CHOICE THEORY OF PLANNING ANDADVOCACY AND PLURALISM IN PLANNING

Choice theory of planningPaul Davidoff and Thomas Reiner (1962)Planning is a process of choicePlanning process is finding out and assuringPlannings ends are goals for the futurePlanning must be directed to problems of effectuation

continuedChoices are made at three levels:Selection of ends and criteriaThe identification if set of alternatives consistent with these general perspectives and a selection of desired alternativeGuidance of action toward determined endsEach of these choices requires the exercise of judgementJudgement permeates planning

The ideas of advocacy1.In the mid 1960s, advocacy planning was defined by Paul Davidoff in his seminal article, Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. JAIP (November 1965): 331-338.2.Davidoff called for citizen participation in the planning process and the need to rediscover an enlightened democracy. 3. He argued that planners could no longer be neutral or value-free in their work, but that a pluralistic political context was now a major determinant as to how planners practiced their profession.

4.For Davidoff, planning was to be done in the public interest5. The pursuit of those interests could no longer be a matter of scientific expertise solely, but must rather be a matter of politics. 6. Davidoff recognized the role of the planners expertise, but basically argued that the planner must adopt a new role of advocator.

7. Planners needed to remember is that they were representing the interests of their clients. This was more than just doing research and participating as a neutral, value free expert. 8. Planners should see themselves as advocates for the poor and for distressed communities. For Davidoff, this was a matter of inclusion, making sure the voice of the citizen is heard in the deliberation

9.It also would mean that planning must of the necessity become adversarial. In a democratic system, opposition to a public agency should be just as normal and appropriate as support. 10.Further, in a pluralistic environment, planners must be prepared to argue why one plan is better than the other, and why one plan is more inclusive and more persuasive for the interests of the client, including the interests of the community most affected.

11.For Davidoff, it would mean that attention must be given to the art of persuasion, not to mere fact-finding or plan development. For Davidoff (1965): the planner would have to prepare plans that take account of the arguments made by other plans. Thus the advocates plan might have some of the characteristics of a legal brief. It would be a document presenting the facts and reasons for supporting one set of proposals, and facts and reasons indicating the inferiority of counter proposals

12.In a pluralistic context, the advocate planner would represent the interests of his client. He would persuade decision-makers that the interests of his client and the plans made with input from the client are the most compelling. 13.Due to the adversarial nature of such a discourse, the planner also might function as a resource person, granting technical information when necessary.

14.Planners should proceed in adversarial relation:Planning ExpertisePlanning Counter ExpertiseInterest GroupPublic Planning Agency

14.According to Davidoff, there are interests and communities of interests out there that must be considered in the planning process.

Advocacy ApproachArgument is based around three main ideas that Davidoff considers outdated and ineffective aspects of planning: 1) unitary planning, 2) the traditional planning commission, and 3) too much focus on physical aspects of urban areas

Offers an alternative to each problem: 1) pluralism in planning 2) a true democratic process of planning, and 3)a more inclusionary view of the scope of planning field

Controversies, tension, opposing viewpoints are natural and healthy to the planning process. These tensions should not be avoided; rather they are a means for true democratic decision-making.

Davidoffs arguments and Alternative decision making process1.Unitary vs. Plural Planninga. Unitary Plan one agency prepares a comprehensive plan with little or no outside input, and without researching viable alternativesb. Plural Plan Exploring and discussing multiple options for each proposed plan, hearing from different interest groups, giving all groups a voice whether they have had traditional power within a community or not.

c. Davidoffs encouragement of tension and contentious discussion is critical to plural planning.

d. Three benefits to utilizing plural planning as opposed to unitary planning:It better informs the public of alternative choicesForces public agency to compete with other organizations preparing plans, thereby increasing the quality of the work generated by the public sectorGives outside organizations a chance to take their work to the next level not just protesting governments plans, but creating their own alternatives.e. The correct process of planning is pluralism

2).Planner as AdvocateThe correct role of the planner is one of an advocate.1.Social values and justice must be integrated into planning. Planning can no longer be just a technical field; the act of recommending plans and actions to the city is in itself infusing technical worker with ideas of social and economic justices. This shouldnt be fought or discouraged.

2.Compares the role of advocacy planning to that of a lawyer. Each group/idea is entitled to fair representation and deserves a voice. Takes this comparison a step further and suggests that an advocacy plan would be similar to a legal brief, in that it not only argues for its own ideas, but argues against the alternative plans created by other agencies

3.Beneficial to community as under-represented groups (such as low-income residents) will have a professional to speak for them; also beneficial to planners as they can select to work with organizations/firms that hold values and interests similar to their own.

3.The public planning agency vs. democratic planning processThree groups should be involved with a democratic, public planning process:1.Political parties. Ideal situation would be if parties in the legislative and executive branches would form their own plans, these plans would be discussed and appraised, and the planning agency would carry out its activities based on constituent demands. However, Davidoff admits this is a lofty ideal that would be difficult to realize.

2.Special interest groups. Chambers of commerce, labor-rights organizations, civil rights, environmental issues. Again, Davidoff mentions this is also difficult, as many organizations are reluctant to disagree with city plans, as it decreasing their ability for funding and support.

3.Ad-hoc protest organizations. Eg., neighborhood associations developing alternative plans that better suit their community.

4. Inclusive Definition of the Scope of Planninga.Davidoffs third element that he argues should be changed is the focus on only physical space of a community.

b.The purpose of buildings is to serve people. Their functional use is of primary concern. Spaces and structures only take on true meaning when examining them in relation to social and economic conditions.c.Example Urban renewalarticle written during a time when government practiced physical determinismargued that if the buildings were changed, the social problems would change accordingly. Obviously, Davidoff contends that this thinking should be reversed.

d.Three ways that plannings scope can be broadened to include more than physical aspects:1.State legislation needed to allow municipal planning departments to address issues outside of land use. Should address all areas of public concern2.Planning education should allow students to specialize in specific areas of public planning (not necessarily physical planning)3.Professional body should widen its scope and purpose. Current mission statement excludes those planners not focused narrowly on physical planning

5.Planning Education1.Planners should be knowledgeable in a wide spectrum of issues (on social, economic, systematic, physical levels) affecting urban areas.2.Planners should serve as coordinators and liaisons3.Merge the advances in technical skills and resources with the analytic practice of forming social policy. This allows planners to address urban planning on many levels design, social work, law. Problems planners face are both pragmatic and philosophical, and its not an either/or decisionall angles must be discussed and fought over in order for meaningful decisions to be made.

The End