Abstract
Less than two decades ago, Healey (1996) announced the “communicative turn” in planning theories. Since then, communicative planning has become a household word in the planning world despite Huxley and Yiftachel’s (2000) rejection of communicative planning theory (CPT) as a dominant paradigm. Tore Sager was one of the fifteen scholars named by Huxley and Yiftachel as part of this communicative turn. Thus, it is both intriguing and poignant that Sager has felt the need to revive CPT.
The book opens with a preface that situates CPT as a critical theory (“taking a critical view of society,” p. xviii) and presents the two main criticisms against CPT: (1) CPT narrowly relies on the intellectual force of arguments and does not address how to stand up against powerful stakeholders who pursue self interest at the cost of public interest and (2) CPT actually promotes neoliberalism. This book addresses both criticisms by discussing power, politics, and ethics together. The rest of the book is divided into three parts that focus on each of these elements. Part I addresses the issue of power dynamics that CPT runs into in the form of nondeliberative stakeholder pressure. Part II explores the politics of CPT in relation to neoliberalism, and part III discusses the responsibilities of ethical planners. Undoubtedly, the book is about critical planning theory, but it strengthens the theory by answering its strongest criticisms with a practical solution.
Part I tackles one of the most dangerous threats to CPT: nondeliberative stakeholder pressure. In chapter 1, Sager presents arguments to legitimize CPT based on Habermas’s theory of communicative action (Habermas 1998): (1) CPT can lead to the “right decisions” (p. 30) by mechanisms of the Condorcet jury theorem, which implies that a group of individuals are more likely to make the right decision than an individual alone; (2) CPT promotes antipaternalism by encouraging deliberative democracy; and (3) CPT produces relational goods. Despite these good intentions of CPT, the criticism that CPT ignores or is defenseless in situations of power imbalances is a serious blow to its legitimacy. In chapter 2, Sager argues that planners can deal with these situations by increasing the transaction costs for powerful nondeliberative stakeholders. Chapters 3 and 4 survey the activist planning literature and suggest that planners can alter transaction costs through an informal alliance with an external actor, such as an interest group or social movement. This external actor should be powerful enough to exert pressure on nondeliberative stakeholders, thus giving more space to community members.
Part II explores the politics of CPT in relation to neoliberalism. This part consists of three chapters that survey the neoliberal policies of urban planning (chapter 5); compare and contrast neoliberalism, which manifests itself through new public management (NPM) policies, and CPT through a value lens (chapter 6); and presents a strategy for guarding CPT from becoming a “handmaiden” (p. xxiii) of neoliberalism (chapter 7). In order to address the criticism that CPT and NPM are in fact partners in crime, Sager begins by comparing the values of CPT and NPM side by side. He finds that the procedural values of CPT are empathy, empowerment, equality of moral worth, fairness, honesty, inclusiveness, responsiveness, and self-government, while the values of NPM are individualism, entrepreneurialism, accountability, prosperity, reward for the individual effort, and freedom of choice. However, critics have pointed to the curious similarities that seem to arise as both CPT and NPM emphasize users’ needs (called empathy and responsiveness in CPT, individualism and accountability in NPM) and flexibility heeding local knowledge and preferences (called responsiveness and self-government in CPT, entrepreneurialism and freedom of choice in NPM). Sager strongly rejects this seeming similarity by arguing that while CPT and NPM may arrive at the same conclusions that emphasize user needs and preferences, they do so by different reasoning. CPT is based on a democratic logic of harmony, while NPM is based on a market logic of security. Despite these sharp theoretical differences between CPT and NPM values, Sager acknowledges that CPT has been and can be used to legitimize neoliberal policies. This deliberate choice stands in stark contrast to previous responses from the planning literature—ambiguity or silence—and leads to this book’s strength: a practical strategy to guard against this danger. This strategy entails applying substantive value criteria, such as empathy, equality of moral worth, fairness, honesty, inclusiveness, responsiveness, and self-government, to outcomes of planning. The purpose is to bring substantive values and process values closer to each other for “effective safeguarding of quality outcomes” (p. 204). The proposed strategy is based on a sharp critique of previous planning literature that has treated substantive features of planning with a perfunctory nod; as a mere list of “goals” or “commitments” to be displayed (p. 205).
Part III reflects on the various responsibilities of planning theorists regarding end-use of theory, framing inclusive planning processes, and teaching and academic life. Chapter 8 highlights some criticisms against CPT that it has been used to co-opt activists, facilitated neoliberal economic governance, and aims for unrealistic and harmful consensus. Sager introduces the term “dual planning theory” (p. 239) to argue that planning theories have a dual-use nature that allows them to be used in both top–down and bottom–up processes, making it extremely difficult for the theorist to predict or affect the end-use of his or her work. Chapter 9 addresses the theorist’s responsibility to encourage the inclusion of “the Other” through normative planning theories. Sager critiques the theory of responsibility put forth by Emmanuel Levinas (2000) for its danger of ignoring “the Third” or the multiple Others at the expense of extreme hospitality. Instead, Sager concludes that Habermasian dialogue is still a more realistic “lodestar” (p. 269) for planners and planning theorists. Chapter 10 uses definitions of responsible decisions proposed by Jacque Derrida (2004) to outline the responsibilities of planning theorists as academics. Sager proposes that the values and principles of CPT should be applied to the theorist’s role in teaching and academic life, despite the increasing constraints resulting from academia’s adoption of neoliberal policies.
A book on CPT that is willing to acknowledge and address its sharpest critiques is refreshing and an essential step to reviving it. Sager recognizes, “It is not clear that more power to planning professionals would effectively protect against neo-liberal transformation of cities” (p. 197). The book’s purpose is not to refute the wrongdoings or dangers of CPT, but rather to be more forward-looking and suggest how CPT can be useful as a critical planning theory: altering transaction costs; applying substantive value criteria to planning outcomes; and abiding by a reasonable code of ethics. The book is about critical planning theory, but it answers the strongest criticisms of CPT with practical solutions. Despite this effort, the reader is left with an uneasy sense of wariness towards CPT as Sager makes strong statements regarding the three main arguments of the book. First, Sager suggests planners build coalitions with outside actors to counter the pressure from nondeliberative stakeholders. However, this technique assumes there is an outside actor who is willing and able to fulfill this role. The technique also poses risks of paternalism that subtly privilege the outside actor. Second, the list of substantive value criteria to guard against CPT’s co-optation by neoliberal ideas is itself at risk of being co-opted since it leaves a lot of room for diverse interpretations. Third, the book concludes with a list of responsibilities that communicative planning theorists should be held to, but the question of how or even why theorists should adopt this list remains, especially in light of the constraints in academia due to adoption of neoliberal policies.
In terms of structure, the book is presented in a reader-friendly format with detailed introductions and conclusions to each chapter. The main ideas are outlined in boxes and tables for easy interpretation. In sum, Reviving Critical Planning Theory: Dealing with Pressure, Neo-liberalism, and Responsibility in Communicative planning is a book that takes a pragmatic approach to reviving CPT, and while it may have fallen short of a full revival, Sager has started a dialogue that communicative planning theorists have uneasily ignored for too long.