New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory

Abstract

During the last decade or so, many planning theorists have taken a so-called communicative turn, to the point where somiie have declared the emergence of a dominant new paradigm supported by increasing consensus among theorists. We wish to raise a number of broad questions about the communicative paradigm and claims for its theoretical dominance. We point to alternative analytical positions that focus on issues of power, of the state, and of political economy, in ways that are often underplayed in the communicative literature and that demonstrate a healthy diversity in the field. We offer six critical propositions about communicative planning theory as a contribution to the ongoing debates, in theory and practice, about the conitested nature of planning, its practices and effects.

Mapping urban agriculture in Portugal: Lessons from practice and their relevance for European post-crisis contexts

“…involving actors from the local population as well as technicians and decision makers, among others, in a systematic approach, many practitioners have found their ideas too abstract and difficult to relate to their concerns (Goodspeed, 2016). One problematic issue is that the theory does not sufficiently reconcile local agreements with external perspectives or account adequately for issues of power (Huxley andYiftachel, 2000, Fainstein, 2000). This is particularly relevant in Southern European countries, such as Spain, Portugal and Italy, where governments recognise the significance of new democratic approaches even if citizen participation is seldom achieved in practice (Schaap et al, 2009).…”

La numérisation des dispositifs de participation de la Mairie de Paris

“…Celle-ci est orientée vers l'entente avec pour fonction la coordination des actions et plans d'action entre des partenaires divers à l'échelle locale (MOTTE, 2006). Cependant le courant de la planification communicationnelle ou encore collaborative a fait l'objet de nombreux débats quant à sa capacité à se traduire concrètement (TEWDWR-JONES et ALLMENDINGER, 1998 ;HUXLEY et YIFTACHEL, 2000). Dans un article désormais célèbre (BACQUE et GAUTHIER, 2011) Sherry Arnstein (1969 a même élaboré une échelle afin de situer le niveau de participation sur une échelle allant de l'information à la co-décision.…”

Limits of Localism

“…While some argued for representing the voices of the disadvantaged groups in the planning process, others argued for facilitating the participation of these groups in the process through a dialogue, in the hope of eventually building a harmonious consensus (Davidoff, 1965;Innes and Booher, 2004). Harmony and consensus, however, were beyond reach in an increasingly diverse and unequal society; the dialogue was often held between the public and private sector stakeholders in partnerships for development projects, and the unheard voices remained outside the dialogue (Hum, 2010;Akintoye et al, 2015;Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000;Harvey, 2003).…”