Chapter 1 – What is theory?
In recent year planning has been characterised by fragmentation and diversification.
What is theory? ‘it abstracts a set of general or specific principles to be used as a basis for
explaining and acting, with the theory being tested and refined if necessary. This
definition is flawed
The natural sciences are not necessarily superior to the social sciences.
There are a multitude of competing theories and views on planning
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) = approach to understand the relations between science and
society. ANT argues that science is not out there separate from society, but is instead
thoroughly political.
Science is based on higher level narratives. Three main dimensions of discourses are:
Language use, Type of Theory Characteristics
communication of beliefs Normative How it ought to be
(cognition) and interaction in Prescriptive Means to achieve
social situations Empirical Explains reality
Discourses are influenced by Models Representation of reality
power Conceptual frameworks or Way of looking at a subject
There are two major inputs perspectives
into theory: normative Theorizing Catch-all phrase
elements and discursive elements which are both influenced by power.
The relationship between structure and agency is important. There is a duality.
Locality effect = every locality is a unique configuration of economic activities, division of
labours cultural traditions, political alignments, spatial arrangements and physical form.
Assemblage thinking= emphasizes the social embeddedness and contingency of theory and
knowledge.
Closing the theory-practice gap would mean a low of power and discretion for planners.
Planners are not free agents. They choose and pick theories because of pressure put on
them.
Chapter 2 – the current landscape of planning theory.
A shift from a positivist to a post-positivist paradigm. This was not a clear shift. We have a
cluttered landscape of ideas and theories about planning theory.
Typologies provide a frame or common understanding of a subject area.
Planning has no endogenous body of theory.
Until the 1980s the dominant typology was the substantive-procedural distinction (Faludi).
Procedural theories define and justify methods of decision making whereas substantive
theories pertain to interdisciplinary knowledge relevant to the context of planning.
Procedural theories should be the business of planners.
Consensus on planning was blown apart into a diversity of positions. Some wanted to replace
Faludi’s distinction. Yiftachel’s typology still used the substantive-procedural framework. He
made three categories based on this framework: what is urban planning? What is a good
urban plan? And what is a good planning process?
Yiftachel’s typology is based on a linear an progressive view
Post-positivist say = ‘If theories are normative, variable through time and space and
contextualized social and historical mediations, there is no distinction between substance
and procedure, but a complex iterative relationship between ideas and actions.
Allmendinger distinguished five types of categories:
, 1. Exogenous theory: Theories that have a relevance for space, policy processes or
governance. Focus on a particular element of society.
2. Framing theory: Theories that seek to frame our understanding of planning
3. Social theory: Related through discrete set of reflection and understandings of
society.
4. Social scientific philosophical understandings: linked to assumptions regarding
whether they are based upon open or closed systems of reality.
5. Indigenous planning theory: Peculiar kind of theorizing that is planning-specific
Chapter 3 – Systems and rational theories of planning.
Systems theory is an acceptance that cities and regions are complex sets of connected parts,
which are in constant flux.
Systems theorist believe that cities can be modelled. A planner’s role is to anticipate the
dynamics of a system and plan accordingly: constraints of decisions and predictable
behaviour help in this
You choose a plan by seeing how far each plan satisfied all the objectives which have been
adopted for the planning exercise. Three techniques that are used: cost-benefit analysis, a
planning balance sheet and a goals achievement mix.
Consequences of systems theory are: a more centralised organisation of planning in public
bodies and a different division of labour.
Systems theory was heavily criticised. It was unachievable. However the idea of systems in
particular complex adaptive systems in society took off again.
Complex systems are characterised by: a great independent agents interacting, spontaneous
self-organisation, adaption and evolution and dynamism.
Max Weber made a distinction between formal and substantive rationality. Formal
rationality is concerned with means and efficiency. Substantive rationality with ends and
evaluation. Planning should focus on formal rationality.
Meyerson and Banfield of the Chicago school see a rational decision as:
1. The decision-maker considers all possible alternatives
2. He identifies and evaluates all of the consequences which would follow from the
adaptation of each alternative
3. He selects that alternative the probable consequences of which would be preferable
in terms of his most valued ends.
According to Faludi planning is about the best way to produce results. He sees rationality as a
process and in a justification of decisions that have not actually followed this process. ‘
Faludi says decisions can be made through: routinization, sequential decision-making or
mixed-scanning.
Chapter 6 – Pragmatism
Pragmatism = emphasizes direct action regarding specific problems. It is about getting things
done.
Cultural and social influences play a role. They help us act on intuition.
A problem then would be bias. We can solve this through having conversations and open
discourse.
Dewey argues that pragmatics become an open-minded, contingent search for knowledge
and truth.
Rorty says that in normal discourse agreement is easy. In abnormal discourse agreement is
hard, the planner will have to take on a role of mediator. The planner will be the ironist: one
In recent year planning has been characterised by fragmentation and diversification.
What is theory? ‘it abstracts a set of general or specific principles to be used as a basis for
explaining and acting, with the theory being tested and refined if necessary. This
definition is flawed
The natural sciences are not necessarily superior to the social sciences.
There are a multitude of competing theories and views on planning
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) = approach to understand the relations between science and
society. ANT argues that science is not out there separate from society, but is instead
thoroughly political.
Science is based on higher level narratives. Three main dimensions of discourses are:
Language use, Type of Theory Characteristics
communication of beliefs Normative How it ought to be
(cognition) and interaction in Prescriptive Means to achieve
social situations Empirical Explains reality
Discourses are influenced by Models Representation of reality
power Conceptual frameworks or Way of looking at a subject
There are two major inputs perspectives
into theory: normative Theorizing Catch-all phrase
elements and discursive elements which are both influenced by power.
The relationship between structure and agency is important. There is a duality.
Locality effect = every locality is a unique configuration of economic activities, division of
labours cultural traditions, political alignments, spatial arrangements and physical form.
Assemblage thinking= emphasizes the social embeddedness and contingency of theory and
knowledge.
Closing the theory-practice gap would mean a low of power and discretion for planners.
Planners are not free agents. They choose and pick theories because of pressure put on
them.
Chapter 2 – the current landscape of planning theory.
A shift from a positivist to a post-positivist paradigm. This was not a clear shift. We have a
cluttered landscape of ideas and theories about planning theory.
Typologies provide a frame or common understanding of a subject area.
Planning has no endogenous body of theory.
Until the 1980s the dominant typology was the substantive-procedural distinction (Faludi).
Procedural theories define and justify methods of decision making whereas substantive
theories pertain to interdisciplinary knowledge relevant to the context of planning.
Procedural theories should be the business of planners.
Consensus on planning was blown apart into a diversity of positions. Some wanted to replace
Faludi’s distinction. Yiftachel’s typology still used the substantive-procedural framework. He
made three categories based on this framework: what is urban planning? What is a good
urban plan? And what is a good planning process?
Yiftachel’s typology is based on a linear an progressive view
Post-positivist say = ‘If theories are normative, variable through time and space and
contextualized social and historical mediations, there is no distinction between substance
and procedure, but a complex iterative relationship between ideas and actions.
Allmendinger distinguished five types of categories:
, 1. Exogenous theory: Theories that have a relevance for space, policy processes or
governance. Focus on a particular element of society.
2. Framing theory: Theories that seek to frame our understanding of planning
3. Social theory: Related through discrete set of reflection and understandings of
society.
4. Social scientific philosophical understandings: linked to assumptions regarding
whether they are based upon open or closed systems of reality.
5. Indigenous planning theory: Peculiar kind of theorizing that is planning-specific
Chapter 3 – Systems and rational theories of planning.
Systems theory is an acceptance that cities and regions are complex sets of connected parts,
which are in constant flux.
Systems theorist believe that cities can be modelled. A planner’s role is to anticipate the
dynamics of a system and plan accordingly: constraints of decisions and predictable
behaviour help in this
You choose a plan by seeing how far each plan satisfied all the objectives which have been
adopted for the planning exercise. Three techniques that are used: cost-benefit analysis, a
planning balance sheet and a goals achievement mix.
Consequences of systems theory are: a more centralised organisation of planning in public
bodies and a different division of labour.
Systems theory was heavily criticised. It was unachievable. However the idea of systems in
particular complex adaptive systems in society took off again.
Complex systems are characterised by: a great independent agents interacting, spontaneous
self-organisation, adaption and evolution and dynamism.
Max Weber made a distinction between formal and substantive rationality. Formal
rationality is concerned with means and efficiency. Substantive rationality with ends and
evaluation. Planning should focus on formal rationality.
Meyerson and Banfield of the Chicago school see a rational decision as:
1. The decision-maker considers all possible alternatives
2. He identifies and evaluates all of the consequences which would follow from the
adaptation of each alternative
3. He selects that alternative the probable consequences of which would be preferable
in terms of his most valued ends.
According to Faludi planning is about the best way to produce results. He sees rationality as a
process and in a justification of decisions that have not actually followed this process. ‘
Faludi says decisions can be made through: routinization, sequential decision-making or
mixed-scanning.
Chapter 6 – Pragmatism
Pragmatism = emphasizes direct action regarding specific problems. It is about getting things
done.
Cultural and social influences play a role. They help us act on intuition.
A problem then would be bias. We can solve this through having conversations and open
discourse.
Dewey argues that pragmatics become an open-minded, contingent search for knowledge
and truth.
Rorty says that in normal discourse agreement is easy. In abnormal discourse agreement is
hard, the planner will have to take on a role of mediator. The planner will be the ironist: one
