Conceiving planning theory as a kind of practical reason shifts attention from making rational arguments justifying planning beliefs to the study of plan-making as a feature of practical reasoning. Adopting this viewpoint allows for the comparison of what rational planning theory keeps apart: theories about plan-making that focus on the representation of urban development (e.g. Lew Hopkins) and theories that study the intentional features of deliberative planning processes (e.g. Judith Innes). Analysis demonstrates that the seemingly incompatible viewpoints can offer complementary insights about plan-making without diminishing or distorting important differences. There need be no epistemic or theoretical gap separating the representation and intention of plan-making; no big difference between substance and process. The differences are practical.
Black,A. (1990) ‘The Chicago Area Transportation Study: A Case Study of Rational Planning’, Journal of Planning Education and Research10(1): 27–37.
2.
Blanco, H. (1994) How to Think about Social Problems: American Pragmatism and the Ideal of Planning. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
3.
Bohman, J. (1996) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Brail, R.K. and Klosterman, R.K. (2001) Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models and Visualization Tools. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
5.
Bratman, M. (1987) Intentions, Plans and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Briassoulis, H. (2004) ‘The Institutional Complexity of Environmental Policy and Planning Problems: The Example of Mediterranean Desertification’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management47(1): 115–135.
7.
Daneke, G.A. (2001) ‘Sustainable Development as Systemic Choices’, Policy Studies Journal29(3): 514–532.
8.
de Neufville, J.I. (1986) ‘Human Rights Reporting as a Policy Tool: An Examination of the State Department Country Reports’, Human Rights Quarterly8(4): 681–699.
9.
Donaghy, K.P. and Hopkins, L.D. (2006) ‘Coherentist Theories of Planning Are Possible and Useful’, Planning Theory5(2): 173–202.
10.
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Forester, J. (1992) ‘Envisioning the Politics of Public Sector Dispute Resolution’, in A. Sarat and S. Silbery (eds) Studies in Law, Politics and Society. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12.
Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Making Frameworks in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.
14.
Healey, P., De Magalhaes, C., Madanipour,A. and Pendelbury, J. (2003) ‘Place, Identity and Local Politics: Analyzing Initiatives in Deliberative Governance’, in M.A. Hajer and H. Wagenaar (eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, pp. 60–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Hendriks-Jensen, H. (1996) Catching Ourselves in the Act. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
Hoch, C. (1994) What Planners Do. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.
17.
Hoch, C. (2002) ‘Evaluating Plans Pragmatically’, Planning Theory1(1): 53–76.
18.
Hopkins, L. (2000) Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans. Washington, DC: Island Press.
19.
Huxley, M. and Yiftachel, O. (2000) ‘New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory’, Journal of Planning Education and Research19(4): 333–342.
20.
Innes, J. (1995a) Planning Is Institutional Design. Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research14(2): 140–143.
21.
Innes, J. (1995b) ‘Planning Theory's Emerging Paradigm’, Journal of Planning Education and Research14(3): 183–189.
22.
Innes, J. (1996) ‘Planning through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Ideal’, Journal of the American Planning Association62(4): 460–472.
23.
Innes, J. (1998) ‘Information in Communicative Planning’, Journal of the American Planning Association64(1): 52–63.
24.
Innes, J. and Booher D. (1999a) ‘Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: Toward a Theory of Collaborative Planning’, Journal of the American Planning Association65(1): 9–26.
25.
Innes, J. and Booher, D. (1999b) ‘Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning’, Journal of the American Planning Association65(4): 412–423.
26.
Innes, J. and Gruber, J. (2005) ‘Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’, Journal of the American Planning Association71(2): 177–188.
27.
Kahneman, D. and Lovallo, D. (1993) ‘Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking’, Management Science39(1): 17–31.
Lekan,T. (2003) Making Morality: Pragmatist Reconstruction in Ethical Theory. Nashville,TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
30.
Lewin, R. (1999) Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Mandelbaum, S. (2000) Open Moral Communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
Mazza, L. (2002) ‘Technical Knowledge and Planning Actions’, Planning Theory1(1): 11–26.
33.
Meyerson, M. and Banfield, E. (1955) Politics, Planning and the Public Interest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Mills, C.W. (1959) The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
Mithen, S. (1999) The Prehistory of Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art and Science. London: Thames & Hudson.
36.
Neumann, M. (1998) ‘Does Planning Need the Plan?’, Journal of the American Planning Association64(2): 208–221.
37.
Neumann, M. (2005) ‘Notes on the Uses and Scope of City Planning Theory’, Planning Theory4(2): 123–144.
38.
Roese, N.J. and Olson, J.M. (1995) What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Sager,T. (2002) Democratic Planning and Social Choice Dilemmas: Prelude to Institutional Planning Theory. Burlington,VT: Ashgate.
40.
Schmid, H.B. (2003) ‘Rationality-in-relations’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology62(1): 67–101.
41.
Sunstein, C. (2000) ‘Practical Reason and Incompletely Theorized Agreements’, in E. Ullmann-Margalit (ed.) Reasoning Practically, pp. 98–122. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
Throgmorton, J. (1996) Planning as Persuasive Storytelling. Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Turner, S. (1994) The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition,Tacit Knowledge and Presuppositions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1999) ‘On Not Wanting to Know’, in E. Ullmann-Margalit (ed.) Reasoning Practically, pp. 72–84. New York: Oxford University Press.
45.
Verma, N. (1998) Similarities, Connections and Systems. New York: Lexington.
46.
Wilson, R., Payne, M. and Smith, E. (2003) ‘Does Discussion Enhance Rationality? A Report from Transportation Planning Practice’, Journal of the American Planning Association69(4): 354–367.
