Communicative, or collaborative, planning has received a lot of attention recently. Many planners today agree that planning should be a process of facilitating community collaboration for consensus-building. As a consequence, it seems that communicative rationality is becoming more important in modern planning than the conventional instrumental rationality, whose professional approaches are often criticised as being technocratic. In this paper we address the question whether communicative planning is a better framework for protecting values and reaching objectives that have justified planning interventions to this point in society. By using notions of quality and ethics as a framework, we evaluate critically the communicative features of Dutch infrastructure planning. A distinction is made between comments about planning outcomes and comments about consensus-building processes. It is argued that communicative planning could conflict with basic ethical principles of conventional planning. It is concluded that the communicative ideology alone does not meet conventional ethical planning principles any better. This is in line with the ideas of Kaiser et al and other authors that communicative planning must go together with ‘adaptive’ rational planning. Planning discourse should be based on planning intelligence, which consists of gathering, organising, analysing, and disseminating information to stakeholders in the use and development of land.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderE R, 1988, “The Netherlands' unique planning system: A visitor's comparisons”Rooilijn25(5) 145–150
2.
AlexanderE R, 1996, “After rationality: Towards a contingency theory of planning”, in Explorations in Planning Theory Eds MandelbaumS JMazzaLBurchellR W (Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 45–64
3.
AlexanderE R, 1998a, “Doing the ‘impossible’: Notes for a general theory of planning?”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25667–680
AshworthG JVoogdH, 1994, “Marketing and place promotion”, in Place Promotion Eds GoldJ RWardS V (John Wiley, New York) pp 39–52
6.
AshworthG JVoogdH, 1995Selling the City (John Wiley, New York)
7.
BalducciAFareriP, 1996, “Consensus-building as a strategy to cope with planning problems at different territorial levels: Examples from the Italian case study”, paper presented at the ACSP–AESOP Joint International Congress, Toronto, Canada; copy available from A Balducci, Instituto per la Ricerca Sociale (IRS), Via XX Settembre 24, 20123 Milan, Italy
8.
BerkenboschR, 1996, “Het onvoorspelbare lot van het grote project” [The unforeseeable fate of the major project] Kenmerken310–15
9.
BerkowitzI, 1979, “Social choice and policy formulation: Problems and considerations in the construction of the public interest”Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare6533–545
10.
BruijnJ AJongPKorstenA F Avan ZantenW P C (Eds), 1996Grote Projectien, Besluitvorming en Management, [Large projects, decision-making and management] (Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands)
11.
CampbellD T, 1986, “Rationality and utility from the standpoint of evolutionary biology”The Journal of Business59355–364
12.
CampbellSFainsteinS S (Eds), 1996Readings in Urban Theory (Blackwell, Cambridge, MA)
13.
CastenmillerP, 1988, “Participatie in beweging, ontwikkelingen in politieke participatie in Nederland” [Participation in motion, developments in political participation in the Netherlands], cahier number 59, Social and Cultural Planning Office, PO Box 16164, 2500-BD The Hague, The Netherlands
14.
CheckowayBvan TilJ, 1978, “What do we know about citizen participation: A selective review of the research”, in Citizen Participation in America: Essays on the State of the Art Ed. LangdonS (D C Heath, Lexington, MA) pp 25–42
CroninT E, 1989Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
17.
DahlR A, 1961Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
18.
DahlR A, 1982Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy vs Control, Yale Studies in Political Sciences, number 31 (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
19.
DawesR, 1980, “Social dilemmas”Annual Review of Psychology31169–193
20.
DayD, 1997, “Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested concept?”Journal of Planning Literature11421–434
21.
DekkerP MNasMHemmersC, 1997, “Maatschappelijke organisaties, publieke opinie en milieu”, [Non-governmental organisations, public opinion and the environment], cahier number 137, Social and Cultural Planning Office, PO Box 16164, 2500-BD The Hague, The Netherlands
22.
van DethJLeijenaarM, 1994, “De politieke participatie van maatschappelijk actieven” [The political participation of socially active persons], in Civil Society Eds DekkerP, Social and Cultural Planning Office, PO Box 16164, 2500-BD The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 221–239
23.
DijkstraR, 1996, “Burgers denken mee door Infralab!” [Citizens think along through Infralab!] Agora June issue, pp 8–9
24.
DriessenP P JGlasbergenP (Eds), 1993Innovatie in het Gebiedsgericht Beleid: Analyse en Beoordeling van het ROM-Gebiedenbeleid, [Innovation in area orientated policy: Analysis and assessment of the ROM area orientated policy] (SDU uitgeverij, The Hague)
25.
Dutch Environmental Policy Advisory Council, 1996, “Advies draagvlak voor het milieubeleid” [Recommendation on support for the environmental policy], Raad voor het Milieubeheer, EPAC, P O Box 30949, IPC 290, 2500-GX, The Hague, The Netherlands
26.
ElsterJ (Ed.), 1998Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
27.
FisherFUryW, 1981Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)
28.
FlyvbjergB, 1996Rationality and Power (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants)
29.
ForesterJ, 1989Planning in de Face of Power (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
30.
FriedmannJ, 1993, “Toward a non-Euclidean mode of planning”Journal of the American Planning Association59482–485
31.
GilbertN, 1979, “The design of community planning structures”Social Service Review53644–654
32.
GlasbergenP (Ed.), 1995Managing Environmental Disputes, Network Management as an Alternative (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
33.
GrantJ, 1994The Drama of Democracy: Contention and Dispute in Community Planning (University of Toronto Press, Toronto)
34.
HabermasJ, 1990Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
35.
HallP, 1982Great Planning Disasters (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
36.
HallS, 1977, “Culture, the media and the ‘ideological’ effect”, in Mass Communication and Society Eds CurranJCurevitchMWollacottJ (Edward Arnold/Open University Press, London)
37.
HarperT LSteinS M, 1992, “The centrality of normative ethical theory to contemporary planning theory”Journal of Planning Education and Research11(2) 105–116
38.
HealeyP, 1996, “The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design23217–234
39.
HealeyP, 1997Collaborative Planning, Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (Macmillan, London)
40.
HealeyPPurdueMEnnisF, 1995Negotiating Development: Rationales and Practice for Development Obligations and Planning Gain (E and F N Spon, London)
41.
van der HeidenC NKokJPostumaRWallaghG J, 1991, “Consensus-building as an essential element of the Dutch planning system”, paper presented at the ACSP–AESOP Joint Congress, Oxford; copy available from C N van der Heiden, AME, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018-VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
42.
ten HeuvelhofE FTermeerC, 1991, “Gebiedsgericht beleid en het bereiken van win–win situaties” [Area orientated policy and reaching win–win situations] Bestuurswetenschappen4301–315
43.
den HoedPSaletWvan der SluijsH, 1983Planning als Onderneming, (Planning as enterprise) (Staatsuitgeverij, The Hague)
44.
HuigenJFrissenP H ATopsP W, 1993, “Het project Betuweroute: Spoorlijn of bestuurlijke co-productie? Leerervaringen voor besluitvorming inzake grootsehalige infrastructuur” [The Betuwe project: Railway line or administrative co-production?), Faculty of Law Science, Katholieke Universiteit, Brabant/Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000-LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
45.
InnesJ E, 1992, “Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey”Journal of the American Planning Association58440–453
46.
InnesJ E, 1995, “Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice”Journal of Planning Education and Research14183–189
47.
InnesJ E, 1996, “Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal”Journal of the American Planning Associations62460–472
48.
InnesJ EBooherD E, 1997, “Evaluating consensus-building: Making dreams into realities”, paper presented at the AESOP congress, Nijmegen; copy available from J E Innes, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, CA
49.
JollesH M, 1974De Poreuze Demokratie: Een Sociologisch Onderzoek naar het Inspraakverschijnsel, (The porous democracy: A sociological study into the consultation phenomenon] (Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands)
50.
KaiserE JGodschalkD RChapinStuart FJr, 1995Urban Land Use Planning (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL)
51.
KorstenA F AKropmanJ A, 1977, “Participatie en politick: Verslag van een onderzoek naar effekten van inspraak bij de streckplanontwikkeling voor Midden-Gelderland” [Participation and politics: Report on a study into the effects of consultation in regional planning for the Midden-Gelderland area], Instituut voor Toegepaste Sociologie, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
52.
KriesiHGiugniM G, 1996, “Ökologische bewegungen im internationalen vergleich: Zwischen konflikt und kooperation” [Ecological organisations in an international comparison: Between conflict and cooperation] Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie36324–349
53.
LammersO, 1996, “Beheer en onderhoud Vecht naar waterschappen: Restauratieplan maakt rivier weer gezond” [Management and maintenance of the Vecht by waterboards: Restoration plan cures river] Het Waterschap81 (23–24) 766–768
54.
LijphartA, 1984Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
55.
LindblomC, 1968The Policy-making Process (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
56.
LowN PGleesonB J, 1997, “Justice in and to the environment: Ethical uncertainties and political practices”Environment and Planning A2921–42
57.
LynchK, 1981A Theory of Good City Form (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
58.
MandelbaumS JMazzaLBurchellR W, 1996Explorations in Planning Theory (Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ)
59.
MassamB H, 1993The Right Place, Shared Responsibility and the Location of Public Facilities (Longman, London)
60.
MillJ S, 1910Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government (Dent, London)
61.
Ministry of Physical Planning and Environment, 1997, “Het Pegasus-Programma, 20 tips voor interactieve beleidsontwikkeling” [The Pegasus programme, 20 tips for interactive policy making], PO Box 20951, 2500-EZ, The Hague, The Netherlands
62.
Ministry of Transport and Public Works, 1995, “Recht doen aan inspraak” [Doing justice to consultation], PO Box 20901, 2500-EX, The Hague, The Netherlands
63.
Ministry of Transport and Public Works, 1996, “Open Deuren—werkdocument” [Open doors—working document], PO Box 20901, 2500-EX, The Hague, The Netherlands
64.
Ministry of Transport and Public Works, 1997, “Draagvlak en maatschappelijke acceptatie” [Support and societal acceptance], PO Box 20901, 2500-EX, The Hague, The Netherlands
65.
Ministry of Transport and Public Works, 1998, “Raamwerk Integrale Beleidsvorming Hoofdinfrastructuur” [A framework for integral policy making regarding major infrastructure], PO Box 20901, 2500-EX, The Hague, The Netherlands
66.
NiekerkFVoogdHWoltjerJ, 1997, “Consensusvorming en effectanalyses bij de prioriteitsstelling van hoofdinfrastructuur: Synthese en aanzet tot discussie” [Consensus-building and impact assessments in priority setting regarding main infrastructure: Synthesis and onset for discussion], Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
67.
PeattieL, 1968, “Reflections on advocacy planning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners3480–88
68.
PivenF PRosenS M, 1970, “Whom does the advocate planner serve?”Social Policy1(1) 32–37
69.
SagerT, 1994Communicative Planning Theory (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants)
70.
ScharpfF, 1970Demokratietheorie zwischen Utopie und Anpassung, [Democracy theory between utopia and adaptation] (Universitaetsverlag, Konstanz)
71.
SchroederD (Ed.), 1990Social Dilemmas: Social Psychological Perspectives (Praeger, New York)
72.
Scientific Council for Government Policy, 1994Besluiten over grote Projecten, [Deciding about large projects] (SDU Uitgeverij, The Hague)
73.
SewellW R DCoppockJ T (Eds), 1977Public Participation in Planning (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
74.
SimonH A, 1965Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organizations (Free Press, New York)
75.
SirgyM J, 1986, “A quality-of-life theory derived from Maslow's developmental perspective: ‘quality’ is related to progressive satisfaction of a hierarchy of needs, lower order and higher”American Journal of Economics and Sociology45329–342
76.
SusskindLCruikshankJ, 1987Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes (Basic Books, New York)
77.
TeismanG R, 1997, “Sturen via creatieve concurrentie, een innovatie-planologisch perspectief op ruimtelijke investeringsprojecten” [Governing via creative competition, an innovation planning perspective on spatial investment projects], Inaugural Oration at the Catholic University of Nijmegen; copy available from Faculty of Political Sciences, Catholic University of Nijmegen, PO Box 9108, 6500-HK, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
78.
TeismanG RVerheijT, 1995, “Besluitvorming grote infrastructurele projecten” [Decision-making major infrastructural projects], report, Bestad Bestuurskundig Advies, Lange Voorhout 46, 2514-EG The Hague, The Netherlands
79.
VeldboerL, 1996, “De inspraak voorbij: Ervaringen van burgers en lokale bestuurders met nieuwe vormen van overleg” [Beyond consultation: Experiences of citizens and local administrators with new types of deliberation], Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
80.
VermaN, 1996, “Understanding what we can't define? The epistemology of sustainable development”Trialog486–11
81.
VoogdH, 1994, “The environment as an object of planning”, in Issues in Environmental Planning Ed. VoogdH (Pion, London) pp 9–30
82.
VoogdH, 1995, “Environmental management of social dilemmas”European Spatial Research and Policy2(1) 5–16
83.
VoogdH, 1998a, “The communicative ideology and ex ante planning evaluation”, in Evaluation in Planning: Facing the Challenge of Complexity Eds LichfieldNBarbanenteABorriDKhakeeAPratA (Elsevier, Amsterdam)
84.
VoogdH, 1998b, “Social dilemmas and the communicative planning paradox”Town Planning Review; copy available from the author
85.
VoogdHWoltjerJ, 1996, “Besluitvorming via onderhandelen, een oud gebruik in een nieuw perspectief” [Decision-making via negotiating, an old custom in a new perspective] Beleidsanalyse24(4) 12–21
86.
VriesJvan den BroeckJ, 1997, “Benelux, a microcosm of planning cultures”Built Environment23(1)58–69
87.
WarnerM, 1997, “Consensus participation: An example for protected areas planning”Public Administration and Development17413–432
88.
WoltjerJ, 1996, “Praktijkonderzoek consensusvorming” [Empirical study into consensus-building], Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
89.
WoltjerJ, 1997, “De keerzijde van het draagvlak, ruimtelijke ordening niet altijd gebaat bij maatschappelijke discussie” [The other side of consensus, public debate not always beneficial for spatial planning] Stedebouw en Ruimtelijke Ordening447–52
90.
WoltjerJ, 1998, “Interactieve Planvorming, inventarisatie en evaluatie van praktijk-initiatieven” [Interactive plan-making, an inventory and evaluation of practical initiatives], report P99–004, Dutch Organisation of Applied Scientific Research (TNO), PO Box 6041, 2600-JA Delft, The Netherlands
91.
WoltjerJ, 1999Consensus Planning for Infrastructure DevelopmentPhD thesis, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
92.
YiftachelO, 1998, “Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side”Journal of Planning Literature12395–406
93.
ZonneveldW, 1991Conceptvorming in de Ruimtelijke Planning [Concept building in spatial planning], PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
