Rationality in planning theory PDF

Preview

Summary

1.0 CONCEPTION OF RATIONALITY Rationality of planning model became popular in the 1960s and by the 1980s it has been deeply engrained or integrated in planning education in various planning schools across the world, even though the rationality theory/ model was very popular from the early 1960s to t...

Description

1.0 CONCEPTION OF RATIONALITY Rationality of planning model became popular in the 1960s and by the 1980s it has been deeply engrained or integrated in planning education in various planning schools across the world, even though the rationality theory/ model was very popular from the early 1960s to the 1980s, development of Rational Comprehensive(Synoptic) theory can be credited to Auguste Comte(1798-1857), (Anon., 2012). According to (Anon., 2012) Comte applied the methods of observation and experimentation to the field of sociology and believed that persistent social problems could be solved by the application of certain hierarchical rules and that with the aid of science of sociology mankind would progress towards a superior state of civilization, this clearly indicates that the ideas of Comte has been built on by planning theorist in order to formulate the Rationality theory/ model. “Max Webber also argued that the process of rationalization, once unleashed upon the world, transformed social life forever and for the better and that rationalization led to new practices that were chosen based on their efficiency” (Lippman & Howard , 2003). These key ideas introduced by Comte were adopted by Max Webber and Talcott Parsons, the main supporters of rational comprehensive theory that became very popular in the 1950s and 1960s (Lippman & Howard , 2003). According to (Mitroff, 1974) In this model/ theory, planning was supposed to progress in the form of science, at least in its ideal type version, meaning this approach was supposed to be logical and value free, focusing on what is measurable and what could be verified largely based of knowledge. “It would start with goals, proceed to generating alternatives, evaluating them, choosing solutions and implementing them” (Mitroff, 1974). In most situations the role of the public with respect to this planning model or theory is very limited as stakeholders are not allowed to give advice based on values and preferences, it was the planner who was in total control of the process. 2.0 RATIONALITY AND THE EVOLUTION OF PLANNING THOUGHT 2.1 Rationality Faludi (Faludi, 1983) viewed planning as a decision-making process aimed at solving some of the diverse problems which planners face. He reasoned that planning should be rational by appraising comprehensively all possible action in the light of their cost and benefits; and guaranteeing that these considerations include alternative goals and that planning should also respond malleably to new circumstances or situations. The concept of rationality significantly influenced policy analysis on planning. Techniques and entire methodologies were reliant on assumptions that clear Page | 1

objectives could be defined to direct the rise and progress of policy, that the full costing of alternative strategies could be known, that the alternative strategies could be implemented, and that detailed monitoring of selected strategies was possible (Lawless, 1986). “The rational comprehensive theory has two main characteristics. The first is the aspect of rationality, having specific cognitive skills which can be mastered, coupled with administrative expertise and appropriate aesthetic understanding for the planner to study options and present worked solutions to decision makers for choice” (Ledgerwood, 1985). The second characteristic of the rational model/ theory is comprehensiveness, the desire to analyse all rational alternatives available, meaning all available information about the planning process its solutions and possible alternatives must all be considered one after the other before a decision is made, thus stressing on value free knowledge. According to (Hobbs & Doling , 1981), the procedural framework of operation with respect to the rationality theory includes the following logical steps: Formulation of goals and objectives. 1. Formulation of goals and objectives. 2. Generation and examination of all possible alternatives open to a decision maker for achieving the set goals and objectives. 3. The prediction of all consequences that would follow from adoption of each alternative. 4. The comparison of the consequences in relation to the agreed set of goals and objectives. 5. The selection of the alternative whose consequences correspond to a greater degree with the goals and objectives. 6. Implement the preferred alternative. 7. Monitor and evaluate outcomes and results. Information/ data at every stage needs to be analysed comprehensively in order to make the right decisions and eventually select the best solution or alternative. The rational comprehensive theory therefore assumes that information with respect to the planning process and all alternative solutions will be available to the planner. 2.2 Evolution of Planning thought After the rationality planning theory was propounded and began becoming popular there were other theorist who didn’t agree with the principles of the rationality approach to planning some critics were of the view that the rational comprehensive theory was taking a more idealist stance by assuming that information about all alternative solutions will be available and that decisions Page | 2

can be without considering personal/ human values (Value free). This idealist position that rationality theory adapted and were promoting necessitated Lindblom to provide a very strong critique of the rationality planning theorist in his classic article “The science of muddling through” which is still a classic planning article till this day. “According to Lindblom, planners are forced to devise their planning solutions on the basis of knowledge that can be only partial” (Bäcklund, 2013). He stressed that in certain instances the planning expert’s knowledge might be limited with respect to a subject matter or what he or she is dealing with, hence he/she cannot possess knowledge of every subject comprehensively. Lindblom’s goal was to develop a new realistic planning theory (which in this case is the incremental planning theory) to replace the comprehensive-rationalist planning theory that he regarded as idealistic in its striving for comprehensive knowledge which in reality was impossible (Bäcklund, 2013). He made an argument that knowledge on every possible alternative course of action or solution might not be available as the rationality theorist assume and further stated that in the real-world planning experts are faced with a lot of problems one which includes getting comprehensive information on a phenomenon or alternative solutions. According to Lindblom, the necessarily ‘bounded’ analyses of planners cannot be given a value-free status. Their knowledge is based on limited information, and it necessarily ranks certain value considerations over others (Bäcklund, 2013). According to (Lindblom , 1965) Each decision-maker is permitted focus on a deliberately narrow problem definition especially on questions that are vital for the interest group one epitomizes, and then narrow goals and objectives can be set, because complete knowledge is beyond the reach of any single individual. Participation by many decision-makers is therefore needed to ensure that the essential interests are given adequate attention, thus planning needs to be done using a piecemeal approach focusing on achieving narrow goals in order to address the needs of different interest groups in the society . John Friedman looked at planning from a different perspective in his popular work Planning in the Public Domain: From knowledge to action (1987) promoting a radical planning model based on “decolonization”, “democratization”, “self-empowerment” and “reaching out” (Friedmann, 1987). Friedmann defined this model as an “Agropolitan development” paradigm, stressing the relocalization of primary production and manufacture. In his article in the Journal of American Planners Association titled “Toward a Non-Euclidian Mode of Planning" (Friedmann, 1993). Friedmann supplementary promoted the urgency of decentralizing planning, supporting a planning Page | 3

model that is normative, ground-breaking, political, transactive and based on a Social learning approach to knowledge and policy (Friedmann, 1993). The communicative planning theory emerged in the 1980s and the 1990s theorist in support of the communicative theory criticized both the rationality and the incremental theories. According to (Innes, 2013) there were unsettled assumptions about what planning is, how it works, and how it should to be done. It also challenged ideas about what theory should be for and what form it should take. Theorist in favor of a communicative approach, mainly focused on communication interaction and dialogue (Innes, 2013). Communicative is built on large portions of Habermas’ theory of communicative action (Bäcklund, 2013). Proponents of this theory powerfully believe that power is not something wilded by institutions or individuals, rather it lies in explicit relationships in specific times and places (Innes, 2013). It wished-for for planning to be carried out as a search for consensus/ accord by equal citizens. The unachievable nature of Habermas’ ideal speech situation that enables communicative rationality is similar to the unachievable nature of comprehensive rationality (Bäcklund, 2013). This guide is the opposite of Daniel Burnham’s warning to “make no small plans,” an ambition that was once seen to exemplify the noblest aims of planning. Within communicative theory the planner’s primary function is to listen to people’s views and problems and help in forming a consensus among differing viewpoints. Rather than providing technocratic leadership, the planner is a real-world learner, at most providing information to contributors but primarily being sensitive to points of convergence. Leadership consists not in bringing stakeholders around to a planning content but in getting people to agree and in guaranteeing that, whatever the position of participants within the social-economic hierarchy, no group’s interest will dominate (Fainstein, 2000). “Advocate planners on the other hand, took the role as trouble-makers and educators of civil rights while advocating for smaller interest groups. They argued that, to secure urban democracy and inclusion, there was a need for plural plans; why should only the city planning department be able to prepare a comprehensive plan when it only represented visions of the technocrats?” (Davidoff, 1965). One of Davidoff´s main points for advocacy planning was also, according to him, one of rationality theory or model’s biggest flaws: it is impossible to stay value-neutral in a decisionmaking process because remedies for planning actions are based on desired objectives (Davidoff, 1965).The point the advocate theorist tried to articulate was the fact that there exist vulnerable

Page | 4

groups in each society thus planning must try to always look at the interest of these disadvantaged, powerless or vulnerable people. Planning thought currently is mainly centered on participation, meaning stakeholders of any development interventions which might affect them must be given the opportunity to participate from the problem identification through to the monitoring and evaluation stage. It echoes a growing recognition that citizen involvement needs to be based on more elaborate and varied philosophies, institutions and methods. These begin with a more equal distribution of political power, a just distribution of resources, the devolution of decision-making processes, the development of a wide and clear exchange of knowledge and information, the formation of joint partnerships, an emphasis on inter-institutional discussion and negotiations, and greater accountability (Fischer, 2016). Non-Governmental Organizations have put in much efforts to assist people develop their own abilities to negotiate with public policymakers (Fischer, 2016). According to ( Chrenje, et al., 2013) centralized approach to planning discourages participation and inhibits creativity and innovation, thus the need to decentralize planning and encourage more people-oriented planning through participation. Other new planning thoughts include the right to the city, the new urbanism, the just city among others, all of which seeks to ensure that the poor ion the cities are not displaced and provided with poor services just because of their social and economic status. 3.0 POSITION AND RELEVANCE OF RATIONALITY IN PLANNING TODAY The position of rationality theory is its insistence of treating planning as a logical process in order to be able come out with plans, polices and grant permits, the rise of planning guides assigned by planning agencies clearly emanates from the rationality model. The rationality theory placed much emphasis on public in interest and argued that every planning intervention’s goal must be in the public’s interest, a principle which is still propagated by majority of planning authorities, practitioners and scholars until date. The rationality theory lays emphasis on considering alternative courses of actions before deciding on the best solution to a phenomenon and this method is still taught in almost every planning school around the world till date, it is built on scientific reasoning, even though it is not perfect, this theory treats planning as a scientific process which still stands till date. The rationality theory also solved the problem of rigidity which used to be associated with planning by introducing monitoring and evaluation thus making feedback and advise from projects possible Page | 5

and making the planning process very flexible, this made planning iterative, up till date we as planning students and planners enjoy this flexibility knowing that the planning process is iterative and flexible, and alterations can be made to plans if the need be. 4.0. LIMITS TO RATIONALITY IN PLANNING THEORY- CRITIQUE It has already been established form my previous discussions that the rationality model or theory is not a perfect theory thus it has certain flaws which will be looked at in the various paragraphs of this section. Firstly, it is difficult to have each person agree on common goals as each and every person perceives issues differently and have different interests. Incorporating all this difference would pose a big challenge to the planners (Anon., 2012). Meaning different interest groups and individuals have different goals or objectives and combining these individual interests into one big goal without disadvantaging anyone or group is impractical. Secondly The assumption of comprehensive intellectual human abilities is also in question. Human beings cannot know everything, nor can they even fully understand one planning aspect. (Lindblom , 1965). This critique provided by Lindblom indicates that no one individual can possess all knowledge about a phenomenon, its various alternative solution. Even one cannot possess absolute knowledge about even a single field of planning. Thirdly (McLoughlin, 1970, p. 86) noted that the rational planning theory or model was very centralistic, and the planner was seen as a “ helmsman steering the city”, it assumed that the planner by analyzing scientific and objective data and after going through the rational process will know what the general public’s interest is and thus what the general public wants. The public is relegated in the planning process those who even got the opportunity to participate only had a say in the first stage of the planning process which is the goal setting stage, in this model the planning is all knowing and needs less to no hep to be able to plan for the public interest. Also, rational comprehensive planning also requires a great deal of time. Time often is limited. Not all relevant information required for a decision can be acquired within a limited time and therefore most decisions can only be satisfactory solutions (Anon., 2012). Rationality requires the planner to take his time and go through the planning process one by one and consider every alternative solution to a phenomenon one after another, in reality the planner does not have the luxury of much time, especially in these modern times where planners have tight work schedules and deadlines to complete the preparations of plans. Once again, the argument Page | 6

made by Lindblom where he stated that the rationality model is an idealistic model is clearly evident here. 5.0 CONCLUSION In a nutshell the rationality model or theory provided a scientific base for planning upon which it has been built on for the past decades. It established planning as a rational process and a tool used for achieving goals and objectives, thus solidifying it as a scientific profession and area of study and has introduced ideas that are still useful till date even though planning thought has evolved over the past decade elements of the rationality model remain relevant and can still be seen. Even though this theory has its flaws planning will not have been solidified as a scientific field of study or profession without it and other planning theories would not have been formulated if not for the emergence of the rationality theory.

Page | 7

References Chrenje, L. I., Giliba, . R. A. & Musamba;, E. B., 2013. Local communities' participation in decissionmaking processses through planning and budgeting in African countries. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 11(1), pp. 10-16. Anon., 2012. The Environment Blog. [Online] Available at: HTTPS://THEENVIRO.BLOGSPOT.COM/2012/11/RATIONAL-COMPREHENSIVE-THEORYOF.HTML [Accessed 29 October 2019]. Bäcklund, P., 2013. Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. Sage Journal, pp. 334-350. Davidoff, P., 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning.. Journal of the American Institute of planners, pp. 331-338. Fainstein, S. S., 2000. New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review , 35(4), pp. 451-478. Faludi, A., 1983. Critical Rationalism and Planning Methodology. Urban Studies, 20(3), pp. 265-278 . Fischer, F., 2016. Participatory Governance: From Theory to Practice. In: S. S. Fainstein & J. DeFilippis, eds. Readings in planning theory. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 350 - 361. Friedmann, J., 1987. Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Friedmann, J., 1993. Towards a Non-Euclidian mode of planning. Jounal of American Planning Association, 59(4), pp. 482-485. Hobbs, F. D. & Doling , J. F., 1981. Planning for enginneers and planners. London: Pregamon Press. Innes, J., 2013. A Turning Point for Planning Theory?: Overcoming Dividing Discourses, California: Istitute of urban and regional development. Lawless, P., 1986. The evolution of spatial policy. A case study of inner urban policy in the United Kingdom. Print book : English ed. London: Pion. Ledgerwood, G., 1985. Urban innovation, The transformation of London’s Docklands. Vermont USA.: Gower Publishing Company. Lindblom , C. E., 1965. The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: Free Press. Lippman , S. & Howard , . A. E., 2003. The Rationalization of Everything? Using Ritzer's McDonaldization Thesis to Teach Weber. Teaching Sociology, Vol. 31(No. 2.), pp. 134-145. McLoughlin, B., 1970. Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. London. London: Faber and Faber. Mitroff, I. I., 1974. The subjective side of science: a philosophical inquiry into phycology of the Apollo moon scientist. Amsterdam New York: Elsevier Scientific Pub. co.; American Elsevie Pub.co. Page | 8

Page | 9...