No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
BERNHARD SCHÄFERS HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT PLANNING CAN BE analysed theoretically with regard to three central features : first, from the standpoint of human nature and the history of human development; planning thus refers to how people conceive of their future activity; secondly, from the standpoint of ‘modern science’, in which planning is seen as an attempt to develop the prognostic and plan-oriented capacity of science; and thirdly from the standpoint of the conditions for the existence of industrial-technical societies, in the context of which planning is conceived of as an endeavour to effect the comprehensive direction of these societies as well as the co-ordination of its subsystems.
This paper was presented at the ECPR workshop on Political Theory, Strasbourg, 28 March–2 April 1974. The preparation of this paper has been supported by the Academy of Finland under grant no. 417–4 551–3 01137701–1 thank Messrs. Jukka Gronow and S. Albert Kivinen and Mrs Barbara Roos for their perceptive comments, as well as J. Gould for invaluable technical assistance.
2 See Cole, G. D. H., Principles of Economic Planning, London, 1935;Google Scholar Jewkes, J., Ordeal by Planning, London, 1949;Google Scholar von Hayek, F. A., The Road to Serfdom, London, 1944;Google Scholar MacKenzie, T. (ed.). Planned Society, Yesterday, Today, To-morrow, New York, 1937;Google Scholar also the Vienna planning debate, see Osterud, Samfunnsplanlegging og politisk system, Oslo, 1972.
3 See Schäfers, B. (ed.), Gesellschaftliche Planung. Materialen Zur Planungsdis-cussion in der BRD, Stuttgart, 1973, p. 109;Google Scholar among others Moskwitschew, L. N. ‘Entideologisierung’ - Illusion und Wirklichkeit, Berlin (GDR), 1973,Google Scholar considers Mannheim a central figure in the liberal tradition.
4 Chadwick, G., A Systems View of Planning: Towards a Theory of the Urban and Regional Planning Process, Oxford, 1971.Google Scholar
5 Kaplan, A., ‘On the Strategy of Social Planning’, Policy Science, 4, 1973, pp. 41–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. 53.
6 LeBreton, Preston P. and Henning, Dale A., Planning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1961, p. 57.Google Scholar
7 Cf. Roos, J. P., Welfare Theory and Social Policy. A Study in Policy Science, Helsinki, 1973.Google Scholar
8 Faludi, A., ‘The “Systems View” and Planning Theory’, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 7, 1973, pp. 67–77,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. 69.
9 Of course, in a broader sense, the question of the individual’s possibilities of influencing collective activity is especially acute; in essence this is the subject of this entire presentation.
10 Cf. Lange, O. and Taylor, F. M., On the Economic Theory of Socialism, New York, 1964;Google Scholar Bettelheim, C., Studies in the Theory of Planning, Bombay, 1959;Google Scholar Zielinski, J. G., Lectures in the Theory of Socialist Planning, Ivadan, 1965.Google Scholar
11 And the price is high: it is necessary to create artificial unanimity about things regarding which, in the capitalism of today, unanimity is constantly declining.
12 See e.g. Ozbekhan, H., ‘Toward a General Theory of Planning’ in Jantsch (ed.), Perspectives of Planning, Paris, 1969.Google Scholar
13 MacDougall, G., ‘The Systems Approach to Planning: A Critique’, Socio-Econotaic Planning Sciences, Vol. 7, 1973, pp. 79–91,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at pp. 83–9; Social Policy in Europe, Programming and Applications, ICSW Finnish Committee, 2, 1972; p. 16.
14 In Finland, however, a neopositivist school is emerging which claims that this represents the only possibility; see Heiskanen, I. and Martikainen, T., ‘Demokratia, tasa-arvoja informaation kulku suomalaisessa yhteis ‘kunnassa’, Politiikka, Vol. 4, 1972, pp. 285–317.Google Scholar
15 On this see Roos, op. cit. An interesting factor which complicates the planning-theoretical discussion is the ideological nature of planning. Planning contains extremely important ideological elements which are also explicitly emphasized (e.g. Ozbekhan, op. cit.), even to the point that planning would have its own separate ideology, an objective, apolitical ideology. Hence planning theorists are often doubly ideological - both in themselves and with relation to their objects. In actuality, it is through this elevation of ideology that many bourgeois planning theorists resolve the problem of the relation between science and politics. In this way alone do planning theories obtain the necessary social content. And this content is above all the creation of an artificial unanimity as the basis of planning.
16 See Therborn’s, Göran excellent comments in ‘Social Practice, Social Action, Social Magic, Ada Sociologica (Journal of the Scandinavian Sociological Association), Vol. 16, 1973, pp. 157–174,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at pp. 171–3.
17 For another interesting taxonomy presented by Friedmann, John and Hudson, Barclay, see their paper Knowledge and Action, a Guide to Planning Theory, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of California, 1973,Google Scholar which has otherwise been a source of much stimulus in my present work.
18 Perhaps we could say that certain ‘scientific’ small-group planning types that have been developed in the United States fall into this category.
19 Cf Mannheim, op. cit.; Roos, op. cit.
20 There are countless examples of these, e.g. Dror, , Ventures in Policy Sciences, New York, 1971;Google Scholar Catanese, A. J. and Steiss, A. W., Systemic Planning, Theory and Application, Lexington, Mass., 1970.Google Scholar
21 Cf., e.g., Tinbergen, J., Central Planning, New Haven, 1964;Google Scholar Theil, H., Optimal Decision Rules for Government and Industry, Amsterdam, 1964;Google Scholar Dorfman, R. and Jacoby, H. D., ‘A Model of Public Decisions’ in Margolis, Haveman (eds), Public Expenditures and Policy Analyses, Chicago, 1970;Google Scholar Rothblatt, D., ‘Rational Planning Re-examined’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 37, 1971, pp. 26–37;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Catanese and Steiss, op. cit.
22 See Dror, Y., Public Policy-Making Re-examined, San Francisco, 1968, pp. 141–5 3;Google Scholar most of these models are quite peculiar, but then Dror has always been interested in irrational decision-making; cf. his new book, The Crazy States, as well as his interest in Nixonian-Kissingerian decision-making.
23 Cf. Ozbekhan, op. cit. I must confess that I am not familiar with Ozbekhan’s later developments which may have become much more coherent.
24 And thus through it, the planner as well.
25 Warren-Smith, R., ‘A Theoretical Basis for Participatory Planning’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, 1973, pp. 275–95;Google Scholar Toffler, A, Future Shock, London, 1971.Google Scholar
26 See Friedmann, J., Retracting America, A Theory of Transactive Planning, Garden City, N.Y. 1973;Google Scholar ‘The Public Interest and Community Participation; Towards a Reconstruction of Public Philosophy’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 29, pp. 2–12; and cf. op. cit., note 17.
27 Unfortunately, the more common reaction is that he denies the validity of the interpretation given of capitalist society.
28 Although we can whole-heartedly agree with Friedmann’s list of the qualities of a democratic direction system which includes authenticity, responsiveness, effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. However this kind of catalogue is not sufficient. (Cf. his Retracking America, p. 159.)
29 See also Glaus Offe’s interesting article concerning this question, ‘Demo-kratische Legitimation der Planung’ in Schäfers (ed.), Gesellschaftlicbe Planung, Stuttgart, 1973.
30 Which is already happening in many countries.