Arguments for and against planning

Planning is increasingly under attack around the world in the political arena, the popular press, and academic literature. Responding to these critiques, this article examines four major types of argument which have been made for and against planning in a modern democratic 'free market' society economic arguments based on the advantages and deficiencies of competitive markets, pluralist arguments based on the benefits and limitations of pluralist group interactions, the traditional arguments used by the early planning profession, and recent neoMarxist' arguments for and against planning. Together these perspectives suggest that planning can be defended on theoretical grounds as performing four essential social functions: promoting the collective interests of the community; considering the external effects of individual and group action; improving the information base for public and private decision-making; and protecting the interests of society's most needy members. Ultimately, however, planning can only be judged on the practical grounds of how well it performs these functions.