1996. Readings in Planning Theory.Oxford, U.K.: Perganmon.
10.
Castells, M.1998. The education of city planners in the Iniformation Age. Berkeley Planning Journal12: 25-31.
11.
Cohen, S.1985. Visions of Social Conitrol: Crime, Punishmnent and (lassification.Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
12.
Cooke, P.1983. iheoiVes of Planning and Spatial Development.London: HLtrchinsoni.
13.
Dear, M.2000. The Postmodern Urban Condition.Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
14.
Dear, M., and J. Wolch. 1987. The landscapes of Despair.Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
15.
Escobar, A.1992. Planning. In The Development Dictionary: A Gnide to lxnowledge as Poiver, ed. W. Sachs, 132-145. New York: Zed Books.
16.
Evans, A.1991. Rabbit hutches on postage stamps: Planning, development and political economy. Urban Studies28(6): 853-870.
Fainistein, S. 1999. New directions in planining theorv. Paper delivered to the FutLures Planning. Planning FItLires Conference, Universitr of Sheffield, 29 Mai-ch.
Faludi, A.1996. Ration-ality, critical rationalism and planning doctrine. In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. Burchell, 65-82. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urbain Policy Research, Rutgers.
Fincher, R., anid J. Jacobs. 1998. Cities of Difference.New York: The Guildford Press.
23.
Fischer, F., and J. Forester, eds. 1987. TheArgumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning.Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
24.
Fischler, R.1995. Strategy aind history in professional practice: Planning as worldmaking. In Spatial Practices: Critical Explorations in Social/Spatial Theory, eds. H. Liggett and D. Perry, 13-58. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
25.
Flyvbjerg, B.1996. The dark side of planning: Rationality and “realrationalitat.” In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. lurchell, 383-396. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
26.
Flyvbjerg, B.1998. Rationality and Power: Democrary in Practice.Chicago: Chicago University Press.
27.
Forester, J.1989. Planning in the Face ofPower.Berkeley: University of California Press.
28.
Forester, J.1993. Critical Theory, PnIblith Policy and Planning Practice: Towvard a Critical Praigmatism.Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
29.
Forester, J.1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
30.
Foucault, M.1991. Governmentality. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, eds. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, 87-104. Brighton, U.K.: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
31.
Fraser, N.1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory.Cambridge: Polity Press.
32.
Fraser, N.1990. Rethinking the public sphere. Social TFext819: 56-80.
33.
Fraser, N.1995. From redistribution to recognition: Dilemmas of justice in a “post-socialist” age. New Left Review212: 68-93.
34.
Friedmann, J.1987. Planning in the Puiblic Domain.Princeton, N.J.: Priincetoni University Press.
35.
Friedmann, J.1992. Empowermnent: The Politics of Alterniative Developenent.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
36.
Friedmanin, J.1998. Planning theory revisited. Europeain Planning Studies6(3): 245-253.
37.
Gibson, K., and S. Watsoni, eds. 1994. Metropolis Now: Planning and the Urbain in Contemporary Australia.Sydney, Auistralia: Plulto Press.
38.
Gleeson, B.1999. Geographies of Dissability.Lousdoni: Rotltledgc.
39.
Hall, P.1988.Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual Hi.story of Urban Planning and Design in the Iwenitieth Century.Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.
40.
Harvey, D.1996. Justice, Natuire and the Geography of Difference.Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.
41.
Healey, P.1992. A planner's day: Kniowledge anid actioni in conmmunicative practice. Journal of The Americcin Planning Association58(1): 9-20.
42.
Healey, P.1996. 1l he comMnLIlicative turni in planning theory and its iniplicatioiss for spatial strategy formnationi. f_nvironrnent anzd Planning B. Planntinlgand Design23: 217-234.
43.
Healey, P.1997. (Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmenited Societies.London: Macmnillaln.
44.
Hillier, J.1996. Decon-structing the discourse of planning. In Explorations in Plannning Theory, eds. S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. Burchell, 289-298. New Brun-swick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
45.
Hillier, J.1999. Culture, community and communication in the planning process. In Social Town Planning, ed. C. Greed, 221-239. London: Routledge.
46.
Hoch, C.1997. Planning theorists taking an interpretive turn need not travel oni the political economy highway. Planning Theory17: 13-37.
47.
Huxley, M.1988. Feminist urban theory: Gender, class and the built enivironment. Transition: Discourse on Architecture Winter43-49.
48.
Huxley, M.1989. Massey, Foucault and the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme. Environment and PlanningA21: 059-661.
49.
Huxley, M.1994. Planning as a framework of power. In Beasts of Suiburbia.. Reintempretinig Cultures in Austcalian Suburbs, eds. S. Ferber, C. Healy, and C. McAuliffe, 148-169. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
50.
HuLxley, M.1996. Regulating spaces of production and reproduction in the city. In Restructuring Difference: Social Polarisation and the City, eds. K. Gibson, M. Huxley, J. Cameron, L. Costello, R. Fincher, J. Jacobs, N. Jamieson, L. Johnson, and M. Pulvirenti. Working paper 6. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
51.
Huxley, M.1997. “Necessary but by no means sufficient...”: Spatial political economy, town planning and the possibility of better cities. European Planning Studies5(6): 741-751.
52.
Imrie, R.1995. Disability and the City: International Perspectives.London: Paul Chapman.
53.
Innes, J.1995. Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14(3): 183-191.
54.
Innes, J.1998. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation58(Winter): 52-63.
55.
Jacobs, J.1996. Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the City.London: Routledge.
56.
Judge, D., G. Stoker, and H. Wolman, eds. 1995. Theories of Urban Politics.London: Sage.
57.
Kemp, R.1982. Critical planning theory review and critique. In Planning Theory: Prospects for the 1980s, eds. P. Healey, P. McDougall, G. and M. Thomas, 59-67. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon.
58.
Kuhn, T.1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
59.
Lauria, M., and R. Whelan. 1995. Planning theory and political economy: the need for reintegration. Planning Theory14: 8-33.
60.
Lauria, M., ed. 1995. Planning theory and political economy: A symposium. Planning Theory 14: 96-115.
61.
Lauria, M., ed. 1997. Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
62.
Leo, C.1995. How is global change mediated by local politics? Economic decline and the local regime in Edmonton. Journal of Urban Affairs 17 (3): 277-299.
63.
Leo, C.1997. City politics in an era of globalization. In Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy, ed. M. Lauria, 77-98. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
64.
Lewi, H., and G. Wickham. 1996. Modern urban government: A Foucaultiarn perspective. Urban Policy and Research14(1): 51-64.
65.
Little, J.1994. Gender, Planning and the Policy Process.Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier Pergamnon.
66.
Long, M. 1981. Planning: “Birth” or “break”? Problems in the historiography of British towti planning. Working paper 18. Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool.
67.
Long, M. 1982. Moral regime and model institutions: Precursors of town planning in early Victorian England. Workiisg paper 20. Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool.
68.
Mandelbaum, S.1996. The talk of the community. Ins Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. Burchell, 3-10. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
69.
Mandelbaum, S., L. Mazza, and R. Burchell, eds. 1996. Explorations in Planning Theory.New Bruisswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
70.
Marcuse, P.1995. Not chaos, but walls: Postmodernism and the partitioned city. Is Plostmodern Cities and Spaces, eds. S. Watsois and K. Gibsots, 187-198. London: Basil Blackwell.
71.
Mcloughlin, J.B.1992. Shlaping Melbourne s Future. I-own Planning, the State and civil Sotiety.Canmbridge, U.K.: Canabridge University Press.
72.
McLoUghlin, J.B.1994. Center or periphers? Town plaining and spatial political economy. Environmenttand Planning A26: 111-1122.
73.
Newman, P., and A. Thornilcy. 1996. U-b61/bi Planning in Europe: fliteriil/- tional Competitioni, National Systems annd Planning Sbjects. London: RouLtledge.
74.
Painter, J. and M. Goodwin. 1995. Local governanice and conicrete research: Investigating the nlnieven developnment of regulation. Eeonoei9, intd Societ), 24(3): 334-356.
75.
Pennington, M.2000. Planniog and the Political Market: Public Choice aind the Politics of Government Eaillre. Lotndoil: The Athlone Press.
76.
Poulton, M.1991a. The case for a positive theory of planning: Part 1. What is wxrong svith plannin-g theory?ELnvioonment anid Planning B. Plannliiigaild Desig,n18: 225-232.
77.
Poulton M.1991b. The case for a positive theory of planning: Part 2. A positive theory of planniing. Lnviroonenet and Platnning B. Planning andl Design18: 263-275.
78.
Rabinow, P.1989. French Modern: Norms and Forms ofthe Social Environrnent.Chicago, Ill.: Chicago University Press.
79.
Reade, E.1983. If platnning is anivthing. maybe it can be identified. Urban Studies20:159-171.
80.
Reade, E.1987. British Town and Countrv Planning.Miltoni Keynes, U.K.: Open University Press.
81.
Richardson, T.1996. FouLcauldian discourse: Power and truth in urban and regional policy making. Euiropean Planning Studies4(3): 312-328.
Sanidercock, L., and A. Forsyth. 1992. A gender agenda: New directions for planninig theory. Journal ojfthe American PlanningAssociation58(l): 49-59.
86.
Smith, D.1994. Geography anid Social justice.London: Blackwell.
87.
Soderstronm, O.1996. Paper cities: Visual thinkinig in urban planniiing. Fcneiene3(3):249-279.
88.
Soja, E. W.1989. Postmnoder-n Geograpbies: The Reassertion of Spate in Critical Social Teory.New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
89.
Soja, E.1997. Planning in/for postmodernity. In Space and Social Theory. Interpreting Modernity and Posemnodernity, eds. G. Benko and U. Strohmaver, 236-249. Oxford: Blackwell.
90.
Sorensen, A., and R. Day. 1981. Libertarian planning. Town Planning Reviewtv52(4): 391-401.
91.
Taylor, N.1998. tlrban Planning Theory Sinte 1945. London: Sage.
92.
Tewdwr-Jones, M., and P. Allmendinger. 1998. Deconstructing commuLni-cative rationialitv: A critiqLie of Habernmasian collaborative planning. Environiment anid Planning A30: 1975-1989.
93.
Watson, S., and K. Gibson, eds. 1995. Postmodern Cities and Spates. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.
94.
Wildavskv, A.1973. If planinitng is everyrthing,i maybe it's nothing. Policl ScwneslcS4: 127-153.
95.
Williams, R.1983. Keywords: A Votabulary of Culture and Sotiety.London: Fontana.
96.
Wilson, E.1991. The Sphinx in the City. Urban Life, the Control of Disorder and Womei.Londoni: Virago.
97.
Yiftachel, O.1989. Towards a new typology of urbani planniiing thcories. Planninig and Environment B16: 23-39.
98.
Yiftachel, O.1992. Planning a Mixed Region in Israel: The Politital Geography ofArab-Jewnsh Relations in the Galilee.Aldershot, U.K.: Avebury.
99.
Yiftachel, O.1995. Planning as control: Policy and resistance in a deeply divided society. Progress in Planning44: 116-187.
100.
Yiftachel, O.1998. Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning Literature12: 395-406.
101.
Yiftachel, O.1999. Planning theory at a crossroads: The Third Oxford Conference. Journal of Planninlg Edueation and Research18: 267-271.
102.
Young, I. M.1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
103.
Young, I. M.1992. Concrete imagination and piecemeal transformation. Planning Theory7/8: 59-62.
