FrancoArchibugi PlanningTheory FromthePoliticalDebate totheMethodologicalReconstruction Franco Archibugi Planning Theory From the Political Debate to the Methodological Reconstruction 123 FrancoArchibugi c/oPlanningStudiesCentre ViaFedericoCassitto110 00134Roma Italy [email protected] LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2007929930 ISBN978-88-470-0695-9 SpringerMilanBerlinHeidelbergNewYork Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broad- casting,reproductiononmicrofilmorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthis publicationorpartsthereofisonlypermittedundertheprovisionsoftheItalianCopyrightLawin itscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer-Verlag.Violations areliableforprosecutionundertheItalianCopyrightLaw. SpringerisapartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia springer.com ©Springer-VerlagItalia2008 PrintedinItaly Coverdesign:SimonaColombo,Milano Typesetting:LE-TEXJelonek,Schmidt&VöcklerGbR,Leipzig,Germany Printingandbinding:GrafichePorpora,Segrate(MI) Springer-VerlagItalia–ViaDecembrio28–I-20137Milano Printedonacid-freepaper Preface Thisbookhasre-elaborated,inaunifiedandorganicway,someofmycontributions totheacademicdebatesamongEuropeanandAmericanplanning“theorists”. Suchcontributions wereborninrelationtomyparticipation ataconferenceon planning theory promoted by Oxford Brookes University, in April . This con- ference gave mea very interesting opportunity to be among other scholars on the subject. On this occasion I had the opportunity to pour out, into the bosom of an abundant groupofcolleagues (towhomIamboundtogether bysomeyearsofsci- entificcontactontheissuesoftheeffectiveness andmethodsofplanning), mycon- cernsabouttheturnstakenbytheliteratureofplanningtheoryoverthelastdecade ormore.ThesubstanceofmyconcernshasbeenrevisitedinChap.ofthisbook. However,inthecurrentcriticismofplanningtheory’strends,Isoonrealizedthat my demands for a more advanced integration of the different approaches to plan- ning,andparticularlyofimprovedintegrationbetweentheproceduralapproachand the“substantive”approach,wasnotyetsufficientlyclearandperceptible.SoIlooked againatreformulating,inapositiveway,myideasabouttheturnwhich,inmyopin- ion,thetheoreticalandmethodologicalplanningstudiesshouldhavetotakeinorder toobtainanoperationalrelaunchofplanningitself,onamoreadvancedscientificba- sis(avoiding,however,slippingintotechnicalitiesthatbecomeuselessandmisleading whennotusedforthebenefitofaclearandconsistentmethod). PlanningTheoryConference,OxfordBrookesUniversity,–April. Afurtherpaperwith thesame argumentshasbeenalsopublishedinEuropeanPlanning Studies,Vol.,No.,April. Thisreconsiderationandawarenesshasbeenhelpedbyveryaccurateandpertinentcom- mentsandcriticismreceivedfrommycolleaguesE.R.Alexander,JohnBryson,GiuseppeDe Luca,SeymourMandelbaum,andNirajVerma.ThecriticalcommentsofVerma,withwhich IlargelyagreeandforwhichIamverygrateful,havebeenmadeonlyonthepapersthathave formedthebasisofChap..Heconcludedthatmyfirstcontributionneededasectionthat showedwhytheintegrationbetweensocio-economicforecastingandotherconnectionsthat Ianticipatedshouldbeimplemented.Ithinksuchconnections,theirdescription,andtheir motivations,deserveandneedmuchmorethanasection!Theyconstitutethepropersub- ject,thepropermatter,ofplanningtheory.Thisdoesnotexclude,butconfirms,theidea VI Preface Thus,Iwantedtointegratethatfirstcontributionwithafurtherdescriptionofthe possiblelinkingofproceduralplanningandvarious“substantive”aspectsofplanning by means of a unitary methodological scheme, which has become the object of this book. Itriedtherefore: – todelimitthetraditionalfieldswhichuntilnowhaveprogressedseparatelyandin openorder,atmostwithsomeinterdisciplinarycooperationofatechnicalnature, thatiftheyarenotwelldescribedinsomeways,evenprovisionally(asVermarequested), myclaimsarenotevenproperlyunderstood,becausetheylackclearreferencesandexam- ples.Thishasinducedmetotakeanewsteptowardsthedescriptionofthoseconnections (evenifIthinkitnotyetsufficient). Alexander’scriticismshelpedmetoperceivetheseriousnessoftheabsenceofasystemic visionofplanningtheorytowhichwereferourselves,andtoincitemetoriskthedefect ofexcessiveschematism,butnottotakeforgrantedandacknowledgesomeargumentstoo easily!IhopethatthecorrectionsIhavemade,whicharemoreformalthansubstantial,will satisfyAlexander,whoseseverecritiquesIhavealwaysfoundstimulating,evenwhenIhave notagreedwiththem. TheMandelbaum’scommentswerenearlyallpertinentandIappreciatedhiskindsugges- tions,evenontexts,likemine,whichwereveryfarfromhisownapproachandwritingstyle. Iamaware,however,ofthedifficultyofadequatelytakingintoaccounthisviewpointand tousehisideasinawaythatconformstotheirpotentialquality.Isensethathishistorical perceptionofplanningpusheshimtowardsavisionofplanningtheoryverydifferentfrom mine,andmyeffortstoreconstructafieldandamethodappropriateforplanningtheorygo inadirectionverydifferentfromhisown. ToJohnBrysonandtohisfriendlycommentsonmyeffort,Ioweasinceregratitude;how- ever,healsocheerfullypressedmetouselesspolemicalarguments,arguingveryrightly thatsometimesthismightbeanobstacle,insteadoffacilitatingtheunderstandingandthe forming ofacommonconsensus.Ihaveagreedandappliedhisgeneraladviceandfrom thestillremainingpolemicalphrasing,thereadercanappreciatehowusefulandnecessary hisrecommendationswere... Finally,IoweittoGiuseppeDeLucathatthisbookhasbeen equippedwithabriefchapterof‘conclusions’.ToStefanoMoroni,Iowethehardeffortto reviewandsynthetize,inthejournalPlanningTheory,theItalianeditionofthisbookthat allowedmetorevisitsomepassagesofit. Tothesecolleagues,andtootherswithwhomIhaveassociatedthroughmanyyearsofat- temptingtoimplementacontactnetworkfortheprogressinthetheoreticaldiscourseon planningscienceandanimproveddeterminatenessinplanningtheory,Iamverygrateful forhelpgiventome. Thus,thisbookisafurtherstep(stillveryapproximate)towardthealreadyannouncedongo- ingworkonthefoundationsofageneralplanningmethodology.Imustsaythatintheeffort toachieve(assuggestedbycommentsmentionedabove)withinthesubstantivefield,the neededchangeofapproach,thefirstroutesandthematismsofanewintegrated(orunified) disciplineofplanning(seeChaps.toofthisbook)Ihaveamplyusedapaperpresentedto thestWorldCongressonPlanningScience,promotedinPalermo(Italy)byPlanningStud- iesCentre,withthesupportofUNESCO,theUnitedNationsUniversity(Tokyo),theEu- ropeanUniversityInstitute(Florence),andthe(Italian)NationalResearchCouncil(CNR). (Thatpaperhasbeenpublishedin:Socio-EconomicPlanningSciences,InternationalJournal in,vol.,N.,pp.–.) Preface VII andthatshouldengagethemselvesinthe“integration”inanewunifiedmethod- ology(Chap.); – todiscussthemeritsandlimitsofatransdisciplinarymethodologicalintegration, based ona“programming”approachinstead ofthepositivisticapproach,which hasuntilnowbeendominantinplanningresearchesandactivities(Chap.); – tooutlinethefirstroutesofthenewdiscipline(proceduralschemefortheselec- tionofplans,interrelationshipbetweendifferent“levels”ofplanning,institutional procedures of plans bargaining, and consulting system on preference, informa- tion,monitoringandplanevaluation)(Chap.); – tolistsomeproperintegrativetopicsofthenewdiscipline(Chap.). Allthisthenflowstogether,inChap.,toformtheoutlineofanoperationallogical framework, throughwhichareintegrated andunified, withanexhaustive andcom- pletemethodology,alltypes,forms,andproceduresofplanning. Ithenfocusedononeofthemostneglected(but,atthesametime,oneofthemost important, ifnotthemostimportant) “levels”ofplanning foraprocessofmethod- ological integration like the one pursued here: the “national” level (Chap.  of the book). Lastly,Iclosedthisfirsteffortbypointingoutthebasicelementsofanintegrative planningmethodology,withsomeconsiderations onwhatIwouldcallthe“pitfalls” or“traps”(inexperimentsIhaveperformed)ofanytypeofplanevaluation(Chap.). Planevaluationbeingthe“othersideofthecoin”toeveryworkofplanning,any integrativeeffortbroughtontheplanningmethodsimmediatelyhasaspeculareffect intheevaluationprocess. Sinceplanninghasbeenapplieduntiltodaywithoutsystemiccontrolandcoordi- nation,andwithoutthesaidintegrativeandunifiedmethodology,thisis,inmyopin- ion,themajorcauseoftheverypooranddisappointing(nottomentionsubstantially erroneousandmisleading)planevaluations. Therefore,thatisthecauseofplanningfailureitself,i.e.,oftheplansthatcollapsed at the first test of their compatibility and consistency with the context of planning itself. AcknowledgementsandDedication ThisbookisdedicatedtosomeoutstandingcolleagueswithwhomIhavemaintained personalcontactandusefuldebatinginthe“planningtheory”field.Theyare:ErnestR. Afirstversionofthisframeworkhasbeenpresentedtothecolleaguesatthegreatunitary “WorldPlanningSchoolCongress”promotedbytheplanningschoolacademicassociations: European(AESOP),American(ASCP),Asiatic(ASPA)andAustralianandNew-Zealander (ANZAPS),inShanghai,China,July–,. ThischapteremploysapaperalreadypresentedtotheXIIAesopCongress,–July inAveiro(Portugal). ThischapterutilizesapaperpresentedatanacademicmeetinginMarchattheLondon UniversityCollege(BartlettSchool)tohonourNathanielLichfield,as“father”ofthe“plan’s evaluation”. VIII Preface Alexander,PhilCooke,AndreasFaludi,JohnForester,PatsyHealey,NathanielLich- field,SeymourMandelbaum,LuigiMazza,FrancescoDomenicoMoccia,StefanoMo- roni, Giorgio Piccinato, NirajVerma. Iamthankful tothem tohavestimulated my reflection on this topic, both when our feelings and opinions were converging and whentheywerediverging. TheEnglishtexthasbeenrevisedfrommanycontributors,accordingthedifferent stages of the individual papers here merged. To recall all of them it would be very difficult.ThelastofthemhasbeenRobertRedman.ThefinalcopyeditorbySpringer wasJardiMullinax.Thanksforall. Contents  PlanningTheory:ReconstructionorRequiem? .....................  . ACertainUneasinessabout“PlanningTheory” ....................  . HaveWeImprovedtheClarityofPlanningMethodology? ..........  . WhatAretheReasonsfortheDeceivingDevelopment ofPlanningTheory?..............................................  .. TheEquivocalCaseofthe“Substantive”Side ofPlanningTheory .......................................  .. ExpandingtheScopeTooMuch ...........................  .. ExpandingtheTerrainandtheRoots.......................  .. TheLackofRelationshipwith“Substantive”Planning .......  . PlanningTheory:GeneralorNot?.................................  . AVade-MecumforGoodPlanners’ProfessionalRelations? .........  . DeontologyandEpistemologyoftheProfession....................   InSearchofIntegration:ThePastNegativeExperience...............  . ExpectationsandResultsfromtheIntegration ofthePlanningSciences..........................................  .. Macro-EconomicPlanninginEurope ......................  .. StrategicManagementandPlanninginthePublicSector ....  .. IntegratedRegionalPlanning..............................  .. IntegratedApproachinAcademicJournals .................  . TheBadCourseoftheDebate ....................................  . IsaPositiveReconstructionofPlanningTheoryPossible?...........   TowardsaNewUnifiedDisciplineofPlanning ......................  . TheFieldsofActivity.............................................  .. PhysicalPlanning.........................................  .. Macro-EconomicPlanning................................  .. SocialPlanning...........................................  .. DevelopmentPlanning....................................  .. OperationalPlanning .....................................  X Contents . TheMeritsandLimitsoftheTrans-DisciplinaryApproach..........  .. Merits ...................................................  .. Limits ...................................................  . “Positivist”-TypeDecision-MakingAnalysis .......................  . SocialRealityisSubjectiveReality.................................  . “Voluntarist”-TypeDecision-MakingAnalysis......................  . ADefectofApproachorOneofFurtherElaboration? ..............   TheFirstRoutesoftheNewDiscipline .............................  . SchemesofProcedureforthePreparationofPlans andtheConstructionofSuitable“AccountingFrames” .............  . SchemesoftheSystemicInterrelationshipBetweenPlanLevels......  . InstitutionalProceduresof“PlanBargaining” andPreferenceConsultationSystems..............................  . InformationSystemsforPlanningandTheirManagement ..........  . MonitoringandPlanEvaluationSystems ..........................   SomeIntegrativeTopicsoftheNewPlanningDiscipline .............  . Integration Between(Conventional) EconomicAccounting SystemsandSocialAccountingSystems ...........................  . IntegrationBetweenSocio-EconomicPlanning (andRelatedAccounting)andTechnologicalForecasting ...........  . IntegrationBetweenSocio-EconomicPlanning (andRelatedAccounting)andPhysical (orTerritorialorEnvironmental)Planning ........................  . IntegrationBetweenSocio-Economic(andPhysical) PlanningandInstitutionalOrganisationandNegotiation ...........  . IntegrationBetweenSocio-EconomicPlanning andtheInstitutionalSystemandDesign ...........................  . ConcludingRemarks:The“PlanologicalApproach” ................   PlanningScience:BasicPostulates andLogicalFrameworkforReference..............................  . FromPlanning“Theory”toPlanning“Science” ....................  . AreferenceFrameworkforPlanningScience: SomeEssentialPostulates ........................................  .. LogicalPostulates.........................................  .. FieldorDelimitationPostulates............................  . ThePlanningProcess ............................................  . ThePlanningSystem.............................................  .. ThePlanningSelectionSystem.............................  .. ThePlanningImplementationSystem ......................  .. FunctionalandTimeInterdependencies....................  . Conclusions.....................................................  Contents XI  TheFutureofNationalPlanningSystems:SomeNewSteps ...........  . TheConceptof“NationalPlanning”...............................  . NationalPlanninginaSystemicVision ............................  . WhatOpportunitiesExistfortheSystemic-TypeDevelopment ofNationalPlanning? ............................................  .. TheWeightofthePast ....................................  .. StrategicPlanningattheNationalScale.....................  . TheAmericanFederalStrategicPlanning: ItsEffectsontheNationalPlanningFuture.........................  . FromStrategicPlanningtoNationalEconomicProgramming: ANecessaryStepTowardsSystemicPlanning ......................  . TowardaScientificandProfessionalApproach totheSystemicPlanning .........................................   PlanningandPlanEvaluation: SomeWell-KnownandOftenNeglectedPitfalls.....................  . LogicalIndeterminateness:“Evaluation”vs“Values” ................  . SystemicDisconnectedness.......................................  . StrategicInsubordination.........................................  . Self-Referencing .................................................  . Sub-Optimization ...............................................  . BoundedRationality .............................................   Conclusions ....................................................  . AquestionofPrepositions........................................  . AQuestionof“Adjectivization” ...................................  . The“Rational”ApproachCaseandthe“Communicative” or“Collaborative”One ...........................................  . TheDiagonalof“Planology”......................................  BibliographicalReferences ...........................................  AuthorsIndex.......................................................  AnalyticalIndex..................................................... 