Pub Date : 2020-12-03DOI: 10.1177/1473095220976942
Yosef Jabareen, E. Eizenberg
This paper proposes a new theoretical perspective for understanding urban social spaces and their interrelations. In an effort to understand these multifaceted, complex relations, an inquiry committed to a flat ontology was deployed. Accordingly, we draw our theorization on the Lacanian ontological lack, Harman’s object-oriented ontology, and Laclau and Mouffe’s discursivity of social reality. Thus, we propose that urban social spaces are discursive and real entities with real and sensual qualities and constituted through specific relations. They are located within discursive social relations, where each urban social space has a “differential position” in an urban system of relations. Each urban social space has an “identity,” defined by its specific mixture of social groups and its specific real and sensual qualities. These qualities construct a sensual object with a specific sensual identity within the web of different urban social spaces. Therefore, urban social spaces are being made through multiple interrelations and are constituted through their location in a nexus of positions. The proposed framework that captures the interrelations among urban social spaces is based on three interrelated logics: the logic of difference, the logic of equivalence, and the fantasmatic logic. Understanding the relations of urban social spaces through these logics offers multifaceted social, political, psychological, and spatial illumination, details, and a more nuanced and flexible investigation of the formation and change of these spaces. Hereby, the city is conceived as comprised of spatiotemporal configurations where social spaces have social and political relations ranging from harshly antagonistic to inclusive and equivalent. This proposed framework informs both sociological and political realms of planning theory. It provides planning theory with new perspectives for understanding the city as a web of interrelated social spaces. Furthermore, it allows a more critical understanding of urban reality by illuminating inequality, injustice, antagonism, and the formulation of “otherness.”
{"title":"Theorizing urban social spaces and their interrelations: New perspectives on urban sociology, politics, and planning","authors":"Yosef Jabareen, E. Eizenberg","doi":"10.1177/1473095220976942","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220976942","url":null,"abstract":"This paper proposes a new theoretical perspective for understanding urban social spaces and their interrelations. In an effort to understand these multifaceted, complex relations, an inquiry committed to a flat ontology was deployed. Accordingly, we draw our theorization on the Lacanian ontological lack, Harman’s object-oriented ontology, and Laclau and Mouffe’s discursivity of social reality. Thus, we propose that urban social spaces are discursive and real entities with real and sensual qualities and constituted through specific relations. They are located within discursive social relations, where each urban social space has a “differential position” in an urban system of relations. Each urban social space has an “identity,” defined by its specific mixture of social groups and its specific real and sensual qualities. These qualities construct a sensual object with a specific sensual identity within the web of different urban social spaces. Therefore, urban social spaces are being made through multiple interrelations and are constituted through their location in a nexus of positions. The proposed framework that captures the interrelations among urban social spaces is based on three interrelated logics: the logic of difference, the logic of equivalence, and the fantasmatic logic. Understanding the relations of urban social spaces through these logics offers multifaceted social, political, psychological, and spatial illumination, details, and a more nuanced and flexible investigation of the formation and change of these spaces. Hereby, the city is conceived as comprised of spatiotemporal configurations where social spaces have social and political relations ranging from harshly antagonistic to inclusive and equivalent. This proposed framework informs both sociological and political realms of planning theory. It provides planning theory with new perspectives for understanding the city as a web of interrelated social spaces. Furthermore, it allows a more critical understanding of urban reality by illuminating inequality, injustice, antagonism, and the formulation of “otherness.”","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"211 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095220976942","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41455600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-04DOI: 10.1177/1473095220969626
I. Wray
America’s long post war boom was underpinned by the state, by Roosevelt’s New Deal, by its wartime economy, and by Roosevelt’s plans for investment in post war science and infrastructure. In the 1970s America abandoned its developmental model, as critics from left and right attacked plans and planners: yet in the fast rising states of Asia it was embraced. Is it too late for a wakeup call in America and Britain, the champions of anti-planning and the small state? This paper looks for explanations, examines consequences and suggests that the Covid pandemic may trigger a sea change in norms, values and attitudes towards planning and governance.
{"title":"The essential state: Pandemic, norms and values, and the new authoritarianism","authors":"I. Wray","doi":"10.1177/1473095220969626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220969626","url":null,"abstract":"America’s long post war boom was underpinned by the state, by Roosevelt’s New Deal, by its wartime economy, and by Roosevelt’s plans for investment in post war science and infrastructure. In the 1970s America abandoned its developmental model, as critics from left and right attacked plans and planners: yet in the fast rising states of Asia it was embraced. Is it too late for a wakeup call in America and Britain, the champions of anti-planning and the small state? This paper looks for explanations, examines consequences and suggests that the Covid pandemic may trigger a sea change in norms, values and attitudes towards planning and governance.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"372 - 389"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095220969626","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45306727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1177/1473095219881858
S. Vidyarthi
The Department of Urban Planning and Policy (UPP) at the University of Illinois, Chicago (UIC) organized a retirement farewell on 31 March 2017 celebrating the almost 37 years-long dedicated service of Professor Charlie Hoch to the planning field. More than 100 members of planning fraternity, program alumni, and university leadership attended the event featuring invited speakers and testimonials from Professor Hoch’s longtime colleagues: Bishwapriya Sanyal, John Forester, and Niraj Verma. Subsequently, Professor Sanyal suggested—and the editors of this journal readily agreed—that the contributors compose a colloquium, drawing from the presentations made at the retirement event, reflecting upon Hoch’s contribution to the pragmatist planning tradition and influence upon their own scholarly work that the journal’s readership should find useful. Charlie Hoch stumbled onto pragmatism as a student of John Friedmann at UCLA in the mid-1970s. Friedmann in his 1973 book Retracking America had critiqued the idea of using rational planning for societal guidance and, instead, offered a Mannheiminspired transactive social learning approach. But Charlie had serious doubts about societal planning and chose to focus on how and what kinds of learning might use planning to cope with complex social problems. Studying the emergence of professional city planning in the early 20th-century United States, he discovered the pragmatist ideas of John Dewey offering inspiration and justification for a variety of urban spatial plans seeking to improve schools, playgrounds, and public housing. This encounter inspired a lifelong scholarship exploring, elaborating, critiquing, and interpreting pragmatist conceptions of planning and what these mean for the practice of spatial planning. During the 1970s, planning theory had not become an identifiable and credible subject for scholarship and research in the United States. The practitioners and students of spatial planning cobbled together justifications for their work selecting ideas from social science and design disciplines. The rational model that proved so fruitful projecting and guiding the instrumental growth trajectories of individual households, firms, and governments during the postwar boom often proved inept and even perverse when used to plan public housing and urban renewal. Charlie along with John Forester, Patsy Healey, Judith Allen, Howell Baum, Linda Dalton, Judith Innes (de Neufville), James Throgmorton, Hilda Blanco, Stan Stein, Tom Harper, Niraj Verma, and others recognized this phenomenon and turned to the study of planning practice trying to understand how people and the institutions they create anticipate, prepare, and cope with future uncertainty, 881858 PLT0010.1177/1473095219881858Planning TheoryVidyarthi et al. research-article2019
{"title":"Charles Hoch: A pesky pragmatist","authors":"S. Vidyarthi","doi":"10.1177/1473095219881858","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219881858","url":null,"abstract":"The Department of Urban Planning and Policy (UPP) at the University of Illinois, Chicago (UIC) organized a retirement farewell on 31 March 2017 celebrating the almost 37 years-long dedicated service of Professor Charlie Hoch to the planning field. More than 100 members of planning fraternity, program alumni, and university leadership attended the event featuring invited speakers and testimonials from Professor Hoch’s longtime colleagues: Bishwapriya Sanyal, John Forester, and Niraj Verma. Subsequently, Professor Sanyal suggested—and the editors of this journal readily agreed—that the contributors compose a colloquium, drawing from the presentations made at the retirement event, reflecting upon Hoch’s contribution to the pragmatist planning tradition and influence upon their own scholarly work that the journal’s readership should find useful. Charlie Hoch stumbled onto pragmatism as a student of John Friedmann at UCLA in the mid-1970s. Friedmann in his 1973 book Retracking America had critiqued the idea of using rational planning for societal guidance and, instead, offered a Mannheiminspired transactive social learning approach. But Charlie had serious doubts about societal planning and chose to focus on how and what kinds of learning might use planning to cope with complex social problems. Studying the emergence of professional city planning in the early 20th-century United States, he discovered the pragmatist ideas of John Dewey offering inspiration and justification for a variety of urban spatial plans seeking to improve schools, playgrounds, and public housing. This encounter inspired a lifelong scholarship exploring, elaborating, critiquing, and interpreting pragmatist conceptions of planning and what these mean for the practice of spatial planning. During the 1970s, planning theory had not become an identifiable and credible subject for scholarship and research in the United States. The practitioners and students of spatial planning cobbled together justifications for their work selecting ideas from social science and design disciplines. The rational model that proved so fruitful projecting and guiding the instrumental growth trajectories of individual households, firms, and governments during the postwar boom often proved inept and even perverse when used to plan public housing and urban renewal. Charlie along with John Forester, Patsy Healey, Judith Allen, Howell Baum, Linda Dalton, Judith Innes (de Neufville), James Throgmorton, Hilda Blanco, Stan Stein, Tom Harper, Niraj Verma, and others recognized this phenomenon and turned to the study of planning practice trying to understand how people and the institutions they create anticipate, prepare, and cope with future uncertainty, 881858 PLT0010.1177/1473095219881858Planning TheoryVidyarthi et al. research-article2019","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"445 - 451"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095219881858","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49280708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-16DOI: 10.1177/1473095220963355
Simone Amato Cameli
State-of-the-art planning theory considers cities as cyborg entities composed by a “natural” part (human beings and their social structures) and an “artificial” part (buildings, infrastructure and other urban artifacts). We contend that this hybrid conception is indissolubly coupled with the ability to discriminate perfectly between the “natural” and the “artificial”. But is this actually the case? We will provide a critical reflection on this ontological issue pointing out that current urban planning theory as well as the general philosophical reflection is not able to produce a rigorous, consistent epistemic criterion to draw this distinction. Long-standing difficulties in this respect are exponentially amplified by recent developments in artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and biotechnology, and their growing relevance in urban environments of the near future risk making the cyborg conception informing the complexity theory of cities obsolete. We will conclude our reflection identifying a possible path for overcoming this dualism toward a more socio-natural conception internalizing the proteiform character of the concept of “nature” itself as well as its inherent cognitive/political element.
{"title":"Natural or artificial? A reflection on a complex ontology","authors":"Simone Amato Cameli","doi":"10.1177/1473095220963355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220963355","url":null,"abstract":"State-of-the-art planning theory considers cities as cyborg entities composed by a “natural” part (human beings and their social structures) and an “artificial” part (buildings, infrastructure and other urban artifacts). We contend that this hybrid conception is indissolubly coupled with the ability to discriminate perfectly between the “natural” and the “artificial”. But is this actually the case? We will provide a critical reflection on this ontological issue pointing out that current urban planning theory as well as the general philosophical reflection is not able to produce a rigorous, consistent epistemic criterion to draw this distinction. Long-standing difficulties in this respect are exponentially amplified by recent developments in artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and biotechnology, and their growing relevance in urban environments of the near future risk making the cyborg conception informing the complexity theory of cities obsolete. We will conclude our reflection identifying a possible path for overcoming this dualism toward a more socio-natural conception internalizing the proteiform character of the concept of “nature” itself as well as its inherent cognitive/political element.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"191 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095220963355","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65555484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-04DOI: 10.1177/1473095220956707
J. Zanotto
Juliana M Zanotto In his comment to my paper (Zanotto, 2019b), Edwin Buitelaar raises a valid concern regarding the overuse of the term ‘neoliberalism,’ suggesting that it has been thrown around without much explanation. Because it has been employed abstractly, it has lost its analytical value (so, maybe we should throw it away!). His comment also indicates a concern with the term being generally given a negative connotation. He and I seem to agree that the second concern is not a problem per se. As for the first concern, like Buitelaar, I am – and I hope all scholars are – concerned with the use of abstract terms to mean anything. Thus, like him, I would also like to see more ‘explaining’ done. This is exactly why I conduct research they way I do and why I wrote the paper he commented on. So, while I fully agree with a call for more ‘explaining’ rather than abstraction, I must disagree that my paper is an example of the latter. In this short reply to Buitelaar’s comment, I raise three important points to clarify how the term neoliberalism was treated in the paper. Rather than using neoliberalism abstractly to mean a lot of things, the paper provides a deeper understand of how a set of principles often related to the notion of neoliberalism operate in practice in a specific context. To do that, the paper provides an account of neoliberalism in action and details its meaning in the context of Brazilian planning in general, and the production of suburban gated communities, in particular. First, it is important to point out that the purpose of the research from which this paper resulted sought to understand how a particular kind of space (i.e. suburban gated communities), which in planning literature is associated with regressive outcomes, has proliferated in Brazil. As the larger research and the papers published from it (Zanotto, 2019a, 2019b) make clear, the answer does not lie solely on market forces, consumer preference, and the work of private developers. Instead, the proliferation of suburban gated communities in Brazil results from a combination of local and global forces, including specific policies and practices. Planners in both private and public sectors have supported these policies. In justifying and legitimizing potentially controversial policies that advance segregation and the privatization of public spaces, planners and other actors reproduce a dominant discourse. The deconstruction of this discourse, which is the focus of the paper, reveals an ideological basis I identified as neoliberal. Buitelaar suggests that for something to be associated with neoliberalism it must involve the absence of government. This is, in my view, a narrow understanding
{"title":"‘Neoliberalism:’ Throw it around or throw it away?","authors":"J. Zanotto","doi":"10.1177/1473095220956707","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220956707","url":null,"abstract":"Juliana M Zanotto In his comment to my paper (Zanotto, 2019b), Edwin Buitelaar raises a valid concern regarding the overuse of the term ‘neoliberalism,’ suggesting that it has been thrown around without much explanation. Because it has been employed abstractly, it has lost its analytical value (so, maybe we should throw it away!). His comment also indicates a concern with the term being generally given a negative connotation. He and I seem to agree that the second concern is not a problem per se. As for the first concern, like Buitelaar, I am – and I hope all scholars are – concerned with the use of abstract terms to mean anything. Thus, like him, I would also like to see more ‘explaining’ done. This is exactly why I conduct research they way I do and why I wrote the paper he commented on. So, while I fully agree with a call for more ‘explaining’ rather than abstraction, I must disagree that my paper is an example of the latter. In this short reply to Buitelaar’s comment, I raise three important points to clarify how the term neoliberalism was treated in the paper. Rather than using neoliberalism abstractly to mean a lot of things, the paper provides a deeper understand of how a set of principles often related to the notion of neoliberalism operate in practice in a specific context. To do that, the paper provides an account of neoliberalism in action and details its meaning in the context of Brazilian planning in general, and the production of suburban gated communities, in particular. First, it is important to point out that the purpose of the research from which this paper resulted sought to understand how a particular kind of space (i.e. suburban gated communities), which in planning literature is associated with regressive outcomes, has proliferated in Brazil. As the larger research and the papers published from it (Zanotto, 2019a, 2019b) make clear, the answer does not lie solely on market forces, consumer preference, and the work of private developers. Instead, the proliferation of suburban gated communities in Brazil results from a combination of local and global forces, including specific policies and practices. Planners in both private and public sectors have supported these policies. In justifying and legitimizing potentially controversial policies that advance segregation and the privatization of public spaces, planners and other actors reproduce a dominant discourse. The deconstruction of this discourse, which is the focus of the paper, reveals an ideological basis I identified as neoliberal. Buitelaar suggests that for something to be associated with neoliberalism it must involve the absence of government. This is, in my view, a narrow understanding","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"489 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095220956707","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43526398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-04DOI: 10.1177/1473095220956706
E. Buitelaar
The starting point of this comment is Juliana M. Zanotto’s (2020) recent paper in Planning Theory: ‘The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism. Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning’. It is one of many in a line of papers in the field of planning theory, and related fields such as political geography and political economy (e.g. Peck, 2004), that take neoliberalism as their focus of study or attack. This comment is not so much, or not only, directed at Zanotto’s paper (which contains a very relevant and interesting conceptual discussion of discourse and ideology), as it is at the general treatment of the concept of neoliberalism in planning theory and practice. According to Zanotto, neoliberalism is a dominating force. In recent decades, it has been ‘shaping planning practice and the production of space’ (p. 105). In a review article in Progress in Planning, Tore Sager (2011) identifies as many as fourteen different planning-related policies with a neoliberal rationale: city marketing, urban development by attracting the ‘creative class’, economic development incentives, competitive bidding, public-private partnerships (PPPs), private involvement in financing and operating transport infrastructure, private sector involvement in procuring water, business-friendly zones and flexible zoning, property-led urban regeneration, privatisation of public space and sales-boosting exclusion, liberalisation of housing markets, gentrification, privately owned and secured neighbourhoods, and quangos organising market-oriented urban development. Zanotto goes further by saying that neoliberalism is not only a set of policies but an ideology, a belief system, that shapes ways of thinking and acting. No-one I know calls himor herself (a) neoliberal, nor claims to be following a philosophy or ideology of neoliberalism. However, people and things (e.g. policies) may be, and are, qualified as being or doing such by others. And those who receive this
{"title":"If neoliberalism is everything, maybe it is nothing","authors":"E. Buitelaar","doi":"10.1177/1473095220956706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220956706","url":null,"abstract":"The starting point of this comment is Juliana M. Zanotto’s (2020) recent paper in Planning Theory: ‘The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism. Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning’. It is one of many in a line of papers in the field of planning theory, and related fields such as political geography and political economy (e.g. Peck, 2004), that take neoliberalism as their focus of study or attack. This comment is not so much, or not only, directed at Zanotto’s paper (which contains a very relevant and interesting conceptual discussion of discourse and ideology), as it is at the general treatment of the concept of neoliberalism in planning theory and practice. According to Zanotto, neoliberalism is a dominating force. In recent decades, it has been ‘shaping planning practice and the production of space’ (p. 105). In a review article in Progress in Planning, Tore Sager (2011) identifies as many as fourteen different planning-related policies with a neoliberal rationale: city marketing, urban development by attracting the ‘creative class’, economic development incentives, competitive bidding, public-private partnerships (PPPs), private involvement in financing and operating transport infrastructure, private sector involvement in procuring water, business-friendly zones and flexible zoning, property-led urban regeneration, privatisation of public space and sales-boosting exclusion, liberalisation of housing markets, gentrification, privately owned and secured neighbourhoods, and quangos organising market-oriented urban development. Zanotto goes further by saying that neoliberalism is not only a set of policies but an ideology, a belief system, that shapes ways of thinking and acting. No-one I know calls himor herself (a) neoliberal, nor claims to be following a philosophy or ideology of neoliberalism. However, people and things (e.g. policies) may be, and are, qualified as being or doing such by others. And those who receive this","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"485 - 488"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095220956706","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44571358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-04DOI: 10.1177/1473095219881858b
B. Sanyal
{"title":"The relevance of Charles Hoch’s pragmatism for international development planning","authors":"B. Sanyal","doi":"10.1177/1473095219881858b","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219881858b","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"463 - 472"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095219881858b","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42085438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-04DOI: 10.1177/1473095219881858d
C. Hoch
Hoch C (1984) Doing good and being right: The pragmatic connection in planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association 50: 335–345. Hoch C (2000) Review of similarities, connections and systems: The search for a new rationality for planning and management. Journal of Planning Literature 14: 519–521. Hoch C (2001) What Planners Do: Power, Politics and Persuasion. New York: Routledge. Hoch C (2006) What can Rorty teach an old pragmatist doing public administration or planning? Administration and Society 38: 389–398. Hoch C (2017) Pragmatism and plan making. In: Haselsberger B (ed.) Encounters in Planning Thought: 16 Autobiographical Essays from Key Thinkers in Spatial Planning. New York: Routledge, 297–314. Hoch C, Dalton L and So FS (eds) (2000) The Practice of Local Government Planning. Washington, DC: American Planning Association. Kruks S (2012) Simone de Beauvoir and the Politics of Ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peirce CS ([1878] 1996) How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12 January, 286–302 (Reprinted in Fusch M (ed.) (1951) Classic American Philosophers (Original published 1951). 2nd edn. New York: Fordham University Press). Sen A (1999) Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singer EA (1959) Experience and Reflection (ed. West Churchman C). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Verma N (1993) Metaphor and analogy as elements of a theory of similarity for planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 13: 13–25. Verma N (1996) Pragmatic rationality and planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16: 5–14. Verma N (1998) Similarity, Connections and Systems: The Search for a New Rationality for Planning and Management. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Waxman CI (1982) The Stigma of Poverty: A Critique of Poverty Theories and Policies. New York: Pergamon Press.
{"title":"Knowing, acting, doing","authors":"C. Hoch","doi":"10.1177/1473095219881858d","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219881858d","url":null,"abstract":"Hoch C (1984) Doing good and being right: The pragmatic connection in planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association 50: 335–345. Hoch C (2000) Review of similarities, connections and systems: The search for a new rationality for planning and management. Journal of Planning Literature 14: 519–521. Hoch C (2001) What Planners Do: Power, Politics and Persuasion. New York: Routledge. Hoch C (2006) What can Rorty teach an old pragmatist doing public administration or planning? Administration and Society 38: 389–398. Hoch C (2017) Pragmatism and plan making. In: Haselsberger B (ed.) Encounters in Planning Thought: 16 Autobiographical Essays from Key Thinkers in Spatial Planning. New York: Routledge, 297–314. Hoch C, Dalton L and So FS (eds) (2000) The Practice of Local Government Planning. Washington, DC: American Planning Association. Kruks S (2012) Simone de Beauvoir and the Politics of Ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peirce CS ([1878] 1996) How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12 January, 286–302 (Reprinted in Fusch M (ed.) (1951) Classic American Philosophers (Original published 1951). 2nd edn. New York: Fordham University Press). Sen A (1999) Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singer EA (1959) Experience and Reflection (ed. West Churchman C). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Verma N (1993) Metaphor and analogy as elements of a theory of similarity for planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 13: 13–25. Verma N (1996) Pragmatic rationality and planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16: 5–14. Verma N (1998) Similarity, Connections and Systems: The Search for a New Rationality for Planning and Management. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Waxman CI (1982) The Stigma of Poverty: A Critique of Poverty Theories and Policies. New York: Pergamon Press.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"478 - 484"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095219881858d","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47336303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-04DOI: 10.1177/1473095219881858c
N. Verma
{"title":"The pragmatic correction: An essay in honor of Charles Hoch","authors":"N. Verma","doi":"10.1177/1473095219881858c","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219881858c","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"472 - 478"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095219881858c","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47331793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：