Abstract
This book will be useful for those who need conceptual guidance to navigate through a maze of theoretical concepts, such as: Neoliberalism; Postcolonial urbanism; Governmentality; Assemblages; Resilience; and seventeen other concepts which the authors consider important for practitioners. 1 Whether the subtitle of this book—that it is intended for practitioners—accurately describes the audience for the book is not totally clear, however. The authors state in the introduction that their “ambition” in writing this book was “to identify and discuss the range of theories that are currently helping academics understand more about the worlds in which planning operates, even if they are not conventionally deemed to be part of the traditional cannon of planning theory” (p. 22). Also, at the end of the book the authors provide a glossary of frequently used terms, such as: Empiricism, Epistemology, Ontology, Paradigm, Postmodernism, and others. One wonders, however, whether practitioners worry about the difference between ontology and epistemology or similar conceptual distinctions. Nevertheless, the authors clearly describe the terms they consider to be ‘frequently used’; they also provide succinct summaries of the 22 main concepts which will be helpful for urban planning students who may feel lost in the maze of concepts currently in vogue. Wisely, the authors do not push any one theory over others, hoping that the readers would find their own ways out of the maze once they understand the various theoretical concepts. This open ended, building blocks approach to theoretical explorations makes this book a good example of pluralistic thinking, meaning that this book is not a totalitarian effort to explain everything with one overarching idea.
Does this book provide a road map for planning practitioners? As the authors rightly point out, planning covers a broad range of activities which are practiced in various forms by various actors in multiple institutional settings. We all have our favorite setting for planning: some like it bottom up, as practiced by community groups and non-governmental organizations, while others may consider that governmental planning apparatus, spanning from the local to the national level, is where key planning decisions are made. The planning domain that interests me is public planning led by government planners who are often referred to as “bureaucrats” which is a disparaging term these days. Hence, I read this book searching for advice for those practitioners who operate within “the state”. Some may recall that starting in the 1980s, when “Neoliberalism” emerged as an alternative to “Keynesianism”—by the way, these two contrasting concepts regarding the appropriate role of the state are explained well in this book—governmental planning has been steadily tarnished by critics from both the right and left of the ideological spectrum. On the right, to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan who, along with Margaret Thatcher, led the neoliberal attack on Keynesianism and “big government”, state-led planning, which the Keynesians had considered necessary for problem solving since the great depression, had itself become the problem by the early 1980s. According to the critics on the left, the so called “capitalist state” ran out of reform mongering efforts by Keynesians in the face of mounting contradictions leading to “structural crises”. Yet, after 40 years of such criticism and multiple efforts to delegitimize and descale governments, cities, regions and nations continue to plan, admittedly not in the same way as during the hay days of planning immediately after World War II, but still as a key instrument for promoting growth and equity. The current pandemic has added a new sense of urgency for governmental intervention, not only to control the spread of the virus but also to counteract the deepening global economic depression which resulted from the pandemic. The policies being proposed are similar in intent to what Keynes had recommended some 90 years ago! Whether one likes government or not, public sector planners are once again emerging as key actors to chart a path to recovery.
What does this book, with the subtitle “Theory for Practitioners” offer to such planners, I was eager to learn. Three sections, one on “Governance, the state and state rescaling”, the second on “Governmentality”, and a third on “Nudging” drew my attention, at first glance. All three sections explain clearly what the various terms mean but do not take a position on how familiarity with these concepts can enhance planning practice. In a way, the emphasis on the mega theoretical constructs, such as “the state”, and “governmentality”, takes attention away from the more interesting question of how public planners actually function within the state, and which concepts do they rely on to formulate and implement public policies. In general, most concepts described in this book are critical of “the capitalist state” and, as a result, do not make any attempt to understand variations in state performance: Why some planners are more successful than other planners in framing problems? Why some organizational arrangements are good for addressing certain problems? And why some public policies work better than others? The section on “nudging” offers a pragmatic view of planning in the sense that it describes a relatively recent effort to move away from strong regulations to “nudging” as a strategy to influence the behaviors of market actors. A practitioner would like to know how such a reform of regulatory policies is to be initiated. What are the likely institutional barriers to such reform? And is “nudging” a feasible option for public policies at a time of unprecedented political polarization, as now?
This lack of interest in what practicing planners actually do, compared to what academic planners want them to do, reduces the usefulness of this book for practitioners. The proverbial gap between theory and practice is not likely to close if practitioners learn more academic theories, but quite the opposite. What practitioners need are stories which are built on critical observation of actual practice within specific organizational settings, at specific moments, to address specific problems, may that be regarding mobility, housing or other bread and butter issues for urban planners. Thoughtfully crafted stories which acknowledge the constraints planners work with to address problems can be more useful for practitioners than reading about “postcolonial urbanism”.
To be fair to the authors, they do mention, more than once, that their ultimate goal is to assist practitioners. To achieve that noble goal, however, concepts like “governmentality” may be useful to counter the arrogance of planners who think that they alone can define “public interest”, but such awareness by itself cannot lead to effective practice. Planners need to be able to define problems in such a way that something can be done to address such problems. In this regard, the starkly dualistic description of problems as either “simple” or “wicked” is not particularly useful. How planners actually frame problems, what categories do they use, and how do they strategize what is the most pragmatic way to address a problem, those kinds of questions may be more illuminating for practitioners. Do such practitioners rely on mega theoretical concepts of the kind the authors highlight, or do they rely on implicit theories of action which rest on understanding of how organizations operate, why they address certain problems and not others, how old policies are reformed, and why some state interventions lead to learning. Yes, public planners do learn from past efforts when motivated by useful evaluations which do not dismiss all state actions as “failed policies”, but, instead, focus on why some interventions, or parts of interventions, work better than others. Only such a learning process can build the confidence of planners which is necessary for effective practice. This is a very different way to enhance practice than to conceptualize state action as either coercion on behalf of capital or yet another effort at rent seeking by bureaucrats. Caught in between criticisms from both the right and the left leaning academics who hate government but for different reasons, how do public planners operate in practice? Which theories, implicit or explicit, do they rely on? And how can such “theories” be refined by learning from past actions? I would think that a book that claims to provide theories for practitioners would engage with such questions even if we lack clear-cut answers.
It is true, as the authors argue, that one road block to problem solving is the maze of various conceptual categories and esoteric terms which can be perplexing, particularly for newcomers to the field. This book would be helpful for those newcomers, in classroom settings, to cut through the smog of high-sounding concepts and propositions which, unfortunately, seem to be intensifying, not clearing with time. So, I would definitely recommend this book to students, hoping that, eventually, they will be able to construct their own theories of action as they become thoughtful and “reflective practitioners” who theorize from practice and not the other way around.