Viewpoint - The nature of planning: economy versus society?

Abstract

A brief survey of recent theoretical literature on the ends and means of urban planning suggests a deepening chasm between social and economic analysts. Thus, for example, Sandercock (1998a; 1998b), Allmendinger (2001) and Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones (2002) generally envisage planning as an effective means to pursue social justice, negotiate conflicts, create inclusive communities where participants prefer it, engender tolerance and promote or maintain cultural difference. Their writings embody a spirit of democracy, of short it is a means of peacefully transacting negotiated urban futures. These are fine sentiments from which few would resile.On the other side of the fence, an emerging literature on the spirit and purpose of urban planning from a libertarian perspective (Lai, 2002; Pennington, 2002: Webster and Lai, 2003) focuses on primarily economic outcomes - planning's role in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public regulation over economy and society. This avowedly rational and positive approach focuses especially on the capacity of governments to deliver efficient and effective urban environments overall from a wide range of economic, social and environmental perspectives. it also assesses the relative costs and benefits of alternative strategies and administrative arrangements in delivering preferred outcomes. From my own perspective, it is pleasing to see others develop ideas which I and a colleague piloted 20 years ago (Sorensen and Day, 1981). We, in turn, took as our inspiration the writings of Friedrich Hayek, one of the leaders of the libertarian revival of the last 20 years.