Context of Planning Lecture - Theories and approaches [Compatibility Mode]
- 1. Planning and ManagingPlanning and Managing DevelopmentDevelopment Lecture 1Lecture 1 Theoretical Context of Planning andTheoretical Context of Planning andTheoretical Context of Planning andTheoretical Context of Planning and Managing DevelopmentManaging Development
- 2. Planning and Its Role in Decision MakingPlanning and Its Role in Decision Making Classical planning theory defines planning as:Classical planning theory defines planning as: –– ‘‘A rational process of thought and action whichA rational process of thought and action which ultimately aims (as science does) at promotingultimately aims (as science does) at promoting human growth’ (Faludi, 1973).human growth’ (Faludi, 1973). •• Applies to different planning contextsApplies to different planning contexts •• VisionaryVisionary--when time is on our side and we canwhen time is on our side and we can•• VisionaryVisionary--when time is on our side and we canwhen time is on our side and we can systematically plan for the futuresystematically plan for the future –– Plan to build a dam, highway etcPlan to build a dam, highway etc •• ReactiveReactive--when development situations throwwhen development situations throw themselves at usthemselves at us –– Major flood disaster, tsunami etcMajor flood disaster, tsunami etc
- 3. Classical Planning ModelClassical Planning Model SELECTOR RECEPTOR MEMORY EFFECTOR ENVIRONMENT After Faludi (1973:61)
- 4. How Should We Plan/Respond to Development SituationsHow Should We Plan/Respond to Development Situations Issue IdentificationIssue Identification and Definitionand Definition Formulation ofFormulation of ObjectivesObjectives Identification ofIdentification of ••Evaluation andEvaluation and FeedbackFeedback Identification ofIdentification of alternativesalternatives ••Selection ofSelection of favoured alternativefavoured alternative PlanPlan ImplementationImplementation ••PlanPlan formulationformulation
- 5. Assumptions!Assumptions! As Development practitioners we :As Development practitioners we : –– Are rational beings: nonAre rational beings: non--political or nonpolitical or non--partisan decisionpartisan decision-- making applicable to complex social systemsmaking applicable to complex social systems –– Do not articulate their own position but are arbiters of anDo not articulate their own position but are arbiters of an array of different social valuesarray of different social values –– ( social guidance tradition)( social guidance tradition) –– Can predict and plan outcomes of developmentCan predict and plan outcomes of development interventions (have full information needed to do so)interventions (have full information needed to do so) –– Can achieve determinable results based on specificCan achieve determinable results based on specific planned activities (use of grand theory)planned activities (use of grand theory) –– Professional/experts in specifying development objectivesProfessional/experts in specifying development objectives
- 6. But………But……… •• Claim to professional statusClaim to professional status-- –– Vs Beck (1992)’s argument that political content ofVs Beck (1992)’s argument that political content of decision making grows in proportion to the effort beingdecision making grows in proportion to the effort being taken to be objective and rational.taken to be objective and rational. •• Unitary public interest assumptionUnitary public interest assumption--falsely suggestsfalsely suggests•• Unitary public interest assumptionUnitary public interest assumption--falsely suggestsfalsely suggests that the goals of plans are universally shared,that the goals of plans are universally shared, ignoring the multiplicity of interests in anyignoring the multiplicity of interests in any development environmentdevelopment environment –– plurality of interests in society, the pervasiveness ofplurality of interests in society, the pervasiveness of conflict, and the political nature of development activityconflict, and the political nature of development activity (see people like Hillier 1993; Friedmann 1993; Sandercock(see people like Hillier 1993; Friedmann 1993; Sandercock 1998)1998)
- 7. Some Styles of PlanningSome Styles of Planning •• Rational comprehensive planning (blue print model)Rational comprehensive planning (blue print model) –– strong hierarchical and institutional context of planningstrong hierarchical and institutional context of planning -- goals are centrally laid downgoals are centrally laid down •• Disjointed incrementalismDisjointed incrementalism –– planners do not have a clean slate for planningplanners do not have a clean slate for planning--radicalradical–– planners do not have a clean slate for planningplanners do not have a clean slate for planning--radicalradical alternatives not feasible as all decisions relate to previousalternatives not feasible as all decisions relate to previous decisions though not logicallydecisions though not logically--science of muddlingscience of muddling throughthrough
- 8. Blue print planningBlue print planning –– name derives from dyeline prints ofname derives from dyeline prints of engineering designs for construction projectsengineering designs for construction projects –– planning is a technical exercise in whichplanning is a technical exercise in which control and detailed specification of outputcontrol and detailed specification of output reinforce each otherreinforce each other –– Fixed and known outputs that are measurableFixed and known outputs that are measurable–– Fixed and known outputs that are measurableFixed and known outputs that are measurable •• Like when we build a bridgeLike when we build a bridge-- once a design planonce a design plan has been made little room for manoeuvrehas been made little room for manoeuvre-- wewe have to stick to the designhave to stick to the design –– Emphasis on technical and expert control andEmphasis on technical and expert control and sticking to the designsticking to the design-- •• Chamberian professional biasesChamberian professional biases
- 9. Conventional Project CycleConventional Project Cycle Identification Evaluation Preparation Appraisal Implementation
- 10. The weakest Stage. Poor or absent stakeholder analysis, needs assessment, problem analysis Identification Evaluation Judges achievement of investment objectives using economic criteria. Disregards process and social outcomes. Weak or non- existent link Single cycle too limiting, restricts opportunity to learn from experience Problems With Blue Print Approaches Preparation Appraisal Implementation Reductionist, professionalized and isolated from implementation management. Too few options considered. Low stakeholder participation. Strong, high authority. Economic / investment perspective. Time and resource consuming, limited influence over outcomes. from experience
- 11. Emerging Approaches Since the 1970sEmerging Approaches Since the 1970s •• Many divergent perspectives but increasing tendencies towardMany divergent perspectives but increasing tendencies toward social transformation planning Vs social guidance tradition.social transformation planning Vs social guidance tradition. Two Responses:Two Responses: •• Abandon rationality (Hooch 1994) Vs Reconfigure rationalityAbandon rationality (Hooch 1994) Vs Reconfigure rationality (Alexander 1994)(Alexander 1994) •• New Approaches reflect role of planning as a field of decisionNew Approaches reflect role of planning as a field of decision making with technical and political dimensions (Hoch, 1994making with technical and political dimensions (Hoch, 1994 –– Transactive PlanningTransactive Planning-- Hall (1992) and Friedmann’s (1973, 1993)Hall (1992) and Friedmann’s (1973, 1993)-- ItIt is a participatory style which requires that both planners and citizensis a participatory style which requires that both planners and citizensis a participatory style which requires that both planners and citizensis a participatory style which requires that both planners and citizens have the capacity to listen sympathetically andhave the capacity to listen sympathetically and share the responsibilityshare the responsibility for problem definition and solutionfor problem definition and solution.. –– Planning as bargainingPlanning as bargaining-- Dorcey’s (1986)Dorcey’s (1986)--political process involvingpolitical process involving interaction of numerous individuals that bargain and negotiate frominteraction of numerous individuals that bargain and negotiate from varying power bases to achieve objectives that at least partially reflectvarying power bases to achieve objectives that at least partially reflect their selftheir self--interestinterest –– Planning as communicative rationalityPlanning as communicative rationality-- Forester (1989); Innes (1995),Forester (1989); Innes (1995), –– Radical planning (Sandercock 1998) orRadical planning (Sandercock 1998) or –– CommunityCommunity--based planning (Leavitt 1994)based planning (Leavitt 1994)
- 12. Planning as Social TransformationPlanning as Social Transformation •• Friedman(1987) Planning is the deliberate transfer ofFriedman(1987) Planning is the deliberate transfer of knowledge to action in the public domain for theknowledge to action in the public domain for the purposes of moving towards a shared vision of the goodpurposes of moving towards a shared vision of the good societysociety –– Planning seen as a continuum: from societalPlanning seen as a continuum: from societal guidance to social transformationguidance to social transformation –– Removes planning from the hands of professionalsRemoves planning from the hands of professionals and places it within the realm of communityand places it within the realm of community organisers, activists and ordinary citizens all workingorganisers, activists and ordinary citizens all working with, in collaboration with and even against statewith, in collaboration with and even against statewith, in collaboration with and even against statewith, in collaboration with and even against state sanctioned planning processessanctioned planning processes •• Four traditions of planning theory links knowledge toFour traditions of planning theory links knowledge to actionaction –– Social reformSocial reform –– Policy analysisPolicy analysis –– Social learningSocial learning –– Social mobilisationSocial mobilisation
- 13. Example of Planning as SocialExample of Planning as Social TransformationTransformation •• Process planningProcess planning –– planning is a process of trial and error aimingplanning is a process of trial and error aiming to cope with phenomenon that is constantlyto cope with phenomenon that is constantly on the move.on the move.on the move.on the move. –– Output is constantly subject to change underOutput is constantly subject to change under the influence of changing circumstancesthe influence of changing circumstances •• (see Bond and Hulme’s 1999)(see Bond and Hulme’s 1999)
- 14. Participatory Evaluation of Impact Strong Participatory Analysis & Identification of Problems / Objectives in Balanced Economic, Environmental and Delivering Outputs with Increasing Effectiveness, Efficiency and Scale Whilst Monitoring Emerging Impacts Formal Appraisal Less Relevant as Details are Unknown. Use Cost Effectiveness as Initial Guide. The Process Project Cycle Social Terms Strong Local Autonomy in Planning and Action in Spirals of Action Learning by Multiple Actors. After Bond (2001)
- 15. Key features of new planning paradigmKey features of new planning paradigm •• participatory and decentered in styleparticipatory and decentered in style •• concerned with developing sharedconcerned with developing shared solutions to development issuessolutions to development issues •• centred on learning about the perceptionscentred on learning about the perceptions•• centred on learning about the perceptionscentred on learning about the perceptions and concerns of othersand concerns of others •• Focus on sharing the responsibility forFocus on sharing the responsibility for planning outcomesplanning outcomes
- 16. Contextual Hierarchies of PlanningContextual Hierarchies of Planning •• Policy: Provides overarching framework forPolicy: Provides overarching framework for development interventionsdevelopment interventions •• Programme: long term multi activityProgramme: long term multi activity endeavours implemented by networks ofendeavours implemented by networks of country institutions in multiple locationscountry institutions in multiple locations whose production and or service deliverywhose production and or service deliverywhose production and or service deliverywhose production and or service delivery objectives and impact goals are derived fromobjectives and impact goals are derived from indigenous policy choicesindigenous policy choices •• Project: Discrete time bound sets of activitiesProject: Discrete time bound sets of activities intended to bring about changes from anintended to bring about changes from an existing situationexisting situation
- 17. Planning Development: The ExperiencesPlanning Development: The Experiences –– Belief in planning dominated thinking in the 1950sBelief in planning dominated thinking in the 1950s through to 1970s. Why?through to 1970s. Why? •• Centralised planning had achieved results inCentralised planning had achieved results in both communist and neoboth communist and neo--liberal states(sovietliberal states(soviet planning systems and Marshal Planplanning systems and Marshal Plan •• Socialist development theory and belief in aSocialist development theory and belief in a string centrally planned economystring centrally planned economy •••• Access to funding depended on having a planAccess to funding depended on having a plan •• Political pressure could be soaked up byPolitical pressure could be soaked up by showing that there was a plan to get thingsshowing that there was a plan to get things ‘moving’‘moving’
- 18. Disillusionment with PlanningDisillusionment with Planning •• By 1970s most plans had failed and there wasBy 1970s most plans had failed and there was a realisation that national level focus ofa realisation that national level focus of planning was not working. Why?planning was not working. Why? •• Over ambitious plansOver ambitious plans •• Faulty planning dataFaulty planning data •• Poor analytical methodsPoor analytical methods•• Poor analytical methodsPoor analytical methods •• Failure to predict unanticipated shocksFailure to predict unanticipated shocks •• Institutional failures (the state was notInstitutional failures (the state was not working)working)
- 19. Emergence of ProjectsEmergence of Projects •• New focus on projects as ‘building blocks’ ofNew focus on projects as ‘building blocks’ of development since late 1960s and 1970sdevelopment since late 1960s and 1970s –– Seen as cutting edge of development whereSeen as cutting edge of development where resources where converted into improved welfareresources where converted into improved welfare (Gittinger, 1982)(Gittinger, 1982) –– Donors saw them as neat fundable developmentDonors saw them as neat fundable development–– Donors saw them as neat fundable developmentDonors saw them as neat fundable development efforts that did not rely on a functioning bureaucracyefforts that did not rely on a functioning bureaucracy –– State: miniturisation of controlState: miniturisation of control--what it failed towhat it failed to achieve at a grand scale it could achieve locally.achieve at a grand scale it could achieve locally.
- 20. Disillusionment with ProjectsDisillusionment with Projects •• By 1980s WB was reporting that 51% of itsBy 1980s WB was reporting that 51% of its projects hadprojects had failedfailed. Why. Why?? –– Nature of development problemsNature of development problems--these are neverthese are never structured (Johnston and Clarke, 1982)structured (Johnston and Clarke, 1982) –– Poor data (Porter et al, 1991)Poor data (Porter et al, 1991)–– Poor data (Porter et al, 1991)Poor data (Porter et al, 1991) –– Uncertainty and instabilityUncertainty and instability –– Separation of Planning from implementationSeparation of Planning from implementation –– Lack of beneficiary participation & biasesLack of beneficiary participation & biases (Chambers, 1982; 2005)(Chambers, 1982; 2005) –– Project politicsProject politics –– OneOne--sizesize--fitsfits--all approach to doing thingsall approach to doing things
- 21. What Now?What Now? •• Sector Wide Approach (SWA) /Direct BudgetSector Wide Approach (SWA) /Direct Budget Support replacing projects?Support replacing projects? •• Still need the building blocksStill need the building blocks-- projectsprojects •• Still need the flag effectStill need the flag effect•• Still need the flag effectStill need the flag effect •• Projects in context of developmentProjects in context of development –– Livelihood approachesLivelihood approaches –– Drivers of ChangeDrivers of Change •• Increasing tendency toward flexibility andIncreasing tendency toward flexibility and process orientation.process orientation.
- 22. Additional ReferencesAdditional References •• Alexander, E. R. 1994. The nonAlexander, E. R. 1994. The non--euclidean mode of planning: What is it to be?euclidean mode of planning: What is it to be? J. Am.J. Am. Plan.Assoc.Plan.Assoc. 60(3):37260(3):372––376.376. •• Beck, U. 1992.Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernityRisk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.. London: Sage. •• Dorcey, A. J. 1986.Dorcey, A. J. 1986. Bargaining in the governance of Paci. c coastal resources: Research andBargaining in the governance of Paci. c coastal resources: Research and reformreform. Vancouver, BC: Westwater Research Centre.. Vancouver, BC: Westwater Research Centre. •• Forester, J. 1989.Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the face of powerPlanning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.. Berkeley: University of California Press. •• Friedmann, J. 1973.Friedmann, J. 1973. Retracking America: A theory of transactive planningRetracking America: A theory of transactive planning. New York:. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Doubleday Anchor. •• Friedmann, J. 1987.Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action.Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ:Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Princeton University Press. •• Friedmann, J. 1993. Toward a nonFriedmann, J. 1993. Toward a non--Euclidian mode of planning.Euclidian mode of planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 59(4): 48259(4): 482–– 485.485. •• Friedmann, J. 1994. The utility of nonFriedmann, J. 1994. The utility of non--Euclidean planning.Euclidean planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 60(3):37760(3):377––379.379. •• Friedmann, J. and C. Kuester. 1994. Planning education for the late twentieth century: An initialFriedmann, J. and C. Kuester. 1994. Planning education for the late twentieth century: An initial•• Friedmann, J. and C. Kuester. 1994. Planning education for the late twentieth century: An initialFriedmann, J. and C. Kuester. 1994. Planning education for the late twentieth century: An initial inquiry.inquiry. J. Plan. Educ. Res.J. Plan. Educ. Res. 14(1):5514(1):55––64.64. •• Hall, P. 1992.Hall, P. 1992.Urban and regional planningUrban and regional planning. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. •• Healey, P. 1992. Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory.Healey, P. 1992. Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. TownTown Plan. Rev.Plan. Rev. 63(2):14363(2):143––162.162. •• Hillier, J. 1993. To boldly go where no planners have ever.Hillier, J. 1993. To boldly go where no planners have ever. Environ. Plan. D Society SpaceEnviron. Plan. D Society Space 11:8911:89––113.113. •• Hillier, J. 1995. The unwritten law of planning theory: Common sense.Hillier, J. 1995. The unwritten law of planning theory: Common sense. J. Plan. Educ. Res.J. Plan. Educ. Res. 14:29214:292––296.296. •• Hoch, C. 1992. The paradox of power in planning practice.Hoch, C. 1992. The paradox of power in planning practice. J. Plan. Educ. Res.J. Plan. Educ. Res. 11:20611:206––215.215. •• Hoch, C. 1994.Hoch, C. 1994. What planners do: Power, politics and persuasionWhat planners do: Power, politics and persuasion. Chicago: Planners Press.. Chicago: Planners Press. •• Innes, J. 1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactiveInnes, J. 1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice: Closing the theorypractice: Closing the theory––practice gap.practice gap. J. Plan. Educ. Res.J. Plan. Educ. Res. 14(3):18314(3):183––189.189. •• Sager, T. 1994.Sager, T. 1994. Communicative planning theoryCommunicative planning theory. Brook. eld: Avebury Press.. Brook. eld: Avebury Press. •• Sandercock, L. 1998.Sandercock, L. 1998. Towards cosmopolisTowards cosmopolis. Chichester: Wiley.. Chichester: Wiley.