The public’s selection of the format of modern government is evidence that people support an organized society.
102 Planning Theory I
College of Engineering, Pune
What is Theory..
A set of assumptions,
propositions, or accepted
facts that attempt to prove
a plausible or rational
explanation of cause and
effect relationships among
a group of observed
Theory is thus a mental
model of perceived reality.
History of Planning..
• American and European Countries
A through understanding of various Planning Theories and their
Physical form depicting ideology to a fourth power of Government.
Non-linear Pattern of Evolution
The evolution of planning theory reflects the changing
society and its changing demand on planning.
Given the pluralistic nature of modern society, the
multiple directions social development trends, and the
uncertainty caused by unforeseeable social events,
the trajectory of planning theory evolution reflects
diverse planning approaches and a non-linear pattern.
Planning history shows that the development of
planning theory is segmental, diverse, and diverging,
rather than integrated, uni-directional, and linear.
American Planning Theories..
1900 - planning was understood as to design urban
form, beautify cityscape, and reform urban society
through improving the built environment at that time.
After WWII (89) - re-building destroyed cities made
European planners focus almost totally on urban
physical development .
1980 – Globalization.
American Planning Theory..
Unregulated ―free market‖ capitalist competition led
to the 1929 economic crisis and stimulated the appeal
for government intervention.
President Roosevelt’s policy adviser Rexford Tugwell
championed planning as a so-called ―Fourth Power‖ of
government in allocating resources by state power.
The generation of American planners were involved in
resource allocation and redistribution rather than just
guiding development and designing townscapes, the
traditional tasks to planners.
New Models and Theories..
Rational Model: collection and examination of data,
evaluation of alternatives, and creation of systems for
What is the theoretical foundation of the legitimacy of
planning as a government intervention in a
Karl Mannheim’s Theory vs Frederick’s opposition.
Karl Mannheim’s Theory
Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction (1940):
planning is necessary to free and open societies.
Mannheim’s four social structures based on levels of
participation and centralization:
Planning is inevitable due to technology and
population growth. The problem therefore is not ―if
planning is needed‖ but ―who would plan?‖
The famous economist who led the opposition to
Mannheim, argued that government at best is clumsy and
inefficient so what we should fear is bloated government
intervening in all societal decisions.
As a result, he asked for getting freedom from the
“freedom from” and “freedom to”
Mannheim’s supporters believed that government through
public intervention affords us freedom to do things that we
otherwise would be unable to do (such as large scale
infrastructure and development projects), and the
argument of government’s coercion is a mistake.
The development of planning theory met American
people’s expectation that government would intervene
when economic crises occur.
The New Deal initiated by President Roosevelt with the
adoption of Keynesian policy was characterized by a high
level of state intervention, and urban planning was
employed as a powerful tool of government intervention.
This renovated institutional arrangement between the
state, the marketplace and the society was advanced
because it helped solve the problems of economic crisis
and social tension during the recession.
The policy influenced policy-makers not only
in the US but also in other west nations from
the 1930s to the early 1940s.
Other Planning Theories: Rational planning,
Communicative or Collaborative Planning,
Incremental Planning, Advocacy planning.
Planning theory should be viewed as having
only relative Truth and the definition of
planning is specific to time and circumstances.
Intro to Political economy..
Various Theories led to debate..
Dutch professor A. Faludi labeled the two directions
as ―theory of planning‖ and ―theory in planning‖;
the former addresses the nature, function and
procedure of planning and the latter covers
theoretical frameworks of planning work including
land use, transportation etc.
However, it is still debatable which planning task is
more important in a particular context—the process
(e.g. organizing public participation) or the content
(e.g. designing policy to control sprawl).
A group of advocacy planning supporters turned to a
more radical direction, they believed that the current
American institutional setting could no longer meet
the needs of the poor so a new institutional
arrangement became a must.
They advocated public ownership of land, promotion
of industries that could absorb the most unemployed,
and a bottom-up approach in planning process.
The movement was named ―progressive planning‖
with social justice, public participation, and planning
legitimacy as goals.
The relationship between planning and local
politics from a political economy perspective.
The outcome included the theory of ―City as a
Growth Machine‖ and, later, influential Regime
Regime Theory indicates that the
effectiveness of planning work relies on a
common ground of planners and the leading
regime. Without the support or at least
mutual understanding of the regime, planners
find it impossible to get plans realized.
Friedmann’s Transactive Planning: Top
down vs. bottom up approach.
Classification of Planning Theories.
Paradigm (A. Faludi)