Pub Date : 2022-03-03DOI: 10.1177/14730952221074873
Sokratis Seitanidis, Giorgos Gritzas
Hardin’s legacy in planning is highly relevant to current concerns, as planners shape the management of resources in the face of climate change and urbanization. Through a broad literature review of planning articles citing Hardin’s ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ we find out that Hardin’s suggestions are rejected by planning theory, yet have been implemented in planning practice. However, the rejection of Hardin’s suggestions, has evolved in an ongoing and growing ‘commons trend’ in social science. We review the presence of this trend in contemporary planning literature. Our results call for a turn towards the commons in planning, that is, for a dialogue between planning and the heterogeneous ideas embedded within the commons trend – a necessary endeavour if we are to address several critical planning questions of today.
{"title":"Hardin’s legacy as a need for a ‘commoning turn’ in planning","authors":"Sokratis Seitanidis, Giorgos Gritzas","doi":"10.1177/14730952221074873","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221074873","url":null,"abstract":"Hardin’s legacy in planning is highly relevant to current concerns, as planners shape the management of resources in the face of climate change and urbanization. Through a broad literature review of planning articles citing Hardin’s ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ we find out that Hardin’s suggestions are rejected by planning theory, yet have been implemented in planning practice. However, the rejection of Hardin’s suggestions, has evolved in an ongoing and growing ‘commons trend’ in social science. We review the presence of this trend in contemporary planning literature. Our results call for a turn towards the commons in planning, that is, for a dialogue between planning and the heterogeneous ideas embedded within the commons trend – a necessary endeavour if we are to address several critical planning questions of today.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46657239","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 : 2022-02-22DOI: 10.1177/14730952211073330
Jin Xue
This article explores the potential values of a critical realist theory of ideology on the analysis of planning issues. In particular, it argues its usefulness in promoting planning as a vanguard of societal transformation. The critical realist theory of ideology revitalizes the epistemological inquiry of beliefs, which enables an evaluation of the social, economic and environmental impacts of the ideas and beliefs embedded in planning. Furthermore, the essence of critical realist theory of ideology is to explain the (re)production of the ideology, which paves the way for transformative planning, as transformation cannot be realized without eliminating constraining social conditions. Finally, critical realism situates its critique of ideology within the wider transformation process by rendering visible the dimensions that can contribute to eradicating the ideology in question, and shaping better planning ideas, including ethical reasoning, utopia thinking and transformative agency. A meta-theoretical framework based on critical realism is proposed to guide a critique of ideology in planning. By using an example of planning for sustainable urban development in Copenhagen and Oslo, the paper demonstrates the ways in which the meta-theoretical framework can be applied to planning in a quest for societal transformation.
{"title":"A critical realist theory of ideology: Promoting planning as a vanguard of societal transformation","authors":"Jin Xue","doi":"10.1177/14730952211073330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211073330","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the potential values of a critical realist theory of ideology on the analysis of planning issues. In particular, it argues its usefulness in promoting planning as a vanguard of societal transformation. The critical realist theory of ideology revitalizes the epistemological inquiry of beliefs, which enables an evaluation of the social, economic and environmental impacts of the ideas and beliefs embedded in planning. Furthermore, the essence of critical realist theory of ideology is to explain the (re)production of the ideology, which paves the way for transformative planning, as transformation cannot be realized without eliminating constraining social conditions. Finally, critical realism situates its critique of ideology within the wider transformation process by rendering visible the dimensions that can contribute to eradicating the ideology in question, and shaping better planning ideas, including ethical reasoning, utopia thinking and transformative agency. A meta-theoretical framework based on critical realism is proposed to guide a critique of ideology in planning. By using an example of planning for sustainable urban development in Copenhagen and Oslo, the paper demonstrates the ways in which the meta-theoretical framework can be applied to planning in a quest for societal transformation.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49146871","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 : 2022-01-18DOI: 10.1177/14730952211073329
Angelique Chettiparamb
{"title":"Editorial: Academic professional journals and professional practice","authors":"Angelique Chettiparamb","doi":"10.1177/14730952211073329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211073329","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44560071","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 : 2022-01-04DOI: 10.1177/14730952211066341
E. Alexander
The futility of defining planning suggests that there is no planning as a recognizable practice. Sociology of knowledge definitions imply three kinds of planning practices: (1) Generic “planning”—what people do when they are planning; (2) Knowledge-centered “something” (e.g., spatial) planning; and (3) Real planning practiced in specific contexts, from metro-regional planning for Jakarta to transportation planning for the Trans-Europe Network, and enacted in general contexts, for example, informal- or Southern planning. Planning theories are linked to different practices: generic “planning” theories and “something” (e.g., regional, community, environmental, or Southern) planning theories. Selected topics illustrate the “planning” theory discourse and spatial planning theories are briefly reviewed. Three generations of planning practice studies are reviewed: the first, a-theoretical; the second, the “practice movement,” who studied practice for their own theorizing; and the third, informed by practice theories. Five books about planning show how their planning theorist authors understand planning practice. While recognizing planning as diverse practices, they hardly apply “planning” theory to planning practices. “Planning” theories are divorced from enacted planning practices, “something” (e.g., spatial) planning theories include constructive adaptations of “planning” theories and paradigms, but knowledge about real planning practices is limited. Implications from these conclusions are drawn for planning theory, education, and practices.
{"title":"On planning, planning theories, and practices: A critical reflection","authors":"E. Alexander","doi":"10.1177/14730952211066341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211066341","url":null,"abstract":"The futility of defining planning suggests that there is no planning as a recognizable practice. Sociology of knowledge definitions imply three kinds of planning practices: (1) Generic “planning”—what people do when they are planning; (2) Knowledge-centered “something” (e.g., spatial) planning; and (3) Real planning practiced in specific contexts, from metro-regional planning for Jakarta to transportation planning for the Trans-Europe Network, and enacted in general contexts, for example, informal- or Southern planning. Planning theories are linked to different practices: generic “planning” theories and “something” (e.g., regional, community, environmental, or Southern) planning theories. Selected topics illustrate the “planning” theory discourse and spatial planning theories are briefly reviewed. Three generations of planning practice studies are reviewed: the first, a-theoretical; the second, the “practice movement,” who studied practice for their own theorizing; and the third, informed by practice theories. Five books about planning show how their planning theorist authors understand planning practice. While recognizing planning as diverse practices, they hardly apply “planning” theory to planning practices. “Planning” theories are divorced from enacted planning practices, “something” (e.g., spatial) planning theories include constructive adaptations of “planning” theories and paradigms, but knowledge about real planning practices is limited. Implications from these conclusions are drawn for planning theory, education, and practices.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45110447","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 : 2021-11-24DOI: 10.1177/14730952211042765
Holly Caggiano, L. Landau
The Green New Deal is arguably the most ambitious climate policy platform to gain legislative traction in the U.S. to date. A pioneering policy framework in its holistic consideration of climate change, social justice, and economic reform, the resolution would have vast implications for commons governance regimes if enacted. Planning theorists have long debated how to manage the global commons, and this paper adds to that conversation by assessing the Green New Deal’s theoretical underpinnings. Our analysis suggests that in practice, “top-down” Hardinian and “bottom-up” post-Hardinian commons theory coexist, as market and state-based interventions act as layers in the nested enterprises necessary for the formation of a polycentric approach to climate governance. This finding presents a novel theoretical perspective for studying the commons, specifically as we consider the influence of theory on developing policy imagination.
{"title":"A new framework for imagining the climate commons? The case of a Green New Deal in the US","authors":"Holly Caggiano, L. Landau","doi":"10.1177/14730952211042765","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211042765","url":null,"abstract":"The Green New Deal is arguably the most ambitious climate policy platform to gain legislative traction in the U.S. to date. A pioneering policy framework in its holistic consideration of climate change, social justice, and economic reform, the resolution would have vast implications for commons governance regimes if enacted. Planning theorists have long debated how to manage the global commons, and this paper adds to that conversation by assessing the Green New Deal’s theoretical underpinnings. Our analysis suggests that in practice, “top-down” Hardinian and “bottom-up” post-Hardinian commons theory coexist, as market and state-based interventions act as layers in the nested enterprises necessary for the formation of a polycentric approach to climate governance. This finding presents a novel theoretical perspective for studying the commons, specifically as we consider the influence of theory on developing policy imagination.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41463379","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 : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1177/14730952211043219
M. Westin
In this paper, I analyse the framing of power in streams of communicative planning influenced by American pragmatism, sociological institutionalism and alternative dispute resolution. While scholars have heavily debated Habermasian communicative planning theory, the broader conception of power across these linked, but distinct, streams of the theory remains to be explicated. Through analysis of 40 years’ of publishing by John Forester, Patsy Healey and Judith Innes – widely cited representatives of these three streams – a broader account of the treatment of power in communicative planning is established. The analysis shows that the streams of communicative planning provide distinct approaches to power with a joint focus on criticising conflictual illegitimate power over and developing ideas for how consensual power with might arise through agency in the micro practices of planning. Even if communicative planning thereby offers more for reflections on power than critics have acknowledged, the theory still leaves conceptual voids regarding constitutive power to and legitimate power over.
{"title":"The framing of power in communicative planning theory: Analysing the work of John Forester, Patsy Healey and Judith Innes","authors":"M. Westin","doi":"10.1177/14730952211043219","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211043219","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I analyse the framing of power in streams of communicative planning influenced by American pragmatism, sociological institutionalism and alternative dispute resolution. While scholars have heavily debated Habermasian communicative planning theory, the broader conception of power across these linked, but distinct, streams of the theory remains to be explicated. Through analysis of 40 years’ of publishing by John Forester, Patsy Healey and Judith Innes – widely cited representatives of these three streams – a broader account of the treatment of power in communicative planning is established. The analysis shows that the streams of communicative planning provide distinct approaches to power with a joint focus on criticising conflictual illegitimate power over and developing ideas for how consensual power with might arise through agency in the micro practices of planning. Even if communicative planning thereby offers more for reflections on power than critics have acknowledged, the theory still leaves conceptual voids regarding constitutive power to and legitimate power over.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42943831","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 : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1177/14730952211042737
C. Maidment
Planners in Politics, edited by Louis Albrechts, presents the personal stories of 10 academic planners turned ‘executive politicians’; politicians with responsibility for leading a portfolio, operating in a diversity of national contexts, at different scales and having arrived in their political positions either by appointment or election (or both). Albrechts states that the book’s aim is to allow the 10 authors to reflect on how their planning experience and background may have influenced decision-making in the political sphere, as well as considering how this influenced their teaching practice when returning to academia. The book makes important contributions in a number of ways, from a deeper understanding of the ‘black box’ of explicitly political decision-making in multiple sociopolitical contexts, following from Albrecht’s assertion ‘that political decision-making has its own logic’ (p.4), to heartening stories of the ways in which planning skills and expertise can be useful in navigating the intricacies of the political sphere. This review aims to draw out these strengths, but also areas where the book opens up questions for further exploration. Before getting into the book’s substance it is important to acknowledge my perspective as a UK-based academic and sometime planning practitioner, which had a discernible impact on how I read the book, not least given the (unsurprising) absence of a chapter written from the UK context. This is a perspective that I return to when considering the key themes, debates and lessons that I want to highlight. The first of these themes is the link between politics and forms of democracy, arguably crucial to positioning the book’s intellectual contribution.
{"title":"Book Review: Planners in Politics: Do they Make a Difference?","authors":"C. Maidment","doi":"10.1177/14730952211042737","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211042737","url":null,"abstract":"Planners in Politics, edited by Louis Albrechts, presents the personal stories of 10 academic planners turned ‘executive politicians’; politicians with responsibility for leading a portfolio, operating in a diversity of national contexts, at different scales and having arrived in their political positions either by appointment or election (or both). Albrechts states that the book’s aim is to allow the 10 authors to reflect on how their planning experience and background may have influenced decision-making in the political sphere, as well as considering how this influenced their teaching practice when returning to academia. The book makes important contributions in a number of ways, from a deeper understanding of the ‘black box’ of explicitly political decision-making in multiple sociopolitical contexts, following from Albrecht’s assertion ‘that political decision-making has its own logic’ (p.4), to heartening stories of the ways in which planning skills and expertise can be useful in navigating the intricacies of the political sphere. This review aims to draw out these strengths, but also areas where the book opens up questions for further exploration. Before getting into the book’s substance it is important to acknowledge my perspective as a UK-based academic and sometime planning practitioner, which had a discernible impact on how I read the book, not least given the (unsurprising) absence of a chapter written from the UK context. This is a perspective that I return to when considering the key themes, debates and lessons that I want to highlight. The first of these themes is the link between politics and forms of democracy, arguably crucial to positioning the book’s intellectual contribution.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48290070","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：