Communicative Planning Theory Following Deliberative Democracy Theory: Critical Pragmatism and the Trading Zone Concept

The article reviews the development of communicative planning theory in relation to deliberative democracy theory. The latter has evolved since its "first generation" of Habermas and Rawls, to incorporate more pragmatic and contextual considerations to the theory, in response to criticisms that parallel those on communicative planning theory. The contemporary "third generation" of deliberative democracy theory has relaxed on the consensus goal, considering deliberation as legitimate even when the parties advocate their own interests in intense negotiations. The article discusses how this development has been reflected in communicative planning theory, concentrating especially on John Forester's critical pragmatism. It further examines the concept of trading zone and its linkages to this theoretical development.

[1]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration (review) , 2010 .

[2]  B. Flyvbjerg.  RATIONALITY AND POWER: DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE , 1999 .

[3]  M Tewdwr-Jones,et al.  Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning , 1998 .

[4]  Jean Hillier,et al.  `Agon'izing Over Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals cannot be `Real' , 2003 .

[5]  John Forester,et al.  Dealing with Differences: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes , 2009 .

[6]  P. McGuirk,et al.  Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge , 2001 .

[7]  S. Elstub,et al.  The Third Generation of Deliberative Democracy , 2010 .

[8]  S. Elstub.  A double-edged sword: the increasing diversity of deliberative democracy , 2006 .

[9]  R. Mäntysalo.  Dilemmas in Critical Planning Theory , 2002 .

[10]  Marc Cools,et al.  Shadows of power , 2015 .

[11]  Alessandro Balducci,et al.  Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone: Re-examining Lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment , 2011 .

[12]  Peter Galison.  Trading with the Enemy , 2010 .

[13]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[14]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Why deliberative democracy , 2004 .

[15]  Nancy Fraser.  Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy , 1990 .

[16]  J. Forester.  On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations , 2013 .

[17]  Raine Mäntysalo,et al.  Trading Zone and the Complexity of Planning , 2013 .

[18]  The Locality of Boundary Practices , 2013 .

[19]  J. Bohman,et al.  Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy , 1998 .

[20]  Joshua Cohen,et al.  DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY , 2005, Philosophy, Politics, Democracy.

[21]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Democracy and Disagreement , 1996 .

[22]  L. Lieto.  Place as Trading Zone: A Controversial Path of Innovation for Planning Theory and Practice , 2013 .

[23]  John Forester,et al.  Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations , 2006 .

[24]  I. Young.  Inclusion and Democracy , 2002 .

[25]  C. Legacy,et al.  The Problem is the Solution: Testing Agonistic Theory's Potential to Recast Intractable Planning Disputes , 2013 .

[26]  Stephen K. White,et al.  Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy@@@The Cambridge Companion to Habermas , 1997 .

[27]  Robert V. Bartlett,et al.  Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological Rationality , 2005 .

[28]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Trading zones and interactional expertise , 2007 .

[29]  P. Galison.  Refections on Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics , 1999, Perspectives on Science.

[30]  C. Hendriks,et al.  Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy , 2006 .

[31]  A. Balducci.  “Trading Zone”: A Useful Concept for Some Planning Dilemmas , 2013 .

[32]  A. Follesdal.  The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in the Deliberative Democracy , 2010 .

[33]  T. Sager.  Reviving Critical Planning Theory: Dealing with Pressure, Neo-liberalism, and Responsibility in Communicative Planning , 2012 .

[34]  John Pløger,et al.  Strife: Urban Planning and Agonism , 2004 .

[35]  C. Hendriks.  When the Forum Meets Interest Politics: Strategic Uses of Public Deliberation , 2006 .

[36]  Jonna Kangasoja.  Trading Zone as a Sensitizing Concept in Planning Research , 2013 .

[37]  Alessandro Balducci,et al.  Urban planning as a trading zone , 2013 .

[38]  Raine Mäntysalo,et al.  Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice - the case of Finland , 2010 .

[39]  J. Bohman.  Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy , 1996 .

[40]  P. Healey.  Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory , 1992 .

[41]  Heather Campbell,et al.  Just Planning , 2006 .

[42]  Raine Mäntysalo,et al.  Trading Between Land Use and Transportation Planning: The Kuopio Model , 2013 .

[43]  Maarit Kahila-Tani,et al.  SoftGIS Development Process as a Trading Zone: Challenges in Implementing a Participatory Planning Support System , 2013 .

[44]  Boyd Fuller,et al.  Trading zones : cooperating for water resource and ecosystem management when stakeholders have apparently irreconcilable differences , 2006 .

[45]  C. Mouffe.  The Democratic Paradox , 2000 .

[46]  P. Watzlawick,et al.  Pragmatics of human communication , 1975 .

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

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

[49]  John Forester,et al.  The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes , 1999 .

[50]  John Forester,et al.  Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice , 1993 .