Both advocates and critics of deliberative planning often study deliberative planning processes as if they are real-life approximations of an ideal situation where the only force is the force of the better argument. However, in the course of the last decade democratic theorists came to develop a complex systemic understanding of the role of deliberation in policy making. In this view, legitimate decision making is not a one-time process but an ongoing pattern of interaction between organized institutions and the public sphere. This paper builds on recent work on political representation to develop a framework for studying deliberative planning as a type of representative claim made within a complex ecology of representative institutions and applies this framework to the case of a deliberative planning initiative in East Jerusalem. We examine the weaknesses and strengths of deliberative planning processes in a political environment that is not hospitable to public participation in planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltshulerA, 1965, “The goals of comprehensive planning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners3197–186
2.
BaumH S, 1998, “Ethical behavior is extraordinary behavior; it's the same as all other behavior”Journal of the American Planning Association64411–424
3.
BenvenistiESagiG, 2005, “Public participation in the administrative decision-making”, in Zamir Book on Law, Society and Politics Eds DotanYBendorA, (Sacher Institute, Hebrew University, Jerusalem)
4.
BohmanJ, 1998, “Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy”Journal of Political Philosophy6400–425
5.
BollensS A, 2000On Narrow Ground—Urban Policy and Ethnic Conflict in Jerusalem and Belfast (SUNY Press, Albany, NY)
6.
BrownM B, 2006, “Survey article: Citizen panels and the concept of representation”Journal of Political Philosophy14203–225
7.
CarrD SHalvorsenK, 2001, “An evaluation of three democratic community-based approaches to citizen participation: Surveys, conversation with community groups, and community dinners”Society and Natural Resources14107–126
8.
ChambersS, 2009, “Rhetoric and the public sphere”Political Theory37323–350
9.
Cohen-BlankshtainGGadot-PerezA, 2009, “When an NGO takes on public participation: Preparing a plan for a neighborhood in East Jerusalem”, unpublished manuscript
10.
CookBKothariU, 2004, “The case for participation as tyranny”, in Participation: The New Tyranny? (Zed Books, London) pp 1–15
11.
DavidoffP, 1965, “Advocacy and pluralism in planning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners21331–338
12.
FeinsteinS, 2000, “New directions in planning theory”Urban Affairs Review35451–478
13.
FisherF, 2005, “Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment”American Review of Public Administration3619–40
14.
FishkinJ S, 1995The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
15.
FlyvbjergB, 1998Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice (Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL)
16.
ForesterJ, 1994, “Bridging interests and community: Advocacy planning and the challenges of deliberate democracy”Journal of the American Planning Association60153–159
FungA, 2005, “Deliberation before the revolution: Toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world”Political Theory33397–419
19.
GoodinR EDryzekJ S, 2006, “Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics”Politics Society34219–244
20.
HabermasJ, 1996Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
21.
HaywardC R, 2004, “Doxa and deliberation”Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy71–24
22.
HealeyP, 1992, “Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory”Town Planning Review63143–162
23.
HendriksC M, 2006, “Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society's dual role in deliberative democracy”Political Studies54486–508
24.
InnesJ E, 1995, “Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice”Journal of Planning Education and Research14183–191
25.
InnesJ E, 2004, “Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics”Planning Theory35–20
26.
InnesJ EBooherD E, 1999, “Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning”Journal of the American Planning Association659–26
27.
IrvinR EStansburyJ, 2004, “Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?”Public Administration Review6455–65
28.
MargalitM, 2009, “The local committee in Jerusalem represents right wing and ultra-orthodox groups”Haaretz [The Marker], 6 October
29.
MargerumR D, 2002, “Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice”Journal of Planning Education and Research21237–253
30.
MontpetitE, 2003, “Public consultation in policy network environments: The case of assisted reproductive technology policy in Canada”Canadian Public Policy2995–110
31.
Municipality of Jerusalem, 2007, “Meeting protocol and decision”, 10 December
32.
PitkinH F, 1967The Concept of Representation (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
33.
RapaportM, 2006, “Evitar Cohen will not divide Jerusalem”Haaretz [The Marker], 20 January
34.
RehfeldA, 2006, “Towards a general theory of political representation”The Journal of Politics681–21
35.
SawardM, 2006. “The representative claim”Contemporary Political Theory5297–318
36.
ShirlowPMurtaghB, 2004, “Capacity-building, representation and intracommunity conflict”Urban Studies4175–70
37.
ShmueliD, 2005, “Is Israel ready for participatory planning? Expectations and obstacles”Planning Theory and Practice6(4) 485–514
38.
Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem 2004/05Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies
39.
Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem 2009/10Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies
40.
VraneskiAAltermanR, 1994, “Who is [not] afraid of citizen participation in planning”Ir Ve'Ezor [Town and Region]23123–150
41.
WarrenM E, 2008, “Citizen representatives”, in Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly Eds WarrenM EPearseH, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 50–69
42.
YacobiH, 2007, “The NGOnization of space: Dilemmas of social change, planning policy and the Israeli public sphere”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space25745–758
43.
YiftachelO, 1998, “Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side”Journal of Planning Literature12395–406
44.
YiftachelOHuxleyM, 2000, “Debating dominance and relevance: Notes on the ‘communicative turn’ in planning theory”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24907–913
45.
YiftachelOYacobiH, 2003, “Urban ethnocracy: Ethnicization and production of space in an Israeli ‘mixed city’”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space21673–693
46.
YoungI M, 2000Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford University Press, New York)
