Introduction
Good afternoon
Over the last fortnight James and I have read
through the reading for this week, which are arguments for and against planning
by “Richard E Klosterman”. During this
seminar we will analyses this reading and some other information we have found
for and against planning. Feel free to ask us anyone questions as we go. We
will ask you a few throughout the seminar and at the end we will have a short
class discussion on the importance of planning
So the format of this seminar is that we will talk
to you about the reading for this week I’ll introduce it and I’ll talk about
the Economic argument and the Marxist argument and James will talk about the
pluralist Argument and the traditional argument and then he will outline some other
key points and arguments for and against planning. Then we have some questions
which we will discuss as a class.
The role planning plays in the world is subjective.
And everyone has a different view on what planning is, how it affects us and
what role planning plays. So to answer the Question of what is planning I would
like to Quote Richard who said planning is everything and I think there is no
better way to put it.
Now looking at the reading for this week:
Arguments for
and against planning by “Richard E. Klosterman”; at the start the paper
outlines that the necessity of planning processes has been questioned for the
best part of the last century and we haven’t really answered those questions.
The paper then splits into 4 arguments for and against planning and critically
analyses those arguments. These four arguments are economic arguments,
pluralist arguments, traditional arguments and Marxist arguments.
Economic
Argument
So first the Economic argument;
History of the economic argument – the economic
argument dates back to the 1700 and 1800’s through British philosophers Adam
Smith and John Stuart Mill who put the case forward that government should try
as little as possible to get involved in the market to protect individual
liberty and promote freedom.
The economic argument argues competitive markets are
capable in theory of allocating societies resources in an efficient manner but
that markets often don’t remain competitive and fail. You need local government
involved in solving “market failures”. Which occur when there are discrepancies
between the perfect competitive market and the market in real life. Then the
argument splits into for parts to show how these ‘market failures’ work:
1. Public
goods: public goods are goods and services that are freely available they could
be things owned by the state or things that are just generically free for
example healthy environment which could cause a ‘market failure’ due to the
fact markets are based around people spending money and that people won’t spend
money on things they get for free and that makes the market less competitive
and possibly make it fail.
2. Externalities:
externalities is the side effects of production, which frequently are not taken
into account by producer and can affect the market as it can drive the cost of
production up. Which means the producer would either have to take that cost and
possibly end up losing money or can pass on the cost to the consumer making
there good or service more expensive.
3. Prisoners’
dilemma condition – is where two prisoners or more have a situation where they
can confess and get a more lenient penalty but if all confess they would be
worse of then if they all stayed silent: Prisoners’ dilemma condition in this
case is that because society and people are dependent on each other. The more
passive people get the more society declines. The more active people are in
society the more society thrives
4. Distributional
questions: the distributional question is that social issues that society want the government to deal with require a lot of
planning to be efficient and can’t effectively take place from one centralized
coordinate.
Can you think of any arguments this could be making
against planning?
Against
planning
·
Too much regulation
·
Stifle entrepreneurial initiative
·
Impede innovation
·
Impose unnecessary financial and
administrative burdens
For planning
·
Local governments need to be involved
and plan to stop ‘Market Failures’
·
Planning is needed to work out
distribution of people, business and services
·
Planning is needed to stop
inefficiencies (market, business, design etc)
Criticisms of Economic argument
The argument is very narrow and doesn't look at many
issues in society
As a
planner, you serve the role of a community builder who influences social life
through the decisions you make that have a direct impact on the way a community
operates and interacts. It is because of this, in theory, a planner should
represent the interest of the public. Whilst this is the case, planning is a
highly political and complicated process that encompasses a broad range of
fields such as architecture, economics and sociology. This short YouTube video
briefly outlines the role of an urban planner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qa3Z-V_1D4
The
article at hand, written by Richard E. Klosterman, is a piece that critiques
the necessity of Government planning whilst also offering suggestions relating
to how it could operate efficiently whilst fulfilling the fundamental needs of
society. As mentioned earlier, the article is split into four main arguments,
being, economic arguments, pluralist arguments, traditional arguments, and
Marxist arguments. Today I am going to explore the pluralist arguments and the
traditional arguments, and evaluate either their support for, or against
Government planning. Firstly I will discuss the traditionalist approach to
planning. The planning profession originated at the turn of the 20th century in
response to the failings of the political process and market. These failings
were met with great discontent and was accurately depicted by the highly
corrupt political process and the squalor that many citizens were forced to
live in. Most traditional arguments support the need for planning as it was
common belief that professionals who’s day to day job included scientific
methods, and rationality in terms of the instruments used, could promote
economic growth and a stable political process more effectively than political
competition and market competition as both of these forces are unplanned and
unpredictable. The reasons for these beliefs include the fact that many viewed
planning as a “fourth power” that was independent from the Government, and had
the role of representing public interest over the interests of single
individuals or elitist groups. Other views included the planning profession
being viewed as a system in which coordinates all impacts of land-uses on adjoining
land owners and society as a whole. Consideration for future communities must
also be taken into account as current actions have both negative and positive
impacts 0n future day-to-day life. By the mid 20th century, social scientists
such as Lindblom began to again question the necessity of planning. They argued
that public sector planning was over restrictive as they believed planners were
too focused simply on the built environment and the way in which urban areas
were designed and run, reflected the middle-class views of that time period.
The theory that planners represent the public interest was tested as planning
satisfied the needs of business elites and high class conservatives. Whilst the
planning profession was under attack at this time, it was beginning to be clear
that it was heading in a new direction. This new direction was called the
rational planning model. The rational planning model included the process of
“problem identification, goal definition, analysis, implementation, and
evaluation.” At the time of its creation, this seemed to be a logical process
that could have a positive effect on society, yet recently, its effectiveness
has been questioned as while it dealt with the need for dealing with
externalities and providing collective goods, it still lacked the ability to
deal with the social and psychological realities of planning, therefore meaning
that the planning profession still lacks an accepted model for defining
problems and seeking acceptable solutions.
Pluralism
in terms of politics is the belief that power should be distributed equally
among many differing groups of society so that one single elite group does not
have control of the whole society. Many people believe that this approach
should be taken in regards to planning. Critics of planning such as Lindblom
and Wildavsky accepted the economic arguments stated earlier and believed that
no independent government intervention was necessary. The basis of these
arguments parallels to the economists theory of the perfectly competitive
market where competition between groups who are in pursuit of their particular
goals, is placed on a public agenda, meaning that no single group and their
views can dominate, whilst maintaining political stability. Because in a
perfectly competitive market there is no Government interference, many believe
Government has no other role than to establish and enforce rules relating to
planning. Because of this, there is political competition, like economic
competition, eliminating the need for Government action in an independent way
regarding coordination and planning. Because the pluralist model is similar to
the economic model, it contains the same restrictions. The political process is
dominated by people who use their access to people in positions of power to
make sure their own interests are kept secure. This ensures their “status,
privilege, and wealth” are maintained by Government policy decisions. The
profession of planning can be widely justified, as just like the constraints of
market competition, the pluralist approach cannot be in constant perfect
competition, it is not rational. Because of this, many authors propose that
planning simply be an add one of Government that performs actions such as
providing information to society so that the decentralized decision making
process is simplified and improved because of enhanced knowledge on the topic.
The
pluralist approach to planning contains strong links to the advocacy planning
approach. The advocacy planning approach was first promoted in Paul Davidoff’s
1965 article in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners, and rejects
the idea that one solitary plan representing public interest is the correct
approach to planning, whilst having one plan that represents the interests of
many groups within society is the more reliable option. Advocate planners have
acted primarily in the interests of the poor and the minorities that are often
unheard in the political process. In the article at hand, Klosterman makes note
of the Cleveland Planning Commissions efforts to promote “a wider range of
choices for those Cleveland residents who have few, if any choices.” The
advocacy planning approach also rejects the idea of a planning commission which
is supposed to be a neutral body that acts in the interests of the public,
claiming that it is merely political with no responsibility and complete
irrelevance. Having said this, advocacy planning shares many of the same
limitation as pluralist planning. These limitations include leaders not always
reflecting the interests of their group members, and public servants not having
adequate information to advocate for the minority as it is easier to represent
the narrowly defined interests of the elites.
It is
because of these restraints that there still remains a need for public sector
planning that can theoretically represent the main interests of the public
whilst considering the future consequences of these actions. The aim of
traditional arguments is not to dismiss the needs of businesses and private
interests; it merely suggests that by taking into account the interests of the
whole community, better plans can be made by the Government Planning
departments.
Marxist
argument
The Marxist argument originates in the 1800’s with
Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels who wrote the communist manifesto and provided a
different theory on the way life could be lead and the way countries could be
run which up till then was very much capitalist.
Marxist argument states that to understand the role
planning plays you have to look at the role of government and the Marxist
argument assumes the governments serve the long term interests of society and
planning is fundamental in society for social and economic reasons. In the
Marxist argument government ownership is essential for the state to deliver
long term polices and centralised planning which serves the long term interests
of society.
“Marxists
interpret planners’ actions in each sphere as primarily serving the interests
of the capital at the expense of society”
Can you think of any arguments this could be making
against planning?
Arguments for planning
·
Planners are necessary to provide
collective goods for society and control externalities. Planning also helps to
manage the “inevitable contradictions of
capitalism”
·
Delivers good outcomes for society and
manages capitalism
·
Helps economic development
·
Is important for social developments
Arguments against planning
·
Planning is corruptible by government
·
Identifies no mechanism for reform
Criticisms of Marxist argument
Is that it’s to idealistic. It relies on the
assumption that all governments are good, honest and not corrupt; and that the
serve the long term interests of society. This is often not the case especially
in western societies where they are focused on the next election.
Planning is limited from a Marxists point of view
planners can’t work on short term reforms with community based professionals
and organisations because they are to tied to the capital
The
relevance of planning has been an issue ever since its beginnings around the
turn of the 20th century, therefore this article is not the only source of
information regarding evidence that either supports or degrades the profession
of planning. Urban Times is an online site built for people such as bloggers
and journalists who want to voice their opinion or lend their expertise on
current issues that plague the world.
Urban Times believes that urban planning is a necessity in modern
society as it “is a valuable lever for city leaders to make a difference and
achieve sustainable development.” In its online version of the magazine, they
state ten reasons why they believe that urban planning is still a much needed
and relevant profession in modern society.
The
first reason why Urban Times believes urban planning to be important is because
it is “a framework for growth.” This means that the transformation of an area
must have a framework in place that can develop ones vision in a controlled
manner. A framework will anticipate the future needs and transform
appropriately so that an urban area can grow under a plan, rather than from
spontaneity.
Secondly,
“A planned city is a well prepared city.” If one has the potential to
anticipate any future problems, then a plan can be developed as time
progresses, and when this challenge arises, they will be in a better position
to overcome it. Not only are challenges more easily overcome, but future
opportunities may also be recognized.
Because
of the size of many urban areas, many challenges may arise at a similar time to
each other. This is why urban times’ third point of “Planning improves impact”
is an essential one. Because not all issues can be resolved at once, projects
need to be prioritized in terms of their relation to the overall aim of the
city or urban area. Planners identify the issues at hand, along with the resources
available, to make sure that projects undertaken are possible and align with
the vision of the city.
The
fourth point raised by Urban Times, “An appropriate urban form is very
important,” relates to human nature. Where you live and work are very important,
so policies relating to density, infrastructure and public use have a major
impact on day to day life. A positive urban form can be created by designing a
“spatial pattern” that addresses the main concerns of citizens.
The
fifth point made by Urban Times is “urban planning positively impacts urban
economy.” For a leader of an urban area, job opportunities are a major concern.
By attracting investment and generating economic activity, many jobs can be
created therefore boosting the urban economy. For a plan to be successful, all
members of society must agree on the vision and the means in which this vision
will be achieved, because “A collectively held plan allows cities to build
lasting relationships.” This point relates to the first point raised by Urban
Times as the framework holds this plan together through citizens, investors and
departments.
The
seventh point raised by urban times states, “A broader territorial perspective
helps cities attain economies of scale.” The actions one city undertake not
only affects the city itself, but it also effects the surrounding region’s
resources. This is why cities need to look beyond their borders and work
together with a plan to advantage from “cross-municipal coordination.”
Cross-municipal coordination simply means that urban areas of different zones
work together to achieve positive allocation of resources and they can also
draw on economies of scale.
A
plan made for a city is highly important, therefore, this plan should be stuck
to as close as possible depending on different issues that may arise throughout
the duration of the plan. This is why Urban Times believes that, “continuity
generates credibility.” Cities that have been successful in the past have
ensured the continuity of their plans throughout different political cycles.
Spatial planning can assist in creating this continuity, as it reduces
uncertainties and creates predictable conditions.
Cost
effectiveness plays a massive role on planning, and problems can be very
costly, therefore, “Anticipating is more cost effective than reacting to
problems.” In the past, a laissez faire approach to planning was the preferred
option. Current planning tends to move away from this approach as cities that
thoroughly plan are in a postion to anticipate future issues rather than deal
with them as they occur. Urban Times sums up this statement by saying,
“Unplanned spatial patterns are inefficient and require more resources to
maintain, and the high cost of bad or no decision is likely to make them
irreversible.”
The
final point made by Urban Times is that, “A framework gives consistency to
messages.” Government planning is a very political process, therefore the
messages made by local leaders must be clear, achievable and non-contradictary.
Because of this, support is important. Leaders can gain support if they can
demonstrate they are making progress that is in line with the framework and
vision for the area.
Urban
Times raises ten very important and intriguing points that relate to arguments
that support the need for Government planning in modern society.
The
article at hand has thoroughly discussed and examined four arguments explained
by Klosterman that have a variety of reasons for and against public sector or
Government planning. Despite there being reasons against planning,
fundamentally, all arguments agree that there needs to be some level of action
taken by Government, because in theory these arguments are justified,
practically they do not work. In terms of economics, Klosterman states that in
a perfectly competitive market, there is no need for Government interference as
the market is self regulating, but in reality we know this cannot work because Government
must intervene to remove market failures. If you take the pluralist approach to
planning, it is believed that planning is required to represent the interests
of the minorities and unheard instead of business elites. Pluralists like
economists, believe that Government intervention in the political process
should be kept to a minimum, but like the economics arguments, Government must
intervene otherwise the people with access to information will have their needs
satisfied. It is because of this that there must be some form of Government
intervention so that planners can serve as advocates for the neediest members
of society. Traditional arguments for planning suggest that planning reflects
the overall interest of society, but planning should be a department that is
independent to Government. Finally, the Marxist perspective of planning is an
overall view of the other arguments stated. The Marxist approach recognizes the
need for planning to be a representation of society whilst replacing decentralised
markets with centralised planning. An important point raised by the Marxist
argument is the need to correct the imbalance of power between society’s
wealthiest and poorest members. Klosterman clinically sums the issue up by
stating, “While all four perspectives propose that planning is required in
theory to fulfill these fundamental social requirements, they each recognize in
their own way that these theoretical arguments for planning are insufficient.”
References
Agnotti, T (Aprill 22, 2007). Advocacy
and Community Planning, Progressive Planning Magazine, Available: http://www.plannersnetwork.org/2007/04/advocacy-and-community-planning-past-present-and-future/
Frank,
S. (2011). Arguments Against
Planning. Available:
http://blog.synthesispartnership.com/2011/04/arguments-against-planning.html. [Accessed: 20 Aug 2013].
Just Some Notes. 2012. Arguments For and Against Planning | Just some
notes... [online] Available at:
http://blogs.itb.ac.id/banarsuharjanto/2012/09/14/arguments-for-and-against-planning-by-richard-e-klosterman/
[Accessed: 26 Aug 2013].
Klosterman, R. 2013. Arguments For and Against Planning. Learn Online,
Available at:
http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/pluginfile.php/786872/mod_resource/content/0/Arguments_for_and_against_Planning.pdf
[Accessed: 18th Aug 2013].
Macs. n.d.. Is Economic Planning Hypercomputational? The Argument
from Cantor Diagonalisation. [online] Available at:
http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/publications/ccm.IJUC07.pdf [Accessed: 26 Aug
2013].
McGill University (26/5/2013) What is
Urban Planning? Available: http://www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning/planning
Plato.stanford.edu. 1997. Prisoner's Dilemma (Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy). [online] Available at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/ [Accessed: 26 Aug 2013].
Suharjanto, B (September 14, 2012) Arguments
for and Against Planning, Just Some Notes… Available: http://blogs.itb.ac.id/banarsuharjanto/2012/09/14/arguments-for-and-against-planning-by-richard-e-klosterman/
UrbanTimes (2013). Ten Reasons Cities
Need Planning. Available:http://urbantimes.co/magazine/2013/07/ten-reasons-cities-need-urban-planning/
Thanks for giving us a gud presentation today..
ReplyDeleteThis is wonderful website
ReplyDeleteQassim & QU