Planning Theory: From the Political Debate to the Methodological Reconstruction

131 Pages·2008·3.33 MB·English

by  Franco Archibugi (auth.)

FrancoArchibugi
PlanningTheory
FromthePoliticalDebate
totheMethodologicalReconstruction
Franco Archibugi
Planning Theory
From the Political Debate
to the Methodological Reconstruction
123
FrancoArchibugi
c/oPlanningStudiesCentre
ViaFedericoCassitto110
00134Roma
Italy
[email protected]
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2007929930
ISBN978-88-470-0695-9 SpringerMilanBerlinHeidelbergNewYork
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis
concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broad-
casting,reproductiononmicrofilmorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthis
publicationorpartsthereofisonlypermittedundertheprovisionsoftheItalianCopyrightLawin
itscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer-Verlag.Violations
areliableforprosecutionundertheItalianCopyrightLaw.
SpringerisapartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia
springer.com
©Springer-VerlagItalia2008
PrintedinItaly
Coverdesign:SimonaColombo,Milano
Typesetting:LE-TEXJelonek,Schmidt&VöcklerGbR,Leipzig,Germany
Printingandbinding:GrafichePorpora,Segrate(MI)
Springer-VerlagItalia–ViaDecembrio28–I-20137Milano
Printedonacid-freepaper
Preface
Thisbookhasre-elaborated,inaunifiedandorganicway,someofmycontributions
totheacademicdebatesamongEuropeanandAmericanplanning“theorists”.
Suchcontributions wereborninrelationtomyparticipation ataconferenceon
planning theory promoted by Oxford Brookes University, in April . This con-
ference gave mea very interesting opportunity to be among other scholars on the
subject. On this occasion I had the opportunity to pour out, into the bosom of an
abundant groupofcolleagues (towhomIamboundtogether bysomeyearsofsci-
entificcontactontheissuesoftheeffectiveness andmethodsofplanning), mycon-
cernsabouttheturnstakenbytheliteratureofplanningtheoryoverthelastdecade
ormore.ThesubstanceofmyconcernshasbeenrevisitedinChap.ofthisbook.
However,inthecurrentcriticismofplanningtheory’strends,Isoonrealizedthat
my demands for a more advanced integration of the different approaches to plan-
ning,andparticularlyofimprovedintegrationbetweentheproceduralapproachand
the“substantive”approach,wasnotyetsufficientlyclearandperceptible.SoIlooked
againatreformulating,inapositiveway,myideasabouttheturnwhich,inmyopin-
ion,thetheoreticalandmethodologicalplanningstudiesshouldhavetotakeinorder
toobtainanoperationalrelaunchofplanningitself,onamoreadvancedscientificba-
sis(avoiding,however,slippingintotechnicalitiesthatbecomeuselessandmisleading
whennotusedforthebenefitofaclearandconsistentmethod).
PlanningTheoryConference,OxfordBrookesUniversity,–April.
Afurtherpaperwith thesame argumentshasbeenalsopublishedinEuropeanPlanning
Studies,Vol.,No.,April.
Thisreconsiderationandawarenesshasbeenhelpedbyveryaccurateandpertinentcom-
mentsandcriticismreceivedfrommycolleaguesE.R.Alexander,JohnBryson,GiuseppeDe
Luca,SeymourMandelbaum,andNirajVerma.ThecriticalcommentsofVerma,withwhich
IlargelyagreeandforwhichIamverygrateful,havebeenmadeonlyonthepapersthathave
formedthebasisofChap..Heconcludedthatmyfirstcontributionneededasectionthat
showedwhytheintegrationbetweensocio-economicforecastingandotherconnectionsthat
Ianticipatedshouldbeimplemented.Ithinksuchconnections,theirdescription,andtheir
motivations,deserveandneedmuchmorethanasection!Theyconstitutethepropersub-
ject,thepropermatter,ofplanningtheory.Thisdoesnotexclude,butconfirms,theidea
VI Preface
Thus,Iwantedtointegratethatfirstcontributionwithafurtherdescriptionofthe
possiblelinkingofproceduralplanningandvarious“substantive”aspectsofplanning
by means of a unitary methodological scheme, which has become the object of this
book.
Itriedtherefore:
– todelimitthetraditionalfieldswhichuntilnowhaveprogressedseparatelyandin
openorder,atmostwithsomeinterdisciplinarycooperationofatechnicalnature,
thatiftheyarenotwelldescribedinsomeways,evenprovisionally(asVermarequested),
myclaimsarenotevenproperlyunderstood,becausetheylackclearreferencesandexam-
ples.Thishasinducedmetotakeanewsteptowardsthedescriptionofthoseconnections
(evenifIthinkitnotyetsufficient).
Alexander’scriticismshelpedmetoperceivetheseriousnessoftheabsenceofasystemic
visionofplanningtheorytowhichwereferourselves,andtoincitemetoriskthedefect
ofexcessiveschematism,butnottotakeforgrantedandacknowledgesomeargumentstoo
easily!IhopethatthecorrectionsIhavemade,whicharemoreformalthansubstantial,will
satisfyAlexander,whoseseverecritiquesIhavealwaysfoundstimulating,evenwhenIhave
notagreedwiththem.
TheMandelbaum’scommentswerenearlyallpertinentandIappreciatedhiskindsugges-
tions,evenontexts,likemine,whichwereveryfarfromhisownapproachandwritingstyle.
Iamaware,however,ofthedifficultyofadequatelytakingintoaccounthisviewpointand
tousehisideasinawaythatconformstotheirpotentialquality.Isensethathishistorical
perceptionofplanningpusheshimtowardsavisionofplanningtheoryverydifferentfrom
mine,andmyeffortstoreconstructafieldandamethodappropriateforplanningtheorygo
inadirectionverydifferentfromhisown.
ToJohnBrysonandtohisfriendlycommentsonmyeffort,Ioweasinceregratitude;how-
ever,healsocheerfullypressedmetouselesspolemicalarguments,arguingveryrightly
thatsometimesthismightbeanobstacle,insteadoffacilitatingtheunderstandingandthe
forming ofacommonconsensus.Ihaveagreedandappliedhisgeneraladviceandfrom
thestillremainingpolemicalphrasing,thereadercanappreciatehowusefulandnecessary
hisrecommendationswere... Finally,IoweittoGiuseppeDeLucathatthisbookhasbeen
equippedwithabriefchapterof‘conclusions’.ToStefanoMoroni,Iowethehardeffortto
reviewandsynthetize,inthejournalPlanningTheory,theItalianeditionofthisbookthat
allowedmetorevisitsomepassagesofit.
Tothesecolleagues,andtootherswithwhomIhaveassociatedthroughmanyyearsofat-
temptingtoimplementacontactnetworkfortheprogressinthetheoreticaldiscourseon
planningscienceandanimproveddeterminatenessinplanningtheory,Iamverygrateful
forhelpgiventome.
Thus,thisbookisafurtherstep(stillveryapproximate)towardthealreadyannouncedongo-
ingworkonthefoundationsofageneralplanningmethodology.Imustsaythatintheeffort
toachieve(assuggestedbycommentsmentionedabove)withinthesubstantivefield,the
neededchangeofapproach,thefirstroutesandthematismsofanewintegrated(orunified)
disciplineofplanning(seeChaps.toofthisbook)Ihaveamplyusedapaperpresentedto
thestWorldCongressonPlanningScience,promotedinPalermo(Italy)byPlanningStud-
iesCentre,withthesupportofUNESCO,theUnitedNationsUniversity(Tokyo),theEu-
ropeanUniversityInstitute(Florence),andthe(Italian)NationalResearchCouncil(CNR).
(Thatpaperhasbeenpublishedin:Socio-EconomicPlanningSciences,InternationalJournal
in,vol.,N.,pp.–.)
Preface VII
andthatshouldengagethemselvesinthe“integration”inanewunifiedmethod-
ology(Chap.);
– todiscussthemeritsandlimitsofatransdisciplinarymethodologicalintegration,
based ona“programming”approachinstead ofthepositivisticapproach,which
hasuntilnowbeendominantinplanningresearchesandactivities(Chap.);
– tooutlinethefirstroutesofthenewdiscipline(proceduralschemefortheselec-
tionofplans,interrelationshipbetweendifferent“levels”ofplanning,institutional
procedures of plans bargaining, and consulting system on preference, informa-
tion,monitoringandplanevaluation)(Chap.);
– tolistsomeproperintegrativetopicsofthenewdiscipline(Chap.).
Allthisthenflowstogether,inChap.,toformtheoutlineofanoperationallogical
framework, throughwhichareintegrated andunified, withanexhaustive andcom-
pletemethodology,alltypes,forms,andproceduresofplanning.
Ithenfocusedononeofthemostneglected(but,atthesametime,oneofthemost
important, ifnotthemostimportant) “levels”ofplanning foraprocessofmethod-
ological integration like the one pursued here: the “national” level (Chap.  of the
book).
Lastly,Iclosedthisfirsteffortbypointingoutthebasicelementsofanintegrative
planningmethodology,withsomeconsiderations onwhatIwouldcallthe“pitfalls”
or“traps”(inexperimentsIhaveperformed)ofanytypeofplanevaluation(Chap.).
Planevaluationbeingthe“othersideofthecoin”toeveryworkofplanning,any
integrativeeffortbroughtontheplanningmethodsimmediatelyhasaspeculareffect
intheevaluationprocess.
Sinceplanninghasbeenapplieduntiltodaywithoutsystemiccontrolandcoordi-
nation,andwithoutthesaidintegrativeandunifiedmethodology,thisis,inmyopin-
ion,themajorcauseoftheverypooranddisappointing(nottomentionsubstantially
erroneousandmisleading)planevaluations.
Therefore,thatisthecauseofplanningfailureitself,i.e.,oftheplansthatcollapsed
at the first test of their compatibility and consistency with the context of planning
itself.
AcknowledgementsandDedication
ThisbookisdedicatedtosomeoutstandingcolleagueswithwhomIhavemaintained
personalcontactandusefuldebatinginthe“planningtheory”field.Theyare:ErnestR.
Afirstversionofthisframeworkhasbeenpresentedtothecolleaguesatthegreatunitary
“WorldPlanningSchoolCongress”promotedbytheplanningschoolacademicassociations:
European(AESOP),American(ASCP),Asiatic(ASPA)andAustralianandNew-Zealander
(ANZAPS),inShanghai,China,July–,.
ThischapteremploysapaperalreadypresentedtotheXIIAesopCongress,–July
inAveiro(Portugal).
ThischapterutilizesapaperpresentedatanacademicmeetinginMarchattheLondon
UniversityCollege(BartlettSchool)tohonourNathanielLichfield,as“father”ofthe“plan’s
evaluation”.
VIII Preface
Alexander,PhilCooke,AndreasFaludi,JohnForester,PatsyHealey,NathanielLich-
field,SeymourMandelbaum,LuigiMazza,FrancescoDomenicoMoccia,StefanoMo-
roni, Giorgio Piccinato, NirajVerma. Iamthankful tothem tohavestimulated my
reflection on this topic, both when our feelings and opinions were converging and
whentheywerediverging.
TheEnglishtexthasbeenrevisedfrommanycontributors,accordingthedifferent
stages of the individual papers here merged. To recall all of them it would be very
difficult.ThelastofthemhasbeenRobertRedman.ThefinalcopyeditorbySpringer
wasJardiMullinax.Thanksforall.
Contents
 PlanningTheory:ReconstructionorRequiem? ..................... 
. ACertainUneasinessabout“PlanningTheory” .................... 
. HaveWeImprovedtheClarityofPlanningMethodology? .......... 
. WhatAretheReasonsfortheDeceivingDevelopment
ofPlanningTheory?.............................................. 
.. TheEquivocalCaseofthe“Substantive”Side
ofPlanningTheory ....................................... 
.. ExpandingtheScopeTooMuch ........................... 
.. ExpandingtheTerrainandtheRoots....................... 
.. TheLackofRelationshipwith“Substantive”Planning ....... 
. PlanningTheory:GeneralorNot?................................. 
. AVade-MecumforGoodPlanners’ProfessionalRelations? ......... 
. DeontologyandEpistemologyoftheProfession.................... 
 InSearchofIntegration:ThePastNegativeExperience............... 
. ExpectationsandResultsfromtheIntegration
ofthePlanningSciences.......................................... 
.. Macro-EconomicPlanninginEurope ...................... 
.. StrategicManagementandPlanninginthePublicSector .... 
.. IntegratedRegionalPlanning.............................. 
.. IntegratedApproachinAcademicJournals ................. 
. TheBadCourseoftheDebate .................................... 
. IsaPositiveReconstructionofPlanningTheoryPossible?........... 
 TowardsaNewUnifiedDisciplineofPlanning ...................... 
. TheFieldsofActivity............................................. 
.. PhysicalPlanning......................................... 
.. Macro-EconomicPlanning................................ 
.. SocialPlanning........................................... 
.. DevelopmentPlanning.................................... 
.. OperationalPlanning ..................................... 
X Contents
. TheMeritsandLimitsoftheTrans-DisciplinaryApproach.......... 
.. Merits ................................................... 
.. Limits ................................................... 
. “Positivist”-TypeDecision-MakingAnalysis ....................... 
. SocialRealityisSubjectiveReality................................. 
. “Voluntarist”-TypeDecision-MakingAnalysis...................... 
. ADefectofApproachorOneofFurtherElaboration? .............. 
 TheFirstRoutesoftheNewDiscipline ............................. 
. SchemesofProcedureforthePreparationofPlans
andtheConstructionofSuitable“AccountingFrames” ............. 
. SchemesoftheSystemicInterrelationshipBetweenPlanLevels...... 
. InstitutionalProceduresof“PlanBargaining”
andPreferenceConsultationSystems.............................. 
. InformationSystemsforPlanningandTheirManagement .......... 
. MonitoringandPlanEvaluationSystems .......................... 
 SomeIntegrativeTopicsoftheNewPlanningDiscipline ............. 
. Integration Between(Conventional) EconomicAccounting
SystemsandSocialAccountingSystems ........................... 
. IntegrationBetweenSocio-EconomicPlanning
(andRelatedAccounting)andTechnologicalForecasting ........... 
. IntegrationBetweenSocio-EconomicPlanning
(andRelatedAccounting)andPhysical
(orTerritorialorEnvironmental)Planning ........................ 
. IntegrationBetweenSocio-Economic(andPhysical)
PlanningandInstitutionalOrganisationandNegotiation ........... 
. IntegrationBetweenSocio-EconomicPlanning
andtheInstitutionalSystemandDesign ........................... 
. ConcludingRemarks:The“PlanologicalApproach” ................ 
 PlanningScience:BasicPostulates
andLogicalFrameworkforReference.............................. 
. FromPlanning“Theory”toPlanning“Science” .................... 
. AreferenceFrameworkforPlanningScience:
SomeEssentialPostulates ........................................ 
.. LogicalPostulates......................................... 
.. FieldorDelimitationPostulates............................ 
. ThePlanningProcess ............................................ 
. ThePlanningSystem............................................. 
.. ThePlanningSelectionSystem............................. 
.. ThePlanningImplementationSystem ...................... 
.. FunctionalandTimeInterdependencies.................... 
. Conclusions..................................................... 
Contents XI
 TheFutureofNationalPlanningSystems:SomeNewSteps ........... 
. TheConceptof“NationalPlanning”............................... 
. NationalPlanninginaSystemicVision ............................ 
. WhatOpportunitiesExistfortheSystemic-TypeDevelopment
ofNationalPlanning? ............................................ 
.. TheWeightofthePast .................................... 
.. StrategicPlanningattheNationalScale..................... 
. TheAmericanFederalStrategicPlanning:
ItsEffectsontheNationalPlanningFuture......................... 
. FromStrategicPlanningtoNationalEconomicProgramming:
ANecessaryStepTowardsSystemicPlanning ...................... 
. TowardaScientificandProfessionalApproach
totheSystemicPlanning ......................................... 
 PlanningandPlanEvaluation:
SomeWell-KnownandOftenNeglectedPitfalls..................... 
. LogicalIndeterminateness:“Evaluation”vs“Values” ................ 
. SystemicDisconnectedness....................................... 
. StrategicInsubordination......................................... 
. Self-Referencing ................................................. 
. Sub-Optimization ............................................... 
. BoundedRationality ............................................. 
 Conclusions .................................................... 
. AquestionofPrepositions........................................ 
. AQuestionof“Adjectivization” ................................... 
. The“Rational”ApproachCaseandthe“Communicative”
or“Collaborative”One ........................................... 
. TheDiagonalof“Planology”...................................... 
BibliographicalReferences ........................................... 
AuthorsIndex....................................................... 
AnalyticalIndex..................................................... 