Down to Earth: Linking Planning Theory and Practice in the ‘Metropole’ and Beyond

Abstract

The paper explores the issue of the link between planning theory and practice, and achieving what is sometimes termed ‘situated’ planning theory. It argues that mainstream planning theory (i.e. the various strands of communicative planning theory [CPT]) has come closer to this than most previous theorizing, but that there is still a significant gap between theorizing about, and the reality of, practice in particular contexts. While this issue has been a subject of debate within that part of the world where CPT has its origins (the global North), the relevance of mainstream planning theory to practice in other parts of the world has had less attention. This paper asks how well CPT ‘travels’ across the globe, and what might be required to improve its portability.

Notes

For example: see the issue of Planning Theory, 17, summer 1997; Alexander (1998).

The theorists who have contributed in different ways to this position are many: most prominently Baum, Forester, Healey, Hoch, Innes, Mandelbaum, Sandercock and Sager.

With an acknowledgement by Healey (1992) that communicating groups may operate within different ‘systems of meaning’. Booher and Innes (2002) argue that to achieve ‘network power’ in a process requires the presence of diverse agents or groups: whether or not this extends to differences in ‘world-view’ is not clear.

The position here is not to suggest that it is impossible, but to note that its possibility is often unquestioned.

Noting that the term has a complex lineage and has been used by planning theorists in a variety of ways. Healey (1999:114) uses the terms ‘cultural resources’ or ‘cultural capital’ and Booher and Innes (2002) refer to ‘network power’.

This critique of CPT has been registered by Beauregard, Lauria, Fainstain, Huxley and Yiftachel.

Constructing a definition of a theory and using a case study to reflect on and raise questions about this theory.

CP Theorists fully recognize the operation of power (this is a central contribution of the position) but it is the nature of this power that is debated.

See Sanyal (2005) as a good recent example, as well as the Routledge Dialogues in Urban and Regional Planning series.

See Roy (2006) and Harrison (2006) for the importance of this perspective to planning.