Planning Approaches Briefs1-5
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Planning Approaches Briefs1-5 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,186
- Pages: 5
TABLE 1A: CRITIQUE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PLANNING
LIBERAL
LIBERAL
Rational Comprehensive Planning Planner as controller
Incremental Planning Planner as bargainer
1950s/1960s
1960s
APPROACH
PERIOD EMERGED CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACH
Critique of approaches practiced until then:
Ad hoc methodology Focus only on physical
Critique of RC approach (see Lindblom, 1996): No clear distinction between means/end & fact/value – cannot define ‘public interest’ No time, info, money to be comprehensive Human intellect cannot be comprehensive, foresee all options
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS
PURPOSE
SCOPE
PLANNING PROCESS
Society: consensus State: neutral arbiter Planning: neutral
Society: plural State: representative Planning: representative
Environmental improvement & management in the `public interest'
Environmental improvement: remedial
Socio-economic and physical/spatial
Limited socio-economic & physical/spatial
Problem recognition & definition of planning task Data collection Data processing Goals, objectives & criteria Formulation Design of alternative plans Decision making Implementation Monitoring & feedback
Restricted problem recognition by different agencies Evaluation & empirical analysis of marginal changes to policies Limited plan alternatives Evaluation of limited alternatives Decision making through mutual adjustment of agencies Continual problem refinement
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
TABLE 1B: CRITIQUE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PLANNING
LIBERAL
APPROACH
Advocacy/Participatory planner 1960s
PERIOD EMERGED CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACHES
Critique of RC approach: ‘public interest’ not homogenous – different interest groups planning not technical and neutral – is political planner not neutral – an advocate for ‘clients’/interest groups Critique of Incremental approach: different groups not represented equally – do not enter bargaining with same strengths marginal changes unlikely to meet plural interest of diverse groups
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS
PURPOSE
SCOPE PLANNING PROCESS
Society: plural State: representative Planning: representative
Improvement of quality of life through the participation of all groups
Interests and needs of the client group Similar to RC except:
Problems defined by client group Goals & objectives set by client group Motivated & supported by `advocate'
Decision making through improved local democracy
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
TABLE 1C: CRITIQUE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PLANNING (1)
MARXIST/POLITICAL ECONOMY Radical planner
APPROACH
1970s
PERIOD EMERGED CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACHES
Critique of RC planner: is ‘contextless’ and ‘contentless’ i.e. it depoliticises planning Critique of Incremental planner: does not recognise planning as an activity of a class- biased state in a capitalist society is descriptive, not explanative, of the planning process Critique of Participatory planner:
does not recognise planning as an activity of a class- biased state in a capitalist society
capitalist interests undermine representative democracy
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS
Society: State: Planning:
Conflict Open to class alliances Open to class alliance
PURPOSE
Redistribution of resources through structural change: equity & efficiency
SCOPE
Scope of analysis: political economy Scope of intervention: initially saw planner as marginal debated whether planner had a role in urban change; 1990s trends to building planning constituencies among communities & workers
PLANNING PROCESS
Explanation of planning activity in socio-historical context Initially ignored planning process Critique of selected methods 1990s recognition of mobilisation and communication methods to interact with communities and workers , e.g. equity planning
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
TABLE 1D: CRITIQUE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PLANNING (1)
APPROACH
NEO-LIBERAL Entrepreneurial planner manager
PERIOD EMERGED
1980s
CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACHES
Critique of R/C: Too much state’, ‘too much planning’. Concede to rationality, but only to that of market. Procedural elements reduced to minimum Critique of I/P: Based on institutional rivalry and securing only marginal change. Planning deemed marginal, as institutions weakened and (strong) economic sectors point the way anyway. Critique of Participatory/Advocacy: Participation inefficient & costly. Useful only as ‘means’ to end & avoidance of resistance. Rejection of urban democracy considerations; citizen turned client/user. Critique of Political Economists: Different theoretical & ideological starting point; rejected.
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS PURPOSE
Society: Focus on individuals State: Support individ & market Planning: Support individ & market To enable to market and promote city competitiveness internationally: efficiency Minimal economic and physical/spatial intervention to support market Shift from planning (to private sector) to management
SCOPE
Skeleton R/C focusing on private sector economic management and management techniques eg real estate techniques, corporate co-ordination tools
PLANNING PROCESS
*recognition of city within changing global economic forces but * delinking and demotion of equity from efficiency * depoliticises planning through technical focus * undermines democracy through privatisation of public good into structures with no/limited political accountability
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
TABLE 1D: CRITIQUE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PLANNING (1) POST MODERNIST Planner as communicative rationalist
APPROACH PERIOD EMERGED CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACHES
1980s/90s o
RCP & EPM: planning commodifies particularities of place; growing cleavages, unitary plan rendered useless; conservative state allied with financial capital delinks efficiency and welfare and enables market to the detriment of democratic structures; scientific rationalism as ‘truth’ enhances rationality and ‘truth’ of market
o
Incremental: critical of marginal adjustments to the present, retaining exclusion of diversity, superiority of knowledge and unitary plan
o
Participatory: did not alter balance of power and participation ended being coopted by technical rational language, procedures
o
Political econom /radical planner politician: more tolerant; same social theory, highlighting association of capitalism, groth of city, role of planner. Recognition of other forms of social cleavages.
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS
Society:
Co-operative conflict
State:
Open to diverse alliances
Planning:
Open to diverse alliances
* recognition of diversity of identities and means of expressing them * recognition of power and its influence in planning at macro & micro levels * more attention to institutionalisation of change (bias of procedures, language, other visible & invisibility mechanisms of exclusion) but * implications for methods developing * guard against relativism * guard against idealist fundamentalism
PURPOSE SCOPE
To restructure improvements in cities which are constructed through the interaction and mutual understanding among different social groups and with planners o o
PLANNING PROCESS
Scope of analysis: interactive; power relations into class, gender, ethnicity, age Scope of intervention: socio-pol, ec, env and physical/spatial dimensions of cities
* interactive communication between & among planners, communities, other actors open to all forms of discourse - open to all forms of discourse - critical view of power relations & their manifestation in language & communication – deconstruction - critical process of argumentation * mutual reconstruction of decision making and actions
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
LIBERAL
LIBERAL
Rational Comprehensive Planning Planner as controller
Incremental Planning Planner as bargainer
1950s/1960s
1960s
APPROACH
PERIOD EMERGED CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACH
Critique of approaches practiced until then:
Ad hoc methodology Focus only on physical
Critique of RC approach (see Lindblom, 1996): No clear distinction between means/end & fact/value – cannot define ‘public interest’ No time, info, money to be comprehensive Human intellect cannot be comprehensive, foresee all options
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS
PURPOSE
SCOPE
PLANNING PROCESS
Society: consensus State: neutral arbiter Planning: neutral
Society: plural State: representative Planning: representative
Environmental improvement & management in the `public interest'
Environmental improvement: remedial
Socio-economic and physical/spatial
Limited socio-economic & physical/spatial
Problem recognition & definition of planning task Data collection Data processing Goals, objectives & criteria Formulation Design of alternative plans Decision making Implementation Monitoring & feedback
Restricted problem recognition by different agencies Evaluation & empirical analysis of marginal changes to policies Limited plan alternatives Evaluation of limited alternatives Decision making through mutual adjustment of agencies Continual problem refinement
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
TABLE 1B: CRITIQUE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PLANNING
LIBERAL
APPROACH
Advocacy/Participatory planner 1960s
PERIOD EMERGED CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACHES
Critique of RC approach: ‘public interest’ not homogenous – different interest groups planning not technical and neutral – is political planner not neutral – an advocate for ‘clients’/interest groups Critique of Incremental approach: different groups not represented equally – do not enter bargaining with same strengths marginal changes unlikely to meet plural interest of diverse groups
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS
PURPOSE
SCOPE PLANNING PROCESS
Society: plural State: representative Planning: representative
Improvement of quality of life through the participation of all groups
Interests and needs of the client group Similar to RC except:
Problems defined by client group Goals & objectives set by client group Motivated & supported by `advocate'
Decision making through improved local democracy
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
TABLE 1C: CRITIQUE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PLANNING (1)
MARXIST/POLITICAL ECONOMY Radical planner
APPROACH
1970s
PERIOD EMERGED CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACHES
Critique of RC planner: is ‘contextless’ and ‘contentless’ i.e. it depoliticises planning Critique of Incremental planner: does not recognise planning as an activity of a class- biased state in a capitalist society is descriptive, not explanative, of the planning process Critique of Participatory planner:
does not recognise planning as an activity of a class- biased state in a capitalist society
capitalist interests undermine representative democracy
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS
Society: State: Planning:
Conflict Open to class alliances Open to class alliance
PURPOSE
Redistribution of resources through structural change: equity & efficiency
SCOPE
Scope of analysis: political economy Scope of intervention: initially saw planner as marginal debated whether planner had a role in urban change; 1990s trends to building planning constituencies among communities & workers
PLANNING PROCESS
Explanation of planning activity in socio-historical context Initially ignored planning process Critique of selected methods 1990s recognition of mobilisation and communication methods to interact with communities and workers , e.g. equity planning
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
TABLE 1D: CRITIQUE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PLANNING (1)
APPROACH
NEO-LIBERAL Entrepreneurial planner manager
PERIOD EMERGED
1980s
CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACHES
Critique of R/C: Too much state’, ‘too much planning’. Concede to rationality, but only to that of market. Procedural elements reduced to minimum Critique of I/P: Based on institutional rivalry and securing only marginal change. Planning deemed marginal, as institutions weakened and (strong) economic sectors point the way anyway. Critique of Participatory/Advocacy: Participation inefficient & costly. Useful only as ‘means’ to end & avoidance of resistance. Rejection of urban democracy considerations; citizen turned client/user. Critique of Political Economists: Different theoretical & ideological starting point; rejected.
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS PURPOSE
Society: Focus on individuals State: Support individ & market Planning: Support individ & market To enable to market and promote city competitiveness internationally: efficiency Minimal economic and physical/spatial intervention to support market Shift from planning (to private sector) to management
SCOPE
Skeleton R/C focusing on private sector economic management and management techniques eg real estate techniques, corporate co-ordination tools
PLANNING PROCESS
*recognition of city within changing global economic forces but * delinking and demotion of equity from efficiency * depoliticises planning through technical focus * undermines democracy through privatisation of public good into structures with no/limited political accountability
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
TABLE 1D: CRITIQUE OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PLANNING (1) POST MODERNIST Planner as communicative rationalist
APPROACH PERIOD EMERGED CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS APPROACHES
1980s/90s o
RCP & EPM: planning commodifies particularities of place; growing cleavages, unitary plan rendered useless; conservative state allied with financial capital delinks efficiency and welfare and enables market to the detriment of democratic structures; scientific rationalism as ‘truth’ enhances rationality and ‘truth’ of market
o
Incremental: critical of marginal adjustments to the present, retaining exclusion of diversity, superiority of knowledge and unitary plan
o
Participatory: did not alter balance of power and participation ended being coopted by technical rational language, procedures
o
Political econom /radical planner politician: more tolerant; same social theory, highlighting association of capitalism, groth of city, role of planner. Recognition of other forms of social cleavages.
RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS
Society:
Co-operative conflict
State:
Open to diverse alliances
Planning:
Open to diverse alliances
* recognition of diversity of identities and means of expressing them * recognition of power and its influence in planning at macro & micro levels * more attention to institutionalisation of change (bias of procedures, language, other visible & invisibility mechanisms of exclusion) but * implications for methods developing * guard against relativism * guard against idealist fundamentalism
PURPOSE SCOPE
To restructure improvements in cities which are constructed through the interaction and mutual understanding among different social groups and with planners o o
PLANNING PROCESS
Scope of analysis: interactive; power relations into class, gender, ethnicity, age Scope of intervention: socio-pol, ec, env and physical/spatial dimensions of cities
* interactive communication between & among planners, communities, other actors open to all forms of discourse - open to all forms of discourse - critical view of power relations & their manifestation in language & communication – deconstruction - critical process of argumentation * mutual reconstruction of decision making and actions
(1) Each approach is an umbrella terms for a wide range of interpretations for each Source: Levy, C, & Kyrou E. Urban Development Policy, Planning and Management: theory and practice, 2008
Related Documents
Planning Approaches Briefs1-5
July 2020 4
Approaches
November 2019 43
Alternative Approaches
June 2020 9
Approaches Ppt
June 2020 6
Modeling Approaches
June 2020 2More Documents from "yoganandv"
Planning Approaches Briefs1-5
July 2020 4
Bricoarbitraje 1 09-10
June 2020 7
Sandip Sale Prices
July 2020 6
M&e As-built Volume(for Page 2
July 2020 4
Abstract Iit
June 2020 12