Bringing Power to Planning Research

This article provides an answer to what has been called the biggest problem in theorizing and understanding planning: the ambivalence about power found among planning researchers, theorists, and students. The author narrates how he came to work with issues of power and gives an example of how the methodology he developed for power studies—phronetic planning research—may be employed in practice. Phronetic planning research follows the tradition of power studies running from Machiavelli and Nietzsche to Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu. It focuses on four value-rational questions: (1) Where are we going with planning? (2) Who gains and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power? (3) Is this development desirable? (4) What should be done? These questions are exemplified for a specific instance of Scandinavian urban planning. The author finds that the questions, and their answers, make a difference to planning in practice. They make planning research matter.

[1]  Nikolaos Zahariadis.  Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[2]  S. Clegg.  Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again , 2002 .

[3]  L. Peattie.  Theorizing Planning: Some Comments on Flyvbjerg's Rationality and Power , 2001 .

[4]  S. Harrison.  Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice , 2001 .

[5]  Patsy Healey,et al.  The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. , 2001 .

[6]  Doreen Meier.  THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS , 2001 .

[7]  Bent Flyvbjerg,et al.  Planning and Foucault: In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory , 2001 .

[8]  Margo Huxley,et al.  Debating Dominence and Relevance: Notes on the ‘Communicative Turn’ in Planning Theory , 2000 .

[9]  Tim Richardson,et al.  Discourses of Mobility and Polycentric Development: A Contested View of European Spatial Planning , 2000 .

[10]  Werner Rothengatter,et al.  Big decisions, big risks: improving accountability in mega projects , 1998 .

[11]  John Friedmann,et al.  Planning theory revisited , 1998 .

[12]  Raphaël Fischler.  Toward a genealogy of planning: zoning and the Welfare State , 1998 .

[13]  J. Friedmann,et al.  Cities for citizens : planning and the rise of civil society in a global age , 1998 .

[14]  Mette K. Skamris,et al.  Inaccuracy of traffic forecasts and cost estimates on large transport projects , 1997 .

[15]  F. Buttel.  The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process.By Maarten A. Hajer. Oxford University Press, 1995 , 1997 .

[16]  P. Healey.  Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies , 1997 .

[17]  Bent Flyvbjerg,et al.  The Dark Side of Planning: Rationality and 'Realrationalität' , 1996 .

[18]  J. Crush.  Scripting the Compound: Power and Space in the South African Mining Industry , 1994 .

[19]  R. Putnam,et al.  Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. , 1994 .

[20]  James Miller.  Passion of Michel Foucault , 1993 .

[21]  Mary Bailey.  Do Physicists Use Case Studies? Thoughts on Public Administration Research , 1992 .

[22]  B. Flyvbjerg.  Aristotle, Foucault and Progressive Phronesis: Outline of an Applied Ethics for Sustainable Development , 1992 .

[23]  C. Lindblom.  Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society , 1992 .

[24]  Bent Flyvbjerg.  90'ernes trafikplanlægning for miljø, sundhed og bæredygtighed , 1990 .

[25]  D. Kolb,et al.  Planning in the Face of Power. , 1988 .

[26]  R. Rorty.  Habermas and Lyotard on postmodernity , 1991 .

[27]  John N. Warfield,et al.  Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving , 1979 .

[28]  Lyndhurst Collins,et al.  Spatial Organization: The Geographer's View of the World , 1972 .

[29]  Norbert Krapf,et al.  MINUTES OF MEETING , 1938, The Guthrie Journal.

[30]  Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche,et al.  The Anti-Christ , 1895 .