You are on page 1of 5

Beard, V. A. (2002).Covert Planning for Social Transformation in Indonesia. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22, 15-25. doi: 10.

1177/0739456X0202200102 Victoria Beard specializes in planning in developing countries and is presently an associate professor, department of planning, policy and design, University of California. In this article, she presents Indonesia as a case study, to draw attention to the disconnect in present planning theories with major focus on planning environment of the western countries with advanced democracy and liberalized economy, and limited attention, to intricacies of planning dynamism, in other societies with nascent democracy and non-liberalized political economy. To achieve this, she explores academic writings on synoptic, collaborative and radical modes of planning, which ostensibly focus on social transformation and grass root participation, and identifies that the underlying ideologies of these theories are built on the assumption that basic structural democracy, transparency and accountability already exist. She argues that the key elements of this assumption inter alia rarely exist in developing countries and in addition, contends that although the collaborative theory seem applicable to planning in developing countries, its ideological consonance with overt theories in terms of planning processes and political structures, makes it inapplicable. She also reviews development planning practice in complex societies, like countries with nascent democracies and weak political economies, where the downtrodden have to deal with challenges of authoritarianism, and presents an organogram and case studies to delineate how indigenous people within these environments engage in planning for social change. Beard posits a novel alternative model to achieve social transformation and development, and addresses the deficiency in ideologies and planning strategies employed in developing countries. It is implicit in this article, that to achieve meaningful development, especially in developing countries, it is imperative to unpack ideologies, understand their epistemologies and ensure that they reflect regional complexities, culture, and developmental stage. The article distinguishes itself in explicitly advocating for alternative and more effective planning model for developing countries and undoubtedly draws attention of budding development planners and practitioners, to the intrinsic misconceptions and ambiguities in planning theories. It also raises awareness on the implication of the use of relative terms like participation and integration, which change in meaning and application, depending on stages of development, governance and economy.

he uses practical examples. In this chapter. presents a knowledge base for planning and development practitioners. detailed examination and deliberate participatory strategies for ameliorating various levels of poverty and deprivation are imperative. that is more strategic. underpinnings and workability of the new concept. he reviews in historical perspective. and analysis of planning in the literary world. In addition. poverty and deprivation and identifies their mitigation and value addition. He examines two major livelihood issues. will be further expounded in the chapters that follow. and reiterates that. a well-known planner. The chapter is relevant in giving an overview of the author’s innovative concept of development and development planning that espouses the recognition of dynamics and complexities of societies. multifarious stakeholders and structures explicitly present in development planning environment. and university lecturer. to have an in-depth understanding of ideologies. and puts forward a nuanced paradigm of development planning. However. managers and facilitators (pp. and reviews the concepts of development and development planning as well as the underlying rationalities. he gives an insight into what to expect in other chapters of the book. Development and Development Planning. R. (2004). and critically analyses different theories of planning using historical and modern writings of well known researchers. In Development Planning: Concepts and tools for planners. London & New York: Zed Books. . The chapter presents a comprehensive analysis and a normative description of development envisioned to provide noticeable benefits. its workability and linkage between planning in the real world.Dale. He further explores the importance of planning in achieving meaningful development. and considers in a more intentional manner. He delineates the different characteristics of development and opines that for development planning to be successful. In the last part of the chapter. to explain the paradigm and opens up for discourse. which he points out. and transform the general state of affairs of beneficiaries and stakeholders. it will be necessary to read the whole book. inclusive. as the deep-seated motivational factor for emergence of different development planning theories. improve livelihoods. the reasoning behind development planning including the different typologies of rationality. researcher. This chapter is the first in the book authored by Dale Reidar.1-14). add value. value addition should be an essential part and basis for development planning.

and criticisms that characterise previous planning theories. reviews the ideologies of other theorists. she explores their plan-centred approach to suburban development and argues that although the ideology focuses on designs. and author and co-author of several books and academic articles on planning theory and urban redevelopment. typologies. . The theories in this article all draw significantly from the post-positivist western ideology. doi: 10. She concludes by expressing optimism that the “just city” will translate to social justice and transformation and presents Kerala in India and Amsterdam as case studies to explain further. and uses practical examples to provide detailed analysis and assessment of three recent planning theories. However. In examining the “new urbanism” theory propounded by architects and journalists. and does not recognise in clear terms the distinctive situations and dynamism of other regions in their epistemology. as well as accepted by some academics and practitioners. (2000). she presents a modified perspective called the “just city” which centres on diversity. democracy. New Directions in Planning Theory. in terms of their ability to bring about positive widespread change within prevailing circumstances. S.1177/107808740003500401 This scholarly article by a professor of urban planning and design at the Harvard University. S. the theory is weak in procedure and aligns with the widely criticized modernism theory. it is relevant for students and planners and provides historical and contemporary overview of ideologies. Urban Affairs Review. 35. is popular in the United States and Great Britain. and the gender sensitivity of the theory. Having lucidly drawn attention to the limitations of the two theories. thus leaving a lacuna. Fainstein critically examines the “communicative” theory and agrees that it is inclusive and ensures that planning processes are not dictated solely by the elites. the complexities within the planning process and how to surmount blatant challenges. and the rationale for more interactive and proactive theories upon which recent development planning anchors. All the same. She nonetheless connects strongly with the involvement of other stakeholders. she argues that it places too much emphasis on the roles of the planner and fails to examine in detail. 451-478.Fainstein. equity and more importantly redresses the limitations of the other theories and is supported by radical democrats and political economists.

They argue that change in the characteristics and patterns of these hypotheses. to achieve its aim. the implications of assumptions of mistrust of professions and professionals especially in the United Kingdom. and delineate their interaction. disciplines and groups. technology and planning theory evolves. & Tait. This article is shrouded in uncertainties and can best be described as a wakeup call for students and practitioners in development planning. it also subtly raises the question of professionalism and integrity and highlights the burden of trust in planning. M. This further amplifies the import and implication of trust for planning and calls for further research and debate. proficiency in planning can only be subjectively appraised by outcomes of planning process. They identify the interplay between four types of trust. Consequently. rise of the rightsbased society and rise of advanced liberalism. impacts negatively on the typologies of trust.1080/14649350701324458 Two scholars of town and regional planning. In the circumstance where trust is perceived to be lacking in interpersonal relationships as well as in the ability of institutions to deliver benefits. and arguments of seasoned scholars to illustrate the typologies of unilateral. doi: 10. is an emerging concern. is diverse and multifaceted. Trust. it is uncertain where to place planning in terms of personal. Although it is limited in scope.Swain. distrust of professions and professional abilities. and by implication. Swain and Tait. with different constructions of meaning depending on one’s interpretation. personal. trust also undergoes transmutation. and inevitably requires the integration of other skills. knowledgeable and abstract trust. rise of the pluralistic society. 8(2). To better understand it. knowledgeable and abstract trust. investigate in this article. Comparatively they argue. It is deducible therefore. . in the context of this article and its implications for planning. The Crisis of Trust and Planning. with the hypotheses of rise of the risk society. brings about increase in demand for accountability and audit. Planning Theory & Practice. (2007). the authors provide a conceptual table. C. planning in practice unlike some professions guided by codes of conduct. and four main hypotheses arising from societal dynamism and evolution. in a complex process. as underlying the “crisis of trust” in planning and call for further research on this concern. that as society. 229-247.

Planning Theory 7(1). where culturalization (which he identifies as inclusion of culture). The Culturization of Planning. and offers planning the opportunity to expand and become more relevant. This article provides a constructive rational. He unequivocally agrees with the underlining principles of neomodernism. Although he accepts that culturization is delicately complex in understanding. doi: 10:1177/ 1473095207082035 Young is an experienced planning theorist. is in practice as a consultant. He focuses on neo-modernism and post modernism theories. In this recent article. and opens up discourse on ways of employing culture as catalyst to move the field to the next level. and uses literary works of other scholars to demonstrate complexities of culture. He posits the concept of culturization of planning. and has the potential to underpin emerging planning theories. and stresses that culturization is the new positionality of planning that best connects with new global political economy and informational approaches of development. for integration of the multifarious concept of culture in development planning. To further assert this. (2008). and form the foundation for positionality of planning in culturization. However. further indepth research with extensive case studies will be required. who in addition to being in academia. is distinctly differentiated from culturization (which he refers to as integration and positionality of culture) in planning. he nonetheless cites examples of literary works to confirm the growing concern. G. 71-91. that pluralism will bring about comprehensiveness and effectiveness. he gives a normative synopsis of culturization as the methodical integration of cultural knowledge into strategic planning process. he uses a figure. In addition. including contemporary knowledge of culture and planning. . tables and case studies in Australia to typify the successful integration of culture into strategic planning in a multicultural society. and implicit call for integration of culture in planning processes by neo-modernists and post-modernists. he takes a position in charting a novel course for planning theory and reviews the ideologies and theories of erudite theorists based on their implications for culture. It also arouses interest. he examines the position of international organisations on this issue and opines that a “planning positionality focused on solutions must be grounded in culture” (pp76).Young. To expatiate this.