The review of democratic procedures in urban planning theories

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Islamic Azad University of Qazvin Branch, Qazvin, Iran

2 Ph.D. student, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Islamic Azad University of Mahabad Branch, Orumieh. Iran

Abstract

Over the past few decades, democratic procedures have been raised as a core of most planning methods. In this regard, the present research adopts descriptive-evaluation methods and uses meta-analysis so as to review the democratic procedures at the heart of planning theories and democracy and to explore their paradigmatic interaction. The results of present research suggest that transition to post-modern era of planning perspective is accompanied by association between democratic procedures and certain subjects such as public interest, consensus, pluralism, uncertainty and agonistic arenas. In this regard, the theory of planning has experienced a paradigmatic shift towards agonistic planning which is a democratic accountability mechanism premised on intellectual support of agonistic democracy. In general, the theory regards the rational consensus of communicative planning as nothing but illusion and explains it as a strife to remove alternative discourses and eliminate democratic policy altogether. Compared with communicative planning, the essential notion of agonistic planning is turning hostility into agnostic and consequently replacing enmity by disagreement or aggression by competition.

Keywords


A

  • gger, A., & Löfgren, K. (2006). How Democratic are Networks Based on Citizen Involvement? A Framework for Assessing the Democratic Effects of Networks. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitet.
  • Bäcklund, P., & Mäntysalo, R. (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democ‌racy and the role of participation in the develop‌ment of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9(4), 333–350
  • Baeten, G. (2009). Regenerating the South Bank: reworking community and the emergence of post-political regeneration, in Imrie, R, Lees, L and Raco, M [Eds] (2009) Regenerating London: governance, sustainability and community in a global city, London, Routledge
  • Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: Coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philoso‌phy, 6(4), 400–425. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00061
  • Cates, C. (1979).  Beyond muddling: Creativity. Public Administration Review 39(6): 527–532.
  • Chambers, S. (2009). “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?” Political Theory, 37(3): 323-350.
  • Deveaux, M. 2003. “A Deliberative Approach to Conflicts of Culture.” Political Theory, 31(6): 780-807.
  • Dryzek, J. (2010b). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford University Press.
  • Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. New York: OUP.
  • Eftekhari, R., Behzadnasab, J. (2004). Communicative Planning as Critical Approach. Journal of Human Sciences MODARES, 1(3): 1-22.
  • Elstub, S. (2010). “The Third Generation of Deliberative Democracy” The Journal of Political Studies Review, Volume: 8 issue: 3, page(s): 291-307 Article first published online: June 8, 2010; Issue published: September 1, 2010
  • Elstub, S. (2014). “Mini-publics: Issues and Cases.” In Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases, edited by S. Elstub and P. McLaverty, 166-188, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Elstub, S. (2015). “A Genealogy of Deliberative Democracy.” Democratic Theory, 2(1): 100-117.
  • Elstub, S. and McLaverty, P. (2013). “Ten Issues for a Deliberative System.” Paper prepared for delivery at The 2013 APSA Annual Meeting. Chicago, August 29th – September 1st.
  • Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning: A ‘third’ approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review 27(5) 385–392.
  • Fainstein, S,. & Fainstein, N. (1979). City Planning and Political Values, Translate by Naser Barakpour, Urban Management Journal, volume 5: 68-79.
  • Falleth, E. (2010). Challenges to Democracy in Market-Oriented Urban Planning in Norway, European planning studies, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 737-753
  • Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power. Democracy in practice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Planning and Foucault In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory, New Directions for Planning Theory. London and New York: Rutledge, pp. 44-62
  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Gunder, M. (2003a). ‘Passionate Planning for the Others’ Desire: An Agonistic Response to the Dark Side of Planning’ , Progress in Planning 60(3): 235-319
  • Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni‌versity Press.
  • Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why delibera‌tive democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Hajer M. (2004). Three dimensions of deliberative policy analysis. The case of rebuilding ground zero. Paper for presentation at the 2004 Convention of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
  • Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences 36(2): 175–195.
  • Hanberger, A. (2006b). ‘Evaluation of and for Democracy’ in Evaluation Vol. 12 (1):17- 37.
  • Healey, P. (1992). A Planner Day, Knowledge and Action in Communicative Practice, APA Journal. in communicative planning. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Healey, p. (1996). “Planning through debate: The communicative turn in Planning theory”, Reading in Planning Theory, Blackwell.
  • Healey, P. (1996). Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. In S. Fainstain & S. Cambell (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory (pp.234-259): Blackwell Publisher.
  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shap‌ing places in fragmented societies. London, UK: Macmillan.
  • Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London: Macmillan).
  • Hillier J. (1998). Representation, Identity, and the Communicative Shaping of Place. In A. Light & J. Smith (Eds.), The Production of Public Space: Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of Power. London: Routledge.
  • Hindess, B. (1997). Democracy and Disenchantment, Australian Journal of Political Science, 32,1: 79-92
  • Innes JE., & Booher, DE. (2010). Planning with complexity. An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, New York
  • Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century, Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4) 419-436
  • Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2000). Planning Institutions in the Network Society: Theory for Collaborative Planning. In Sallet,W and Faludi,A (eds.); The Revival of Strategic and Spatial Planning. Amsterdam
  • Innes, J.E. & Booher, D.E. (2003). Collaborative policy making: governance through dialogue, in: M.W. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Governance in the Network Society, pp. 33–59 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
  • Kapoor, I. (2002). Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? The Relevance of the Habermas-Mouffe Debate for Third World Politics, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27(4):459-487
  • King, L.A (2003). Deliberation, Legitimacy, and Multilateral Democracy, The Journal of Governance, (16)1, 23-50
  • Larsson, J., & Elander, I. (2001). Consensus, Democracy and the Land Surveyor in the Swedish Cadastral Executive Procedure. Planning Theory & Practice, 2(3), 325- 342.
  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. doi:10.2307/973677
  • Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democ‌racy. New York, NY: The Free Press.
  • Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., & Fung, A. et al. (2010). The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 64–100. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x
  • Mansbridge, J.; Bohman, J.; Chambers, S.; Christiano, T.; Fung, A.; Parkinson, J.; Thompson, D. and Warren, M.E. (2012). “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems – Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by J. Parkinson, J. and J. Mansbridge, 1-26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mäntysalo R, Rajaniemi J (2003) Vallan ulottuvuuksia maankäytön suunnittelussa. Synteesi 22(3): 117–136.
  • Mäntysalo R., & Jarenko K. (2014). Communicative Planning Theory Following Deliberative Democracy Theory:  Critical Pragmatism and the Trading Zone Concept.   International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3(1), 38-50
  • Mäntysalo, R. (2005). “Approaches to Participation in Urban Planning Theories”, Diploma workshop in Florence.
  • Mehdizadeh, J., (2001). Towards Democratic Urbanism, Urban Manegement Journal, Volume5: 44.
  • Mendonça, R.F. (2008). “Representation and Deliberation in Civil Society.” Brazilian Political Science Review, 2(2): 117-137.
  • Möttönen, S. (1997). Tulosjohtaminen ja valta poliittisten päätöksentekijöiden ja viranhaltijoiden välisissä suhteissa. Helsinki: Suomen kuntaliitto.
  • Mouffe, Chantal (2000). Deliberative Democracy or agonistic pluralism, institute fur Hoherstudien (Ihs)., Wien institute for advanced studies, Vienna.
  • Mouffe, Chantal (2005).”The Limits of John Rawls’s Pluralism, Politics, Philosophy and Economics Journal Volume: 4 issue: 2, page(s): 221-231Issue published: June 1, 2005
  • Mouffe, Chantal (2006). On the Political, London and New York: Routledgetaylor and francis group.
  • Mouffe, Chantal (2007). ‘Artistic activism and agonistic space’, Art and research, a journal of ideas, context and Methods, Vol. 1, No. 2.
  • Mouffe, Chantal (2008). ‘Art and democracy, art as an agnostic intervention in public spase’, open, No. 141, art as a public issue.
  • Neblo, M. (2007). “Family Disputes: Diversity in Defining and Measuring Deliberation.” Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4): 527-557.
  • Niemenmaa V (2005) Helsingin paikallisagenda. Tarina suunnittelun subjektiivisuudesta JA osal‌listumisesta, Espoo: Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- JA koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja A 31.
  • Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: OUP.
  • Pløger, J.  (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory 3(1): 71–92.
  • Purcell, M. (2007). City-Regions, Neoliberal Globalization and Democracy: A Research Agenda, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), p197-206.
  • Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements?  Planning Theory Journal, Vol 8(2): 140–165
  • Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or CounterHegemonic Movements? Planning Theory, 8(2), p140-165.
  • Puustinen, S. (2006). Suomalainen kaavoittajaprofessio JA suunnittelun kommunikatiivinen käänne. Vuorovaikutukseen liittyvät ongelmat JA mahdollisuudet suurten kaupunkien kaavoittajien näkökulmasta. Espoo: Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja A 34.
  • Rfieian, M., Maroufi, S. (2011). Role And Application Of Communicative Planning In New Urban Planning Theories, Journal Of ARMANSHAHR, (7): 113-120.
  • Rorty, R. (2006). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity Translation by Payam Yazdanjo: Tehran.
  • Rundell, J. (1991). Jurgen Habermas in P /beilharz (ed). Social Theory, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
  • Sager, T. (1994). Communicative Planning Theory. Aldershot: Avebury.
  • Sager, T. (2006). The Logic of Critical Communicative Planning: Transaction Cost AlterationThe Journal of Planning Theory, (5)3:223-254
  • Sarafi, M. & Tawakoli, J., Chamani Moghadam, M. (2015). The Role of Planner in Urban Planning Process in Iran. Journal of Motaleate Shahri , Volume 12, Issue 24, Autumn 2015.
  • Staffans, A. (2004). Vaikuttavat asukkaat. Espoo: Teknillinen Korkeakoulu,Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun Tutkimus- Ja Koulutuskeskuksen Julkaisuja A 29.
  • Thompson, D. (2008). “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 497-520.
  • Torkeme, A. (2011). “Explaining The Relation between Democracy and Planning In Iran”, M.Sc. thesis, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch.
  • Yanow, D. (1996). How Does a Policy Mean? Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Young, I.M. (1996). “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by S. Bebhabib, 120-135. Princeton: Princeton University Press.