Communicative Planning

Donald Leffers

Forthcoming in In A. M. Orum, M. Garcia, D. Judd, B. Roberts, & P. Choon Piew (Eds.),

The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Planning. West Sussex: John
Wiley & Sons.

Abstract
Communicative planning is a body of spatial planning scholarship associated with the
communicative turn in planning of the 1990s, instigated largely as a reaction to modernist
'rational' planning of the 1960s. Communicative planning scholars drew on social
theorists such as Jürgen Habermas and John Dewey to propose a normative perspective
on planning based on communicative rationality and debate between planning
stakeholders in order to anticipate and minimize 'distorted' exercises of power in the
planning process. Communicative planning scholars include John Forester, Judith Innis,
Patsy Healey, and Tore Sager. Related approaches include critical pragmatism,
collaborative planning, deliberative planning, argumentative planning, and discursive
democracy.

Keywords
Collaboration, communication, communicative turn, consensus, deliberation, discursive
democracy, planning, politics, power

Main Text
Communicative planning is a set of approaches in spatial planning developed in the early
1980s by planning theorists critical of positivist 'rational' forms of planning dominant in
the 1960s and 70s. Communicative theorists argued that these forms of planning
neglected politics and subtle exercises of power. Communicative approaches sought to
recognize and reduce distortions of information through dialogue and debate. By the
1990s, the communicative turn in planning saw the consolidation and popularity of
communicative approaches within European and American planning scholarship.

Communicative planning derived from concerns in the 1960s and 1970s by scholars such
as Paul Davidoff (1965), John Friedmann (1973), and Donald Schön (1983) of the limits
to technical rationality and knowledge, and the untapped potential for learning between
planning experts and other actors. Rational planners were assumed to be apolitical,
asocial, impartial, objective, and fully knowledgeable experts. John Forester, informed
broadly by the intellectual tradition of pragmatism, developed a theory of communicative
action throughout the 1980s based on close observation of planners in practice. Forester
(1980) first labeled this approach 'critical theory', as it drew on the critical
communications theory of society of German political theorist Jürgen Habermas.
Habermas sought to salvage the emancipatory potential of modernity from the powerful
instrumental rationality of capitalism and its technocrats. Forester saw a serious
contradiction when corporate and bureaucratic actors misrepresented their plans and
interests behind false or misleading rhetoric – what he termed 'distortions' – while
working within 'democratic' institutions ostensibly committed to debate and mutual
understanding. Forester called on planners to anticipate information distortions and to
work towards a more ideal communicative arena for actors to listen, learn, and
understand each other in order to judge and act upon different arguments in an unbiased
way (which was the core idea of Habermas’ concept of the herrschaftsfreier Diskurs or
'non-hierarchical discourse'). The ultimate goal of communicative action is a
democratically derived consensus based on the 'better argument' generated within an
arena of unbiased communication. Forester's communicative action theory of planning
was pragmatic and normative. It was based on empirical observation of planners in
practice, and sought to understand and correct political and economic obstacles to
democratic planning. Planning scholars such as Patsy Healey (1997), Judith Innes (Innes
and Booher, 2015), and Tore Sager (2013) drew on and developed related approaches,
including collaborative planning, deliberative planning, and argumentative planning.

Communicative planning and associated approaches have been criticized by many

planning theorists (Huxley, 2000; Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998). Criticisms of
communicative planning have focused on its understanding of ideal communication as
power-neutral; on its difficulty in practical implementation; and in its seeming inattention
to outcomes in favor of process. Regarding the first criticism, planning theorists (e.g.,
Huxley 2000), often employing a Foucauldian power-knowledge framework or a neo-
Marxian analysis, argue that all communicative processes take place within particular
constellations of values, ideas, and unequal power relations: no speech acts or arenas are
ever neutral. Extending from this, the goal of consensus can be questioned if unexamined
values and power differentials direct consent in particular ways. In terms of practical
concerns, critics consider communicative planning naive in its assumption that the
diversity of potential stakeholders can be identified, assembled for meaningful dialogue,
and steered towards a consensus based on collaboration and trust. Critics further suggest
that in moving from theories of communicative action to practice, these scholars undergo
a shift from critical theorizing to practical idealism, guided by specific moral positions
that ignore structural power. Critics argue this idealism is unrealistically optimistic in its
assumptions that shifts in institutional governance can lead to innovation and
participation from individuals and firms, and that these actors will voluntarily set aside
their economic and political imperatives and adopt a new moral agenda of democratic
openness and inclusivity.

Largely in response to critiques, communicative planning theory has given rise to

approaches that deal in different ways with structural power and the role of stakeholder
interrelationships in planning exercises. Roughly speaking, collaborative planning
emphasizes the role of the planner in mediating between competing stakeholders,
whereas deliberative planning emphasizes interpersonal relationships and communication
for particular goals.
Reflecting his preference for the practical rather than idealistic, John Forester (2013) has
downplayed the Habermasian communicative emphasis in his earlier work in favor of
Deweyan pragmatism and Aristotlean notions of deliberative democracy: genuine
attempts at active listening and learning for the purpose of understanding multiple
perspectives in decision-making processes. Rather than ignoring structural power,
Forester (2013) suggests, he has always been concerned with practice in the face of
power – pragmatic ways to deal with inevitable uneven power relationships. Sager (2013)
emphasizes the 'critical' aspects of communication and deliberation in planning. His
concern is that the desire for consensus in planning often comes at the cost of ignoring
biased exercises of power in the planning process. As a corrective, Sager calls for a
renewed critical planning theory that insists planning scholars take responsibility for
educating practitioners and fostering alliances with activist organizations in order to put
pressure on powerful stakeholders. Other theorists (e.g., Gualini 2015; Innis and Booher
2015) attempt to overcome theoretical dichotomies by calling for renewed attention to the
productive role of conflict in planning.

References
Davidoff, Paul. 1965. "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning." Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 31 (4): 331–338. DOI: 10.1080/01944366508978187.
Forester, John. 1980. "Critical Theory and Planning Practice." Journal of the American
Planning Association, 46: 275–86. DOI: 10.1080/01944368008977043.
Forester, John. 2013. "On the Theory and Practice of Critical Pragmatism: Deliberative
Practice and Creative Negotiations." Planning Theory, 12: 5–22. DOI:
10.1177/1473095212448750.
Gualini, Enrico, ed. 2015. Planning and Conflict: Critical Perspectives on Contentious
Urban Developments. New York: Routledge.
Healey, Patsy. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies.
Vancouver: UBC Press.
Huxley, Margo. 2000. “The Limits to Communicative Planning.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 19: 369–77. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X0001900406.
Innis, Judith, and David Booher. 2015. "A Turning Point for Planning Theory?
Overcoming Dividing Discourses." Planning Theory, 14: 195–213. DOI:
10.1177/1473095213519356.
Sager, Tore. 2013. Reviving Critical Planning Theory: Dealing with Pressure, Neo-
Liberalism, and Responsibility in Communicative Planning. New York: Routledge.
Tewdwr-Jones, Mark, and Philip Allmendinger. 1998. “Deconstructing Communicative
Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning.” Environment and
Planning A, 30 (11): 1975-1989. DOI: 10.1068/a301975 .

Suggested Readings
Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Sager, Tore. 1994. Communicative Planning Theory: Rationality Versus Power.
Aldershot, UK: Avebury.