Context of Planning Lecture - Theories and approaches [Compatibility Mode]

Planning and Managing Planning and Managing Development Development

Lecture 1Lecture 1

Theoretical Context of Planning and Theoretical Context of Planning and Theoretical Context of Planning and Theoretical Context of Planning and Managing DevelopmentManaging Development

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 which A rational process of thought and action which ultimately aims (as science does) at promoting ultimately 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 can when time is on our side and we can •• VisionaryVisionary--when time is on our side and we can when 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 throw when development situations throw themselves at us themselves at us

–– Major flood disaster, tsunami etcMajor flood disaster, tsunami etc

Classical Planning ModelClassical Planning Model

SELECTOR

RECEPTORMEMORY

EFFECTOR

ENVIRONMENT

After Faludi (1973:61)

How Should We Plan/Respond to Development SituationsHow Should We Plan/Respond to Development Situations

Issue Identification Issue Identification and Definitionand Definition

Formulation of Formulation of ObjectivesObjectives

Identification of Identification of

••Evaluation and Evaluation and FeedbackFeedback

Identification of Identification of alternativesalternatives

••Selection of Selection of favoured alternativefavoured alternative

Plan Plan ImplementationImplementation

••Plan Plan formulationformulation

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 an Do 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 development Can 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 specific Can 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

But………But………

•• Claim to professional statusClaim to professional status--

–– Vs Beck (1992)’s argument that political content of Vs Beck (1992)’s argument that political content of decision making grows in proportion to the effort being decision 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 suggests falsely suggests •• Unitary public interest assumptionUnitary public interest assumption--falsely suggests falsely suggests that the goals of plans are universally shared, that the goals of plans are universally shared, ignoring the multiplicity of interests in any ignoring the multiplicity of interests in any development environmentdevelopment environment

–– plurality of interests in society, the pervasiveness of plurality of interests in society, the pervasiveness of conflict, and the political nature of development activity conflict, 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)

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 planning strong 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--radical radical –– planners do not have a clean slate for planningplanners do not have a clean slate for planning--radical radical alternatives not feasible as all decisions relate to previous alternatives not feasible as all decisions relate to previous decisions though not logicallydecisions though not logically--science of muddling science of muddling throughthrough

Blue print planningBlue print planning

–– name derives from dyeline prints of name derives from dyeline prints of engineering designs for construction projectsengineering designs for construction projects

–– planning is a technical exercise in which planning is a technical exercise in which control and detailed specification of output control and detailed specification of output reinforce each other reinforce 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 plan once a design plan

has been made little room for manoeuvrehas been made little room for manoeuvre-- we we have to stick to the designhave to stick to the design

–– Emphasis on technical and expert control and Emphasis on technical and expert control and sticking to the designsticking to the design--•• Chamberian professional biases Chamberian professional biases

Conventional Project CycleConventional Project Cycle

IdentificationEvaluation

Preparation

Appraisal

Implementation

The weakest Stage.

Poor or absent

stakeholder analysis,

needs assessment,

problem analysis

IdentificationEvaluation

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

Emerging Approaches Since the 1970sEmerging Approaches Since the 1970s

•• Many divergent perspectives but increasing tendencies toward Many 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 rationality Abandon rationality (Hooch 1994) Vs Reconfigure rationality (Alexander 1994)(Alexander 1994)

•• New Approaches reflect role of planning as a field of decision New 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 citizens is a participatory style which requires that both planners and citizens is a participatory style which requires that both planners and citizens is a participatory style which requires that both planners and citizens have the capacity to listen sympathetically and have the capacity to listen sympathetically and share the responsibility share the responsibility for problem definition and solutionfor problem definition and solution..

–– Planning as bargainingPlanning as bargaining-- Dorcey’s (1986)Dorcey’s (1986)--political process involving political process involving interaction of numerous individuals that bargain and negotiate from interaction of numerous individuals that bargain and negotiate from varying power bases to achieve objectives that at least partially reflect varying 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) or Radical planning (Sandercock 1998) or –– CommunityCommunity--based planning (Leavitt 1994)based planning (Leavitt 1994)

Planning as Social TransformationPlanning as Social Transformation

•• Friedman(1987) Planning is the deliberate transfer of Friedman(1987) Planning is the deliberate transfer of knowledge to action in the public domain for the knowledge to action in the public domain for the purposes of moving towards a shared vision of the good purposes of moving towards a shared vision of the good societysociety

–– Planning seen as a continuum: from societal Planning seen as a continuum: from societal guidance to social transformationguidance to social transformation

–– Removes planning from the hands of professionals Removes planning from the hands of professionals and places it within the realm of community and places it within the realm of community organisers, activists and ordinary citizens all working organisers, activists and ordinary citizens all working with, in collaboration with and even against state with, in collaboration with and even against state with, in collaboration with and even against state with, in collaboration with and even against state sanctioned planning processessanctioned planning processes

•• Four traditions of planning theory links knowledge to Four traditions of planning theory links knowledge to actionaction

–– Social reformSocial reform

–– Policy analysisPolicy analysis

–– Social learningSocial learning

–– Social mobilisationSocial mobilisation

Example of Planning as Social Example of Planning as Social TransformationTransformation

•• Process planningProcess planning

–– planning is a process of trial and error aiming planning is a process of trial and error aiming to cope with phenomenon that is constantly to cope with phenomenon that is constantly on the move. on the move. on the move. on the move.

–– Output is constantly subject to change under Output 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)

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)

Key features of new planning paradigmKey features of new planning paradigm

•• participatory and decentered in styleparticipatory and decentered in style

•• concerned with developing shared concerned with developing shared solutions to development issuessolutions to development issues

•• centred on learning about the perceptions centred on learning about the perceptions •• centred on learning about the perceptions centred on learning about the perceptions and concerns of othersand concerns of others

•• Focus on sharing the responsibility for Focus on sharing the responsibility for planning outcomes planning outcomes

Contextual Hierarchies of PlanningContextual Hierarchies of Planning

•• Policy: Provides overarching framework for Policy: Provides overarching framework for development interventionsdevelopment interventions

•• Programme: long term multi activity Programme: long term multi activity endeavours implemented by networks of endeavours implemented by networks of country institutions in multiple locations country institutions in multiple locations whose production and or service delivery whose production and or service delivery whose production and or service delivery whose production and or service delivery objectives and impact goals are derived from objectives and impact goals are derived from indigenous policy choicesindigenous policy choices

•• Project: Discrete time bound sets of activities Project: Discrete time bound sets of activities intended to bring about changes from an intended to bring about changes from an existing situationexisting situation

Planning Development: The ExperiencesPlanning Development: The Experiences

–– Belief in planning dominated thinking in the 1950s Belief in planning dominated thinking in the 1950s through to 1970s. Why?through to 1970s. Why?

•• Centralised planning had achieved results in Centralised planning had achieved results in both communist and neoboth communist and neo--liberal states(soviet liberal states(soviet planning systems and Marshal Planplanning systems and Marshal Plan

•• Socialist development theory and belief in a Socialist 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 by Political pressure could be soaked up by showing that there was a plan to get things showing that there was a plan to get things ‘moving’‘moving’

Disillusionment with PlanningDisillusionment with Planning

•• By 1970s most plans had failed and there was By 1970s most plans had failed and there was a realisation that national level focus of a 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 not Institutional failures (the state was not working)working)

Emergence of ProjectsEmergence of Projects

•• New focus on projects as ‘building blocks’ of New focus on projects as ‘building blocks’ of development since late 1960s and 1970sdevelopment since late 1960s and 1970s

–– Seen as cutting edge of development where Seen as cutting edge of development where resources where converted into improved welfare resources where converted into improved welfare (Gittinger, 1982)(Gittinger, 1982)

–– Donors saw them as neat fundable development Donors saw them as neat fundable development –– Donors saw them as neat fundable development Donors 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 to what it failed to achieve at a grand scale it could achieve locally.achieve at a grand scale it could achieve locally.

Disillusionment with ProjectsDisillusionment with Projects

•• By 1980s WB was reporting that 51% of its By 1980s WB was reporting that 51% of its projects had projects had failedfailed. Why. Why??

–– Nature of development problemsNature of development problems--these are never these 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 & biases Lack 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

What Now?What Now?

•• Sector Wide Approach (SWA) /Direct Budget Sector 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 and Increasing tendency toward flexibility and process orientation.process orientation.

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 and Bargaining 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 initial Friedmann, 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 initial Friedmann, 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. Town Town

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 Space Environ. 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 interactive Innes, 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.