What is planning theory?

Planning theory presents several definitions. For many, public interest is the goal of planning theory. Planners are social players and must consider equity and history while mediating multiple interests. This ability to identify points of convergence within a large social structure helps legitimatize and implement decisions. For others, planners are professionals equipped with enough technological capability and intellectual knowledge to coordinate complex activities in an orderly fashion. Mathematical and statistical abilities, in addition to oral and written skills, are necessary to identify problems, their causes, the scope of an action plan, the means to address a collective issue in the long term, and to communicate ideas to stakeholders. Either as an advocate or as a technical practitioner, planners have to deal with current problems and design solutions based on implications of future actions as well as unexpected and desired scenarios, both created by information collected, private and public interests as well as personal and professional experience shaping decisions driven by intuition and common sense.

There have been main five debates over the planning theory. The first confronts comprehensive and incremental approaches. Comprehensive planning has to do with acknowledging that this is a complex process and thus must consider several factors before a decision is made. Incremental planning, however, defends that this complexity is impossible to be fully understood so that planners should be dealing with problems as they emerge. The second debate is between objectivity and advocacy. Objectivity planners take a scientific approach to addressing planning issues. Numbers and scale help identify problems and come up with pragmatic solutions. Advocacy planners, on the other hand, defend that discussion over the identification of problems and design of solutions should derive solely from what is best for the public interest. The third debate opposes centralization and decentralization. Centralization assumes that decisions should be in the hands of few experts which also accelerate decision-making and implementation processes. Decentralization defendants, however, advocate a planning process where experts receive inputs from the entire community and constantly negotiate with them ways to address local problems. The fourth conflict emerges from top-down and bottom-up decision making processes. Supporters of top-down argue that the ones on top are not only democratically elected but also aware of and knowledgeable enough to effectively address and lead a planning process. Community leaders, however, critique this position by reinforcing the belief that interpretations and assumptions are conceptually reductionist, in addition to prevent communities from taking ownership of solutions proposed. The last debate is between people and place. Planners advocating people oriented planning-process believe that everyone interested in participating should have a voice in the planning process since they are the object and the ones transforming surroundings. This position confronts the defendants of planning for place. These are determinist theorists claiming that space shapes the way people think and interact with one another.

Allmendiger and Sandercok mention practical approaches to planning theory. Allendiger lists six approaches. The first is “normative”, which defines how the world should be; the second is “prescriptive”, which identifies the best means of achieving a desired condition; the third is “empirical”, which tries to explain realities; the fourth is “models”, which simplifies pictures of realities; the fifth is “conceptual framework”, which tries to look at an object from different perspectives; and the sixth is “theorizing”, which consider planning as a study of a phenomenon.

Sandercock has also listed six approaches. The first is “rational”, which borrows its analytical tools from science and technology but overemphasizes top-down frameworks. The second is “advocacy”, which aims to inform the public about costs, benefits, and alternatives of a planning process. The critique against this approach is that it has not actually empowered the poor. The third approach is “radical political economic”. Influenced by Marxists, planners are supposed to bring about balance between capital and citizens. Economics, as a neutral tool, should be used to mitigate classes’ interests. The problem of this socialist approach is that it has neglected planning epistemology. The fourth is “equity”, which argues that planning is apolitical. “Equity” defendants, however, have ignored the toll that institutionalized power and institutional settings take on decision-makers. The fifth is “communicative”, which argues that there must be a mutual learning process between experts and clients. Planners should appreciate local values, experiences, and knowledge. The negative aspect of this approach is that it has not deeply discussed the problem of structural inequality. The last approach is “radical”. According to these practitioners, the planning process should only be initiated by the community; however, one community does not represent all communities.

Theory, therefore, is crucial for planners. It informs practice, makes things coherent, diminishes contradictions, creates rational systems, promotes interchange of ideas with other disciplines, and allows understanding the source of a problem by critiquing and challenging status-quo.

Hall, P. "Urban and regional planning". Routledge, 2010.
Allmendiger, P. "Planning theory". Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Campbell, S. "The Structures and Debates of Planning Theory". Cambridge, 1998.
Sandercok, L. "Towards Cosmopolis". West Sussex, 1998.
Fainstein, S. "New directions in planning theory". Urban Affairs Review, 2000.