MSc In Regional and Urban Planning

Studies Programme
GY 488- Assessed Essay
Candidate Number: 54525

ESSAY QUESTION
Flyvbjerg argues that we must focus on power if we are to understand
the reality of planning practice while Healey, Friedman and Forester all
argue for the effectiveness of dialogue. Discuss the merit of these
contrasting views.

London, 8 December 2011

“The truth of the matter is that Blair and Coe were so desperate to win the Games

that they hurled perks and goodies at the International Olympic Committee with no

concern for the Games' impact on London. They and their colleagues lied about the

£3 billion cost and are now lying about the pressure on London, to justify demanding

ever more sacrifices for their privileged few. This is not going to be popular” (Jenkins,

2011). The discontent regarding some decisions around the London 2012 Olympic

Games – both the mounting of the event and the venues and infrastructure building -

results from accusations about the bid had been done for the benefit of a few at the

expense of collective interest, as the quote published in the London Evening

Standard claims. The polemic surrounding the Olympics is not an infrequent case,

but rather a common one in the reality of planning practice. It is often questioned

whether planning practice is indeed made for the so-called ‘public interest’ or if it

responds only to the interests of a few, the powerful ones.

This controversy is derived from the inherent complexity of defining planning and

understanding the reality of planning practice. The latter particularly resulting from a

shift in the notion of planning that has arisen over the past decades as a

consequence of changes occurred in the economic and political order.

Friedman (2011, p.15) states that until the mid seventies planning was understood as

a technical –value-free- activity, with more of an advisory role, while the political

dimension belonged only to politicians, who were responsible for assessing what was

convenient or appropriate.

Continuous growth of population, the improvement of conditions of middle class

households and rapidly growing national economies, that had characterized the post

World War II period, put increasing pressure on urban development in and around

the big urban areas. This not only surpassed objectives and forecasts made by

2
planners, but also resulted in heavier responsibilities for planning authorities, who

now had to face a larger amount of complex change (Hall and Tewdwr-Jones 2011,

pp.105-108).

Furthermore, after the de-industrialization period, the world economy then shifted

towards globalization. As a result, fluxes of migration, buoyant development of some

areas, underdevelopment in others, resulting inequalities and a heavier powerful

economic sector characterize the scene planning authorities now have to deal with.

Likewise, globalization entailed “the growth of politics at transnational, supraregional

and intercity level” (Newman and Thornley 2011, p.28), which implied the shift from

state action alone to the involvement of new actors. Therefore, the way of addressing

and managing collective affairs, governance as understood by Healey (1997, p.206),

became significantly more complicated and planning is the main tool for it.

In such context, the key element of analysis is trying to understand the reality of

planning practice. For that purpose, the structure of this essay is such that

contrasting views from literature’s various approaches on that matter are considered.

First, the contributions of the ‘focus on power’ approach, as a way to understand and

shape politics and administration, are taken into account. Second, the contributions

of ‘communicative planning’ scholars to the understanding of planning practice are

presented. As conclusion, given that relying solely on power to understand planning

practice will offer just a partial view, and considering that processes of dialogue

described in various approaches of ‘communicative planning’ despite addressing

prescription for action, tend to suffer from the inability to fully contextualise the

presence of power in human relations, a combined approach for understanding the

reality of planning practice is argued to be more suitable.

3
Power and Planning Practice

At first appearance, it could be questioned why to analyse power in order to

understand planning practice. But then, it is important to remember that power is a

underlying force in all social relations, as Foucault mentions when he states that

“power is always present” (Flyvbjerg, 2000, p.5). Although this may seem a bold and

exaggerated statement, it certainly is not, particularly when talking about the

urbanization process and therefore planning. Current world order is characterized by

a neo-liberal economic scheme in which a small group of population -that owns

capital- has been able to extract the surplus of the capitalist process, and therefore

holds the power to decide where and how to invest that surplus. Investment can be

directed to productive activities, but also to the development of spaces. In fact,

according to Harvey (2008) urbanization is the result of the capitalist process of

surplus reinvestment. In such context, since planning is an activity made mainly by

state for the guidance of future action, it necessarily has to be aware of the power

capital owners have to shape spaces, and how it will affect the living conditions of the

whole population.

To understand the presence of power in planning practice, the presence of power

relations in decision-making processes has to be acknowledged. Flyvbjerg (2000,

pp.1-3) proposes to dismiss Habermas’ argument of the existence of a ‘homos

democraticus’, who supposedly participates in dialogue with no other purpose but the

aim of consensus through the finding of ‘the better argument’. That behaviour not

only seems unlikely in theory, but we experience the opposite in almost all spheres of

everyday life. In fact, in planning practice it is not uncommon to see powerful elites

appealing for regulation in favour of their interest, and taking advantage of their

power to influence planning authorities. Even in ‘communicative planning’ contexts,

those groups manage to be favoured by the ‘communication with stakeholders’

4
processes to achieve gains (Bengs 2005a, cited in Sager 2005, p.3). Therefore, it

would also be fair to agree with Flybjerg (2000, p.3) when he assess Habermas’

‘discourse ethics’ as unrealistic because his requirements of ‘power neutrality’ and

‘open explanation of intentions’, needed for it to take place, are rarely met.

Furthermore, power enforced by state is not to be ignored when trying to understand

planning practice. Despite being elected as representatives of the whole society, the

fact that authorities are elected democratically awards them the power of deciding on

behalf of all, in conflicting situations, even if it may favour a group at the expense of

another. Flyvbjerg (2000, p.13), for instance, points out that even in the

Habermasian world that assumes a context of power-free ‘discourse ethics’ “coercion

would be needed to arrive at Habermas’ non-coercive communication”, since

settlements about social exclusion are solved in court. Likewise, ‘communicative

planning’ theory relies on state for triggering the whole process of dialogue and

interaction between actors, which implicitly gives the planning authority the power to

enable or inhibit communicative planning.

Finally, social arrangements that frame planning practice need to be identified. They

reflect the way state enforces power and the power relations in society as a whole.

Obviously, those social arrangements are different in every place, so a context-

based approach is needed (Flyvbjerg 2000, p.10). Flyvbjerg (2000, p.11) believes

that only by making this, awareness will take place and may lead to fight against

domination. To verify the usefulness of understanding social arrangements, the case

study of water supply in Mumbai (Anand 2011) can be considered. It describes that

the reason why nothing gets done to improve the system in its tertiary network is

because engineers are opposed to it, not for true technical reasons but rather

because councilors use the water supply system for political purposes. Since water

supply is provided only a certain number of hours per day to each area, councilors

5
gain political revenue if they get the engineers to send more water to their respective

ward or for longer periods than scheduled. So, they have no interest in leakage

control to be implemented, and manage to persuade engineers as the approval of

their works contracts and careers depends on them (Anand 2011, pp. 204-205). This

case study certainly proves that identifying social arrangements – and the underlying

power relations – is helpful for understanding the reality for planning practice.

Moreover, the fact these elected representatives of low income classes manage to

compromise the control of the formal system – “captured by middle-classes”- (Anand

2011, p.191) could be interpreted as the way that awareness of social arrangements

has led to “fight against domination”, suggested by Flybjerg (2000, p.10).

While focus on power may capture important aspects about relationships, politics

and social arrangements, an understanding of planning practice that does not

describe how those power relations translate into action is necessarily partial.

Communicative Planning and the Effectiveness of Dialogue

In this section, some common elements included in the thesis of various scholars of

the so-called ‘communicative planning’ approach will be taken out, and be

considered to verify how they contribute to understand planning practice. The

reasons for that are the accentuated relevance they give to dialogue for planning

practice (Huxley 2000, p.101), and the increasing interest they have had in

problematizing planning practice.

The first contribution which can be extracted is that planning practice has to do not

only with the way decisions for governance is made and policies and regulation are

implemented, but also the way decisions turned to action shape spaces. Forester

6
(1999, p.63) states that planning results in ‘dialogic spaces’, which are the

reproductions of public imagination, while Healey (1996, p.104) considers that

through planning the qualities of places can be enriched. Both of these assertions

are based on the Lefebvre’s view of the city as a ‘social production’, in which

technicians – e.g. planners- despite not being able to create new social forms and

relations do have an effect on the conditions for them to take place (Lefebvre 1996,

pp. 150-151). Friedman also takes on Lefebvre’s argument, and points out the

importance of considering that multiple forces interact in coming to that social

production, so that outcome cannot be fully predictable (Friedman 2011, p. 139).

There are various valuable aspects associated with dialogue processes, among

which, two deserve to be highlighted: the resulting learning process and the

possibility of reaching agreement between conflicting parts. ‘Communicative

planning’ scholars refer to “the possibility of public learning and deliberation and even

consensus building” (Hoch 1994, Healey 1997, Innes 1996, Menkel-Meadows 1995

cited in Forester 1999, p.61). Likewise, Friedman (2011, p. 22) believes that opposite

positions can find a way to solve conflict as long as they rely on dialogue and have

the desire of finding agreement. Nevertheless, the possibility of achieving those

desired outcomes should be verified. Despite dialogue and consultation processes

with different social actors have become more common over the years as part of

planning decision-making, they usually take place according to ‘statutory planning’.

This means that the conditions of ‘rationality, sensitivity and mutual understanding’,

that Forester (1999, Ch.2) describes, are not guaranteed. Equally, the decisions of

where discussion will take place and what style of discussion, that Healey (1996,

pp.222-223) stresses, might not be subject to election but rather already defined.

Therefore, the problem with this view is that the type of structure needed for the

benefits of learning processes to arise rarely occurs in the context of planning

practice decision-making.

7
Moreover, dialogue might extend indefinitely so that agreement is not reached. This

scenario of prolonged dialogue that seems hopeless is not an extreme implausible

case. It is often broadcasted how members of parliament did not come to conclusion

in the debate of laws and that voting has been postponed. As example, the Canada’s

process of negotiation occurred between 1968-1982 for adopting the ‘Constitution

Act’ can be cited. Dialogue extended during fourteen years and came to a conclusion

only because of political pressure, as described by Stein (1989, pp.15-18). This case

study also makes it clear that dialogue is not likely to be free of particular interests,

which leads the analysis back to Habermas’ unrealistic ‘discourse ethics’. As

Flyvbjerg (2000, p.5) argues: “communication is more typically characterized by

rhetoric and maintenance of interest than by freedom from domination and

consensus seeking”.

The approach that emphasizes dialogue in planning practice is, at the same time,

acknowledging the existence of the various groups of actors that make the reality of

planning practice complex. ‘Communicative planning’ propositions mention

conflicting positions that need to be taken into account and included in dialogue.

They even mention explicitly the inclusion of usually excluded groups in debate. For

instance, Healey (1996, p.222) remarks the importance of ‘giving a voice’ to all

members of community. Similarly, Friedman (2011, p.60) describes the process of

‘mediations of radical planning’ by which planning practice tries to mediate with social

mobilization groups and to crate dialogue opportunities with them. He goes even

further by saying that this type of planning practice may change existing relations of

power (Friedman 2011, p.61).

However, it could be argued that acknowledgement might not even occur in reality

and even if it does, those groups might not be truly included in the planning practice

8
debate. Many cases occur where supposedly participation and consultation have

taken place for planning decisions, but where they have been incomplete,

inappropriate or ineffective. Holgersen and Haarstad (2009, p.351) critic that for

planning practice decision-making, the decision on which stakeholders should be

included is usually made based on ‘practicalities’ and that the effectiveness of the

collaborative efforts is limited when done by institutions – e.g. the planning authority-.

There are situations in which these groups are only informed, or by which they are

able to pose questions but without having the planning authority to fully address

them. Even worse, there are cases where the civil society groups are not

representing everyone but rather only a sector, usually business. Holgersen and

Haarstad (2009, p. 364) describe the case study of King’s Cross St. Pancras, where

participation did not take the form of dialogue but rather a ‘question and answer

form’, and where activists complained that their concerns had been translated to

paper but that authority only used them as proof of participation, but not really

reacted on their concerns. So, as the reader may see, and as mentioned by Forester

(1999, p.74), ‘deliberative planning practice’ is not enabled when dialogue limits to

just listening but is not translated to action and changing outcomes, resulting in

disrespect to the parties’ concerns.

Finally, ‘communicative planning’ provides with some features of the role that

planners have in planning practice nowadays. The first feature described is the

possession of knowledge. Friedman (2011, p.18) states that planners have

‘processed knowledge’, while Forester (1999, Ch.1-2) believes planners not only

posses technical information, but also ‘practical stories’ that need to be shared with

other planners and with people for “creating common and deliberative stories

together” (Forester 1999, p.26). Second, they describe planners as mediators and

negotiators that play a key role in reaching agreement or even consensus between

opposite sides (Forester 1999, p.61; Friedman 2011, p.60). Furthermore, they

9
illustrate that by enabling ‘communicative planning’ planners become ‘guardians of

democratic processes’ (Forester 1999, p. 83). Now, when analysing critically these

features combined, the role of planners seems a bit complicated, even contradictory.

On one hand, they are supposed to be neutral mediators that just enable conflicting

positions to come together, discuss and reach agreement through ‘discourse ethics’.

On the other, since they possess relevant knowledge, they are expected to share it

with the other actors in order to enrich dialogue and even enable consensus. This

means that they stop being neutral mediators, and take part on discussion.

Furthermore, since they represent state, they might even have to stand for one

particular party in order to guarantee the prevalence of collective interest.

Consequently and relying on these features, it could be said that the role of planners

is inherently conflictive and might result in undesired outcomes, if by any chance they

respond to certain interests or even worse to political agendas. This undesired

situation is described by Ghertner (2011, pp. 145-166) in a case study of slum

removal in Delhi, India.

From this section, it is possible to conclude that the contribution to understanding the

reality of planning practice by the ‘communicative planning’ approach addresses the

shortcoming of lack of prescription for action that the ‘focus on power’ approach

offered. However, it suffers from the inability to fully contextualise the presence of

power in social relations.

Conclusion

For understanding the reality of planning practice, inputs from the ‘focus on power’

approach and from the dialogue approach -that ‘communicative planning’ stands for-

have been taken into account. At first sight, these positions may seem as contrasting

10
views, but after reviewing what contributions can they make for understanding

planning practice, it has been determined that their assertions are rather partial and

insufficient.

Given the intrinsic presence of power, it has been proved necessary to study power

relations in order to understand decision-making processes. However, the ‘focus on

power’ approach does not go further, into illustrating how action takes place in

planning practice. Similarly, when ‘communicative planning’s proposed interaction

takes place, dialogue lacks effectiveness in many cases due to the omission of

power relations in the context, and therefore is insufficient to address the challenge

that these impose for decision-making.

Consequently, the need for combining both to understand more accurately planning

practice appears clear. By doing so, it is possible to appreciate better the complexity

that characterizes the reality of planning practice, the challenges that need to be

faced and the conflictive role that planners have and that should to be balanced to

avoid undesired results.

References

Anand, N. 2011. Ignoring Power: Knowing Leakage in Mumbai’s Water Supply. In:
J.S. Anjaria and C. McFarlane, Urban Navigation Politics, Space and the City in
South Asia, pp. 191- 212, Routledge.

Flybjerg, B., 2000. Ideal Theory , Real Rationality: Habermas Versus Foucault and
Nietzsche. In: In Political Studies Association’s 50th Annual Conference. The
Challenges for Democracy in the 21st Century. The Challenges for Democracy in the
21st Century, [online], Available at: http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/IdealTheory.pdf
[Accessed 15 November 2011].

Forester, J., 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner. Massachusetts: MIT.

Friedmann, J., 2011. Insurgencies: Essays in Planning Theory, Routledge.

11
Ghertner, D.A., 2011. Green evictions: environmental discourses of a slum-free
Delhi. In: P. Robbins, R. Peet and M. Watts, eds. Global Political Ecology. London:
Routledge. pp. 145-166.

Hall, P. and Tewdwr-Jones, M., 2011. Urban and Regional Planning. 5th ed. London:
Routledge.

Harvey, D., 2008. The Right to the City, New Left Review, [online], Available at:
http://newleftreview.org/?view=2740 [Accesed 10 October 2011].

Healey, P., 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for
spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23,
pp. 217-234.

Healey, P., 1997. Collaborative Planning. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Holgersen, S. and Haarstad, H., 2009. Class, Community and Communicative

Planning: Urban Redevelopment at King's Cross, London: Antipode, 41, pp. 348–
370.

Jenkins, S., 2011 A Games now so far removed from the Olympic spirit. London
Evening Standard Online, September. Available at:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23991634-a-games-now-so-far-
removed-from-the-olympic-spirit.do [Accessed 3 December 2011].

Lefebvre, H., 1996. The right to the city, from Writings on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell,
pp. 147-160.

Newman, P. and Thornley, A., 2011. Planning World Cities- Globalization and Urban
Politics. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sager, T., 2005. Communicative Planners as Naïve Mandarins of the Neo-liberal

States, European Journal of Spatial Development [online] Available at:
http://nordregio.shotcode.no/filer/EJSD/debate051208.pdf [Accessed 05 December
2011].

Stein, M.B., 1989. Canadian Constitutional Renewal, 1961-1981: A Case Study in

Integrative Bargaining. Research Paper No. 27. Kingston: Queen’s University.

12