Planning Theory
The meaning of planning theory depends on the context in which it is defined. There are two categories of planning theories namely, the procedural and the substantive theories. The procedural category encompasses the theories of planning, whereas the substantive consists of the theories in planning (Galloway & Mahayni, 1977, pp. 62-69).
In the procedural context, planning theory refers to the underlying ideologies, purposes, principles, and values in the planning process (Galloway & Mahayni, 1977, pp. 62-69). In the substantive context, planning theory refers to the descriptive and predictive body of knowledge about the morphology and functioning of a city. Generally, planning theory can be perceived as the tools and techniques that facilitate planning processes such as data generation and communication.
Importance of Planning Theory
The main objective of planning theory is to enable planners to determine the circumstances under which human activities can lead to creation of a better city that benefits all its residence (Fainstein, 2005, pp. 121-130). In this context, planning theory has the following benefits.
First, it establishes the relationship between planning procedures and the expected outcomes. This helps planners to identify appropriate planning procedures in order to achieve the desired outcomes. Second, planning theory provides guidelines for determining the attributes of an ideal city. For instance, Friedmann (2000, pp. 460-471) states that a good city should have adequate housing and affordable healthcare.
By considering these elements, planners are able to meet the expectations of citizens concerning the acceptable standards of living within a city. Finally, planning theory provides a framework for choosing the best strategies for planning and developing a city that satisfies the needs of its residents. It facilitates identification of the bottlenecks that are likely to hinder the design and development of a good city.
Types of Planning Theories
There are three types of planning theories namely, the substantive, procedural, and normative theories. Procedural theory focuses on the planning process, by providing a framework for transferring knowledge into the actual activities associated with planning. Thus, it encompasses procedural issues such as making decisions, selecting participants in the planning process, and identifying the best planning processes. Substantive theory provides the knowledge base that planners use to develop city plans (Healey, 1992, pp. 143-162).
It includes the theories associated with the various disciplines that are relevant in the planning process. Normative theory is concerned with the role of planning in the society. According to the normative theory, planning facilitates achievement of specific economic, historic, and political objectives that improve the lives of all citizens (Normativity in urban planning, n.d, pp. 76-99).
Justification of Planning
From an economic perspective, planning is a form of intervention that is justified by the following reasons. First, planning helps in correcting market failure (Normativity in urban planning, n.d, pp. 76-99). A free market is considered to have failed if it cannot facilitate efficient and equitable distribution of goods.
Public goods are often not provided by the private market because they are non-rivalrious and non-appropriable. This leads to market failure that can be avoided through planning for the provision of public goods. Second, planning helps in the prevention of negative externalities such as pollution (Normativity in urban planning, n.d, pp. 76-99). Third, the government can prevent the prisoner’s dilemma by mobilizing the citizens to combine their efforts to achieve a common goal.
The prisoner’s dilemma is a situation where a person cannot achieve a certain objective by acting independently. Finally, planning helps in addressing the problem of the tragedy of the commons that occurs when a shared resource is depleted due to uncontrolled usage by its beneficiaries. This problem can be eliminated through plans that either regulate the use of the resource or expand it in response to the increase in demand.
The Rational Synoptic Approach to Planning
In synoptic planning, the systems perspective is adopted to articulate and to solve planning problems. This involves using mathematical models that establish the link between ends and means (Hudson, 1979, pp. 387-396).
Ends refer to the objectives that planners intend to achieve through planning, whereas means refer to the available resources and the constraints associated with the planning process. The effectiveness of synoptic planning depends on the availability of quantitative data and analytical tools that enable planners to achieve their objectives.
The synoptic planning process has four stages. In the first stage, planners set the goals that they intend to achieve through planning. The second stage involves identification of the policies that can be employed to achieve the objectives of the plan (Hudson, 1979, pp. 387-396). At the third stage, the available resources (means) are evaluated against the identified objectives (ends).
The fourth stage involves implementation of the policy identified in stage two. It is worth noting that planners do not have to follow these stages sequentially since they are intertwined.
Although the synoptic approach is superior to other planning methods in terms of simplicity, it has several weaknesses. To begin with, synoptic planning promotes centralization of planning activities such as problem definition and decision-making, thereby reducing the participation of the public in the planning process (Hudson, 1979, pp. 387-396).
The synoptic approach fails to acknowledge the fact that some planners have cognitive limits that hinder them from developing optimum solutions. The synoptic approach is also criticized because it presumes the general public interest instead of the pluralist interest.
Process Verses Outcome
The democratic proceduralists believe that process is the most important element of planning. Thus, planners should always focus on following democratic procedures to develop plans that lead to achievement of public interest.
This perspective is opposed by the Kantian idealists who believe that the most important aspect of planning is its outcome. In this regard, planners should focus on the outcomes rather than the procedures used to achieve them. A third perspective in this debate is that planners should use any means to achieve their objectives as long as their intentions are ethical.
They should focus on revolutionary change by developing new plans to replace existing ones. Friedmann (2000, pp. 460-471) argues that process and outcomes or ends and means should not be considered as separate elements of the planning process. He further states that both process and outcome are important in planning. Thus, planners should not focus on process at the expense of outcome and vice versa.
In my view, both process and outcome are important in planning. However, democratic procedures should be followed only if they lead to achievement of the interests of the public. Similarly, the expected outcome of planning should be considered acceptable only if it is likely to satisfy the needs of the citizens.
The Goodness of New York City
According to Friedmann (2000, pp. 460-471), a good city is characterized with the flourishing of the human population, multiplicity, and good governance. The human population flourishes if the city has adequate housing, social provision, remunerated work, and affordable healthcare. In New York City, majority of the residents have housing and jobs. However, healthcare is not affordable since a large number of residents still lack health insurance to access medical services.
Multiplicity refers to “an autonomous civil life relatively free from direct supervision and control by the state” (Friedmann, 2000, pp. 460-471). New York City has met this criterion since the statutes of New York State and the constitution of the United States protect the citizens’ right to liberty and speech. This has led to the development of a vibrant civil life in New York City. The residents are free to form organizations to articulate their challenges without the interference of the state or government.
Governance refers to the procedures used to make and enforce binding decisions in cities (Friedmann, 2000, pp. 460-471). New York City has good governance that focuses on transparency and responsiveness to the needs of the citizens.
The governance is also inclusive since citizens have the right to participate in the formulation of policies that affect their lives through consultations. The political leaders in the city are directly elected by the citizens based on their inspiration and ability to create a shared vision for the electorate. In sum, New York is a good city since it has most of the attributes identified by Friedmann (2000, pp. 460-471).
References
Fainstein, S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 121-130.
Friedmann, J. (2000). The good city: In defense of utopian thinking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2), 460-471.
Galloway, T., & Mahayni, R. (1977). Planning theory in retrospect: The progress of paradigm change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 43(1), 62-69.
Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. The Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143-162.
Hudson, B. (1979). Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions . Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(4), 387-396.
Normativity in urban planning. (n.d). Web.