Since the erosion of confidence in the rational model of planning, sharp divergence between different planning theories has been observed. This paper provides a synthetic framework of planning theories in which the nature of diversity in planning is elucidated. It is argued theoretically that planning requires three different dimensions of knowledge — technical, intersubjective, and critico ethical. The theoretical analysis is followed by some reflections on current practice in planning that support the main theoretical argument. In conclusion, the paper suggests the complementariness of different planning theories and proposes reformulation of the epistemological basis of planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albrecht, J. and Lim, G. Forthcoming. A Search for Alternative Planning Theory. Use of Critical Theory. Journal of Architectural and Plannmg Research.
2.
Alexander E.R.1984. After Rationality, What? Journal of the Amencan Planning Association.50(1):62-69.
3.
Altschuler, A.1965. The Goals of Comprehensive Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners.31(3):186-195.
4.
Baum, H.S.1980. The Uncertain Consciousness of Planners and the Professional Enterprise. Plan Canada. 20( 1 ):39-53.
5.
Beauregard, R.1978. Planning in an Advanced Capitalist State. In Planning Theories in the 1980's, eds., R. Burchell and G. Sternlieb.New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
6.
Bolan, R.S.1980The Practitioner as Theorist: The Phenomenology of the Professional Episode. Journal of the American Plannmg Association . 46(3):261-274.
7.
Structure of Ethical Choice in Planning Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 3(1):36-45.
8.
Boyer, M.C.1983. Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Plannmg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
9.
Branch, M.1950. Concerning Coordinative Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners.16(4):163-171.
10.
Castells, M.1977. The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Catanese, A.1974. Planners and Local Politics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
12.
Chadwick, G.1971. A Systems View of PlanningOxford, England: Pergamon.
13.
Davidoff, P. and Reiner, T.A.1962. A Choice Theory of Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners.28(2):103-115.
14.
Dear, M. and Scott, A.1981. Urbanization and Urban Planning m a Capitalistic Society . New York: Methuen.
15.
de Neufville, J.1983. Planning Theory and Practice: Bridging the Gap. Journal of Planning Education and Research.3(1):5-12.
16.
Dyckman, J.1983. Reflections on Planning Practice in an Age of Reaction . Journal of Planning Education and Research.3(1):36-45.
17.
Erber, E.1983. The Road to Mount Laurel. Planning.49:4-9.
18.
Fainstein, N. and Fainstein S.1979. New Debates in Urban Planning: The Impact of Marxist Theory within the United States. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. (3):381-403.
19.
_eds. 1982. Urban Policy Under Capitalism. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
Forester, J.W.1980. Critical Theory and Planning Practice. Journal of the American Planning Association.48(3):275-286.
21.
_ 1982. Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of the American Planning Association. 48:67-80.
22.
Friedmann, J.1973. RetrackmgAmenca: A Theory of Transactive Plannmg. New York: Anchor-Doubleday.
23.
Galloway, T.D. and Mahayni, R.G.1977. Planning Theory in Retrospect: The Process of Paradigm Change. Journal of the American Institute of Planners.43(1):62-71.
24.
Hall, P.1983. The Anglo-American Connection: Rival Rationalities in Planning Theory and Practice, 1955-1980. Environment and Planning B. 10(1):41-46.
25.
Harris, B.1967. The Limits of Science and Humanism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners.33(5):324-335.
26.
Harvey, D.1973. Social Justice and the City. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
Hemmens, G.C.1980. New Directions in Planning Theory. Journal of the American Planning Association.46(3):259-260.
28.
Howe, E., and Kaufman, J.1979. The Ethics of Contemporary American Planners. Journal of the American Plannmg Association.45(2):243-255.
29.
Hudson, B.1979. Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions. Journal of the Amencan Planning Association.45(4):387-403.
30.
Kaufman, J.L.1981. Teaching Planning Ethics. Journal of Planning Education and Research.1:29-35.
31.
Klosterman, R.E.1978. Foundations for Normative Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 44.37-46.
32.
_ 1981. Contemporary Planning Theory Education: Results of a Course Survey. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 1 (1):1-12.
33.
Lindblom, C.1959. The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review.19:78-88.
34.
Meyerson, M. and Banfield, E.1955. Politics, Planning and the Public Interest. New York: The Free Press.
35.
Michael, D.1973. On Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
36.
O'Connor, J.1973The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin's Press.
37.
Prosperi, D.1984Editorial. Journal of Planning Education and Research4(1):3-4.
38.
Rabinowitz, F.1969. City Politics and Plannmg. New York : Atherton.
39.
Roweis, S.T.1983. Urban Planning as Professional Mediation of Territorial Politics. Environment and Planning D.1:139-162.
40.
Schon, D.A.1971. Beyond the Stable State. New York: Random House.
41.
Scott, M.1969. Amencan City Planning Since 1900. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
42.
Susskind, L. and Ozawa, C.1984. Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector: The Planner as Mediator. Journal of Planning Education and Research.4(1):5-15.
43.
Vasu, M.L.1979Politics and Planning. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
44.
Wachs, M., ed. 1984Ethics in Plannmg. Piscataway, NJ. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University
45.
Webber, M.1983. The Myth of Rationality: Development Planning Reconsidered . Environment and Plannmg B.10(1):89-99.
