Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
-" ##
conceived as o"stacles to glo"alisation to the extent that the persist in collecting taxes and reallocating resources! The deregulation of propert mar'ets across Europe during the last /uarter of a centur or so is an instructive example of the effects of glo"alisation! The dismantling of "arriers to free investing in real estate has "een seen as an urgent tas' " governments in most European countries! This has "een accompanied " decentralisation of decision-ma'ing and the overhaul of the national planning s stems! The changing role of pu"lic authorities implies a switch from control to the promotion of development! The direct involvement of elected "odies is "eing replaced piecemeal " a planning s stem where *sta'eholders+ rather than the democraticall elected representatives of the population as a whole hold swa ! This change is often la"elled *governance+ in contrast to old-fashioned *government+, and it is propagated 0 as an extension and not as a reduction of democrac ! In the ideological 1ustification of a li"eralised land regime, planning theor stressing the communication aspect (*"ottom-up+) as apart from pu"lic control (*top-down+) has "een ver influential! #h less pu"lic control in matters relating to land use and the appropriation of land rent should "e seen as more *"ottom-up+ than previous land regimes is however rarel elucidated! The role of planning theor seems then to have "een reduced to that of pure ideolog ! #hat then is the use of planning theor 2
opposed to *conflicts of interests+! Conse/uentl , success in compromise would re/uire the transformation of principles to interests! The planner has to define the issue at hand in such a wa that tradeoffs are possi"le, which in its turn presupposes relevant 'nowledge! Instead of stud ing disasters, San al advocates the stud of planning successes such as attracting investments without compromising la"our or environmental standards! This 'ind of 'nowledge could then o"viousl encourage planners to find ethicall accepta"le compromises! 9lanners would then "e appreciated for their small successes instead of "eing maligned for their lac' of theor and inconsistenc !
and ethical character can "e ac/uired over an individual lifetime, "ut when the individual passes awa , with her@him goes her@his s'ills and 'nowledge! Aatters of taste and morals are individual issues in the sense that ever human "eing has to start from scratch! ,rchitects ma "e experts on prevailing aesthetical preferences among architects (e/uals architecture), "ut their conception of "eaut is often in opposition to 1B the preferences of ordinar people! In sharp contrast to this, the findings of concurrent mathematicians are "e ond the hori7on of la men "ut affect the lives of ever one! To conclude, some "ranches of 'nowledge, for instance mathematics and technolog , can "e accumulated while 'nowledge related to other "ranches of human life such as ethical and aesthetical matters concern 1udgement, which is not accumulative in the 11 same sense as mathematics and high-technolog are! 9ossi"le expertise in ethics and aesthetics (if we oversee the histor of these faculties) is an exponent of life experience, not of theoretical insights alone, and therefore it is dou"tful to what extent an profession can claim expert 'nowledge concerning matters of 1udgement and taste! This does not mean that all communities or cultures are e/uall "ewildered in matters of ethics and aesthetics! I do thin' that some societies produce more of collective "eaut and fairness than others, "ut this is not an exponent of expert rule, rather the contrar ! 3eaut and fairness thrive where the are o"1ects of collective and pu"lic interest!
The point here is, however, that professions such as engineers and architects with a "ac'ground in handicraft, or the rational management of practical matters, stic' to a tradition of pro"lem solving while the more theoretical disciplines operate the other wa around, defining pro"lems! Aoral dilemmas ma of course concern pro"lem formulation as well as pro"lem solving! 3ut the more a pro"lem is related to efficienc and there" instrumental approaches, the less it pro"a"l generates second thoughts of a moral nature among practitioners! If planners and planning theoreticians should "e "lamed for something, it would "e for "eing predominantl instrumental in their approach to professional matters! ,t its "est, planning theor could provide some insights into the dilemmas related to planning commissions as such, not onl to the practical wor' of producing plans in terms of processes and outcome! 3ut this seems to "e something ver far awa from 3ish San al+s re/uest for ethically rele"ant theory as he invo'ed the success stories and refuted planning disasters!
man of the most cele"rated authors of planning theor seem to "e dilettantes of political histor ! In addition, the connection "etween planning theor and political worldview ma not "e consciousl ela"orated or even recognised " the author! Conse/uentl it would "e unfair to put political la"els on theoreticians in a wa that the themselves do not recognise! I thin', however, that it is ver important to assess prevailing theoretical concepts in terms of "roader ideological trends! Deferring to anal tical philosoph , we could ma'e a distinction "etween ratio and causa& ratio refers to the explanations of those involved and causa to cause! Explanations could of course correspond to actual causes or correspondences, "ut much of the time the do not! Dhetoric demands arguments with a flair for moral integrit , which normall excludes arguments expressing self-interest or outright cheating! Ever "od involved wants to 'eep a clean shield! In order to comment on planning theor E that is, to produce meanings E the outspo'en intentions of the author of the theor under scrutin is, needless to sa , interesting, "ut, with reference to the discipline as a whole, a "roader grip on the su"1ect ma "e of interest! Does it ma'e sense to interpret prevailing planning theories in the context of political developments as a whole2 I thin' so>
Fere, the interest is not to assess whether the communicative turn in planning theor is right or wrong, "ut rather to in/uire wh it has gained momentum during the last /uarter of a centur ! Is there a genuine democratic deficit that has to "e overhauled or are the reasons for this "est sought somewhere else2 Concerning the alleged deficit of democrac , notions li'e *democrac +, *development+, and *sustaina"ilit + are not anal tic "ut s nthetic concepts, which are generall accepted as legitimate rhetorical means to pursue whatever one+s aims! ,dd *gender e/uit + and ou have it all> It cannot however "e asserted *once and for all+ to what extent planning traditions in general, or even individuall , are democratic or not! Each case is different and has to "e 1udged according to factual circumstances! Conse/uentl , communicative planning ma advance democratic attitudes or it ma not! ,ctuall colla"orative planning as s'etched " Feale in a num"er of writings seems to me to impl a whole arra of manipulative elements, which would seem to sit uneasil with democrac in terms of %B deli"eration and prudence! There ma however "e other reasons for the prevalence of communicative planning theor 2 I thin' one such reason could "e found in the prevalence of neo-li"eral ideolog , and in particular in the need to esta"lish social institutions consistent with the neo-li"eral societ , that is to sa , institutions that match and advance the free flow of investments and development! , new planning regime with a minimum of predefined restrictions and guidelines and ample possi"ilities for stri'ing deals on the local level is in conformit with the neo-li"eral ideals! Two "asic concepts E *pu"lic interest+ and *political communit + E are of particular interest when commenting on the political implications of communicative planning approaches! The degrading of something traditionall la"elled public interest and the reduction of citi7ens to sta'eholders through the introduction of the concept of political community or other la"els ma shed some light on the concurrent development of communicative planning theor !
possi"ilities of consumption) and sometimes non-re1ecta"le (one must consume them), and therefore nearl impossi"le to turn into mar'et commodities! Conse/uentl , it seems to "e a *fact+ that such goods exist, "ut it is of course disputed to what extent the should "e considered a public interest to produce& consider for instance the "eaut of the landscape! In line with the traditional utilitarian view, there is a pu"lic interest in safeguarding the a"ilit of individuals to maximise their individual interests, which would produce the maximum outcome of "enefits for societ as a whole! The ideal that the sum of individual optimums would lead to a total optimal is of course disputed, "ut even the crudest utilitarianism recognises a pu"lic interest! Societ must also provide for the suppl of some other essential pu"lic goods as well (securit , law and order, etc!), and the acceptance of this idea means the acceptance of the existence of something called a pu"lic interest! ,ccording to the communicative approach to planning, the notion of pu"lic interest is cast in dou"t and the theor is professed as "eing contrar to the idea of pu"lic %interest! 9u"lic interest is recognised primaril as the interests of the ma1or "usinesses and promoted " the representative model of democrac ! Involving the pu"lic in articulating the pu"lic interest would challenge the politician+s responsi"ilit %0 for the tas' and the role of the representatives! ,ccordingl , pu"lic interest is associated with the traditional planning regime and its connections to sta'eholder %4 groups and corresponding political lo""ies! To refute the existence of pu"lic interest as a fact, or to den it as something that can "e formulated within the context of representative democrac , seems to me to represent a view of total alienation to concurrent achievements! .ational, regional and local planning regimes are tied up " international charters, which for instance concern environmental issues and cultural heritage! *Sustaina"le development+ is considered to "e an overriding value, which has infiltrated almost ever polic document of the E6 and other international institutions! 9erhaps *sustaina"le development+ is not a factual interest in line with the perceptions of each and ever individual, "ut it is certainl a collective interest "ecause of its elevated position in an environmental discussion! To claim the non-existence of pu"lic interest with the argument that it does not exist as a fact, or that there exists no extra-individual or overriding values, it then to den the factual implications of ideas approved " democraticall elected "odies, and it is to refute the importance of su"stantial international agreements (ela"orated in a communicative process>)!
Stakeholders R !not" #s
In the context of glo"alisation, national and regional as well as local planning regimes have to compete for investments and development! Territoriall organised democratic governments ma hamper the free flow of investments where politicians find (for instance environmental, social and political) costs to "e too high compared to the foreseen "enefits! ;or the local population, short-term interests (such as emplo ment) ma "e contrasted against overriding principles of an ordered societ and peaceful cooperation among its residents! In man cases, farsighted voters ma prefer to consider principles ahead of interests, which is pro"a"l a clever long-term strateg from their point of view!
#ithin the neo-li"eral conception, compromises and ad1ustments are more li'el to occur through the ad1ustment of interests than " getting involved in tampering with principles! 9romoting the idea of *sta'eholders+ instead of *citi7ens+ or *ever "od + is a wa of pla ing down the /uestion of principles and pu"lic interest while upgrading the /uestion of particular interests! If the pu"lic interest could "e conceived of as the collective interest of all, then the /uestion emerges how this collective interest could "e formulated "e ond that of individual interests, or as something other than the sum of individual interests! To refer to *sta'eholders+ does not do, "ecause not all of those in need of pu"lic goods are sta'eholders in terms of partners in an particular development pro1ect! The factual externalities of an investment affect as a rule man more people than the *sta'eholders+ usuall involved! 9roviding that we accept the notion of a public interest, how could it "e formulated and " whom2 , trivial answer to the /uestion is that it is formulated within the s stem of representative democrac , supplemented " various forms of direct decision-ma'ing (referendums, etc!) when needed! The notion that man politicians are corrupt, or that representative democrac is intimatel lin'ed to huge institutional interest and lo""ies ma "e correct, "ut the solution is in m view not to den the democratic potential of that government, "ut to anal se its shortcomings and to suggest improvements! 9eople are 'illed in all countries, "ut this is not a sufficient reason to ma'e 'illing legal! It is pure nonsense to advocate *governance+ (as alleged *"ottom-up+ involvement) as superior to *government+ (as alleged *top-down+ procedures) as if democratic ideals and fairness could "e implemented " organisational reforms onl ! Auch more is demanded for that, and we cannot close our e es to the fact that the elites are the architects of governance structures, never the crowd! ;airness for all ma emerge when the huge ma1orit of the lower parts of the social ladder are strong enough to esta"lish their interpretations of fairness, providing the elite does not corrupt their ideas, "ut this seems ver unli'el to occur! ,ccording to the colla"orative theor of planning, the concept of *political communit + is introduced as an alternative to representative democrac and oldfashioned government! The definition of *political communit + is extremel wide, %5 ena"ling almost an group of sta'eholders to "e called a political communit ! This opens the wa for ar"itrariness as to sta'eholders and the *design+ of a manipulative pla where the actors ma "e totall ignorant of their factual functions in the pla ! 9lanning theor for the naGve2 :es, the idea of *political communit + must "e understood in the context of the refutation of *pu"lic interest+, and the involvement of particular interests represented " groups that can stri'e deals when needed! The pla would "e pla ed in a wa where most actors are pure *extras+! Supernumeraries have little to contri"ute when deals are struc' "etween leading parties, financers and developers!
Concluding remarks
#hen academic ideas are traded on the intellectual mar'etplace, the are su"1ected to the laws of rhetoric as are all other 'inds of discourses! #e all want to promote democrac , development, sustaina"ilit and e/uit ! In the name of democrac we oppose all other ideas than our own! In the name of development and sustaina"ilit we do the same! Fowever, in order not to "e fooled " the outspo'en pretensions of others, it ma "e "etter to stic' to factual anal ses of ideas and discourses rather than ta'ing outspo'en pretensions for granted! 9ersonall , I do prefer communicative acts
to more "rutal alternatives li'e "lunt violence in the wa people see' to solve their disputes, "ut this does not mean that peaceful communication is totall innocent! Ever stor line is part of a context, and it is the stor that gives the stor line a meaning in the end! To me, it seems fairl futile to promote democrac " tr ing to esta"lish institutions for the few rather then for the man ! Concurrent democratic institutions across Europe certainl fail legitimac and efficienc tests in delivering pu"lic goods according to prevailing needs and demands! 3ut this does not mean that newl installed institutions would do a "etter 1o"! ,s such, it is more important to formulate the pro"lem in respect of the present d sfunctions of the political s stem than to start designing new institutions! $ne reason for the crises of representative democrac could "e that traditional parties are organised in accordance with the position of their supporters with regard to production tas's& merchants, cler's, farmers, wor'ers! 9erhaps this no longer has an organisational relevance2 9erhaps then it is the part s stem that is in crises, not representative democrac as such2 9erhaps we can even see a part s stem evolving that is "ased on the position of their supporters with regard to consumption and life-st les& the greens, heritage, sports, etc!2 The idea that universit people who train planners should "e engaged in the design of a new societ E at the same time as the a"solutel re1ect the idea of an 'ind of "lueprint design for an other dimension of life E is slightl a"surd! ,s ,ristotle put it when delivering a "roadside against (allegedl the first) planning theoretician 'nown to histor , that is, Fippodamus& *Fe wished to "e considered expert in the whole range of natural sciences tooH and he was the first person not actuall ta'ing part in %8 the wor'ing of a constitution to attempt some description of the ideal one!+ Theoreticians of planning have persuasive idols in the histor of planning, "ut planning academia would pro"a"l thrive "etter in an air of less political opportunism and more scientific rationalism!
1
3 capitalism is meant *a social and economic s stem in which individuals are free to own the means of production and maximi7e profits and in which resource allocation is determined " the price s stem+! 3annoc', 3axter I Davis 1??=, p! 4%! % The relative independence of international "odies regulating glo"al capitalism from single states or 1oint ventures of states is of course a disputed issue! Chossudovs' 1???! 0 Feale 1??8"! 4 San al %BB%, p! 1%B! 5 #ith regard to the Fa"ermasian approach, San al refers (footnote 11) to Feal 1??8a! 8 i"id! = ;riedmann %BB-, p! ?! ? ,lread in the latter part of the 18th centur in ;rance, the /uestion of progress in societ was discussed intensivel , and the conclusion of this discussion was E rightl so I thin' E that matters of an ethical and aesthetical nature cannot *progress+ in the same sense that technical innovation or economic accumulation do! 1B ,n empirical stud shows that students of architecture are socialised through their studies into aesthetic preferences that are opposed to those of the ma1orit in societ ! 11 This insight was alread realised in ;rance during the latter part of the 18th centur as a result of an extensive discussion on the issue of progress in the ;rench ,cadem ! See Jowenthal 1??4, p! 80-1%0! 1% ;riedmann %BB-! 1,lexander %BB-! 10 Feale 1??8a, p! %4%! 14 Feale 1??8a, p! %-0! 15 Feale 1??8a, p! %-0!
1B
18 1=
Feale %BB-, p! %-?! Feale 1??8a! 1? *<to engage in an other strateg is to generate once again forms of planning that have inherent within them an antidemocratic dominator potential!+ Feale 1??8", p! %4%! %B $ne example of the manipulative potential& *, powerful discourse, energeticall diffused, has the capacit to change what people thin' and what the do, and to maintain these changes!+ See Feale %BB-a, p! %41! Fere persuasion is made totall instrumental, void of an moral stand! %1 Aoroni %BB0, p! 14%! %% Aoroni %BB0! %Feale %BB-a! %0 Feale 1??8a, p! %%%, %%4! %4 Feale 1??8a, p! %?8! %5 *)olitical community in this context means those who, " prior law, or common consent or " organi7ational mem"ership, find themselves part of a collective entit ! 9olitical communities ma "e associations of those with a common interest, a communit of ac'nowledged sta'eholders! Such communities have no necessar territorial definition<The ma also "e territorial communities, defined " cultural associations with place or " the "oundaries of political 1urisdictions, such as all those living in a particular national "oundar or local authorit area!+ Feale 1??8a, p! %B5! %8 ,ristotle 1??%, II, viii!
References
,lexander, E!D! (%BB-)! Desponse to *wh do planning theor +! In )lanning Theory Kol %(-)& 18?-1=%! S,CE 9u"lications! ,ristotle, (1??%)! The )olitics. 9enguin 3oo's! 3annoc', C!, 3axter, D!E! I Davis, E! (1??=)! *ictionary of +conomics! 9rofile 3oo's! Chossudocs' , A! (1???)! The Globalisation of )o"erty% Impacts of I!, and $orld Ban( -eforms! Led 3oo's! ;riedmann, J! (%BB-)! *#h do 9lanning Theor 2+ In )lanning Theory Kol %(1)& 8-1B! S,CE 9u"lications! Feale , 9! (%BB-a)! *The Communicative Turn in 9lanning Theor and its Implications for Spatial Strateg ;ormation!+ In Camp"ell, S! I ;ainstein, S!S! -eadings in )lanning Theory! Second Edition, 3lac'well 9u"lishers, p! %-8-%44! Feale , 9! (%BB-")! *Colla"orative 9lanning in 9erspective!+ In )lanning Theory Kol! %(%)& 1B1-1%-! S,CE 9u"lications! Feale , 9! (1??8a!) Collaborati"e )lanning% .haping )laces in ,ragmented .ocieties! Aacmillan 9ress Jtd! Feale , 9! (1??8")! *9lanning Through De"ate& The Communicative Turn in 9lanning Theor !+ In Camp"ell, S! I ;ainstein, S!S! -eadings in )lanning Theory! 3lac'well 9u"lishers, p! %-0-%48!
11
Feale , 9! (1??5) *The Communicative Turn in 9lanning Theor and its Implications for Spatial Strateg ;ormation!+ In Camp"ell, S! I ;ainstein, S!S! -eadings in )lanning Theory! 3lac'well 9u"lishers, p! %-8-%44! Jowenthal, D! (1??4)! The )ast is a ,oreign Country! Cam"ridge 6niversit 9ress! Aandel"aum, S!J! (%BB-)! +$n Compromise!+ In )lanning Theory Kol %(1)& 11-1%! S,CE 9u"lications! Aoroni, S! (%BB0)! *Towards a Deconstruction of the 9u"lic Interest Criterion!+ In )lanning Theory Kol -(%)& 141-181! S,CE 9u"lications! San al, 3! (%BB%)! *Clo"ali7ation, Ethical Compromise and 9lanning Theor !+ In )lanning Theory Kol 1(%)& 115-1%-! S,CE 9u"lications!
1%