Student Seminars [template]

Presenters
Session: Innovation in Urban Scholarship
Theme: Bent Flyvbjerg
Section: 2 Name: Ashkan Fayyaz ERP ID: 25077
Section: 2 Name: Shazan Mehdi ERP ID: 25057

Question 1. List down three (not more, not less) of the most important key terminologies/concepts
that they worked on, and define concisely what the scholar meant by these concepts [250 words, 3
marks]
1. Iron Law of Megaprojects: Through the Iron Law of Megaprojects1, Bent Flyvbjerg
delineates that most of the megaprojects tend to have a consistent pattern of cost overruns,
benefits overestimation, and schedule delays. Due to the optimistic bias and strategic
misrepresentation, costs are underestimated and benefits are exaggerated. Once reality
shatters the optimistic bias and manipulated cost-benefit analysis then the projects tend to
‘break’ sooner or later and attempts are made to ‘fix’ the flaws in them which leads to
Inverted Darwinism(the survival of the unfittest). As the projects that look the best on
paper end up becoming the worst or unfittest projects in reality.

2. Real Rationale: Flyvbjerg’s Real Rationality2 is set in opposition to traditional notions of

rationality, as it emphasizes the importance of context-specific knowledge, local
knowledge, and practical experience. Real Rationality provides a framework that addresses
the uncertainties, power dynamics, and political factors inherent in planning practice. Real
Rationality, encourages critical reflection, contextual understanding, collaboration, and
adaptive learning and integrates them into the decision-making process to achieve more
effective and sustainable outcomes.

3. Accountability in Planning: Flyvbjerg asserts that malpractice of manipulating costs and

benefits, should be dealt with accountability3. The means to accountability would be
transparency and political accountability. Projects should be subject to Independent peer
review and then peer review should be available publicly for public scrutiny. As of
political accountability, elected officials and decision-makers should be publicly
scrutinized accountable to the public for the decisions they make and the outcomes of
planning processes.
Question 2. This question invites you to think about how [your chosen scholar] has contributed to
the urban studies domain. Did the scholar invent these concepts, or did they extend upon another
scholars’ concepts? Were these concepts innovative/groundbreaking, or were they in opposition to
another scholars’ work? In what ways can you draw parallels/relationships between the key concepts
of this scholar and of their contemporaries? [300 words, 3 marks]
Bent Flyvbjerg developed his iron law concept through empirical data, case studies, and statistical
analysis of megaprojects projects worldwide. To construct his own conception of accountability;
Flyvbjerg draws on Giddens' theory of structuration to provide insights into how social structures
and individual actions intersect and influence accountability. In the Research paper, the dark side
of planning: Rationality and Real Rationalitat, Flyvbjerg pursues both Machiavelli’s verita
effetuale and Nietszche’s wirkliche History of Rationality to construct real rationality.

Flyvbjerg’s Accountability in planning4 and Iron Law of Megaprojects is indeed groundbreaking

as it mandates critical examination of the megaprojects/urban projects and helps you in identifying
systematic issues or recurring challenges in project delivery and implementation. It stimulates the
exploration of alternative approaches to urban development by providing evidence-based
recommendations on institutional arrangements, legal frameworks, and participatory processes that
help us in mitigating risks and enhancing transparency. Real Rationality calls for an understanding
of the complexity and multidimensionality of urban contexts and prompts a reflective and iterative
approach to decision making as it recognizes that urban planning is an ongoing process that
requires continuous learning and adaptation. It promotes innovation by fostering reflexivity among
planners, decision-makers, and researchers.

Flyvbjerg formulates an antithesis of Giovanni’s Ferraro’s thesis that reduces planners to noble
victims instead of seeing them as real political actors in real political processes. As Flyvbjerg
postulates, Ferraro ends up in the naive normativism of modernity thinkers. Flyvbjerg reiterates
what Martin Wachs argued and draws his own experience while he was conducting research on
planning and politics in the Danish town of Aalborg to proclaim that if Ferraro would have
incorporated real rationality then he would have realized that planners are simply not deceived but
rather are actively involved in serving the interests of organizations and private companies that pay
their salaries and expect them to promote their interests.

Question 3. Who do you think is the primary urban subject in the scholar’s work? How do they
construct the urban subject through their key concepts? What attributes of the urban subject do they
allude to? Do they assert a concrete and well-defined urban subject? Or is their conception of the
urban subject more abstract and subtle? [200 words, 3 marks]
Bent Flyvbjerg’s urban subject is an individual or institute with the power to influence urban
project planning. As seen in the Aalborg project5, Flyvbjerg’s primary urban subject varies in
context of the sphere or aspect of urban planning that you are looking at. The various stakeholders,
 such as politicians, planners, developers, and local communities all could serve as the primary
urban subject.

Flyvbjerg incorporates real rationality into the construction of the urban subject, by bridging the
gap between formal models and calculations and the messy reality of human behavior. In
contestation of the epistemic and techne knowledge, Flyvbjerg employs qualitative research
methods, such as interviews and observations that uncover the subjective experiences and
narratives of various stakeholders.

The power dynamics and the distribution of power amongst various stakeholders, the interests,
motivations and incentives of parties involved in the urban planning and experiences, narratives,
and perspectives of individuals and communities affected by urban development are the attributes
of the urban subject that Flyvbjerg alludes to.

Flyvbjerg’s conception of the urban subject is characterized as abstract and subtle because he
focuses on the social, political, and economic dynamics that are often complex, not easily
observable and require a more nuanced understanding of social relationships and influence.

Question 4. Imagine yourself as an urban researcher. You will take up one concept of this scholar in
terms of how it can be studied within the context of Karachi.
a. Which concept will you choose to work on? Why? How do you think this concept is relevant
to be studied in the context of Karachi? [100 words, 1 mark]
Bent Flyvbjerg's "Iron law of megaprojects" is the concept that is seemingly the best to study in
context of Karachi. It expounds the precedent that has been set in infrastructural development in
Karachi of cost overruns, benefits overestimation, and scheduled delays.

Overtime, several unfit and improperly planned megaprojects have been constructed in Karachi.
One such example is that of Greater Karachi Sewerage Plan (S-III) 6, which was approved with an
estimated cost of Rs8 billion and a completion time of four years but went on to cost Rs39 billion
and took an additional 15 months. Iron law would help us in understanding from the grassroots
why such misfit projects are repeatedly being developed in Karachi.

b. When researching this concept in the local context, you might foresee some challenges. Will it
be easy to adapt this concept to the local context? What academic and/or pragmatic difficulties
do you foresee in terms of studying this concept within Karachi? What kinds of improvisations
will you have to make to your research in Karachi, to fully investigate this concept? [200 words,
3 marks]
Adapting Iron Law in the context of Karachi is quite hard. Investigating allegations of corruption
and malfeasance is challenging due to the political and economic landscape of Karachi. As the
 institutions and individuals, supposed to conduct peer reviews of the projects are themselves
involved in rampant corruption. Accurate and vast amount of comprehensive and reliable data
related to megaprojects is integral to the application of Flyvbjerg’s Iron Law of Megaprojects. The
limited availability and reliability of data regarding megaprojects in Karachi would contribute to
the challenges of accurately assessing cost and timeline estimates, as well as identifying factors
causing overruns and delays.

For example, the KCR project7 faced delays and criticism after a Chinese consortium was awarded
the contract, with some arguing it was based on political connections rather than merit. To
investigate this concept, researchers should use a mix of quantitative and qualitative research
methods, including surveys, interviews, and case studies. They should engage with stakeholders
such as government agencies, contractors, civil society groups, and community members to gain a
comprehensive understanding of decision-making processes and power dynamics underlying
megaprojects. Researchers should be culturally and linguistically sensitive and adapt their methods
and communication styles accordingly. Investigating megaprojects in Karachi requires rigorous
data collection and analysis, as well as a deep understanding of the local context.

Bibliography [2 marks]
1. Flyvbjerg, B. (2017, April 1). Introduction: The Iron Law of Megaproject Management.
https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=6530040940991060790740240000090700950490170310830900350641000900960081
2712508902212102210209803111906301310210908601100310006800002006608703509
7014102017068026083113063023086083027088019114119093121121084112089110101
097074028018073009092108104112069064&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

2. Flyvbjerg, B. (1996). The Dark Side of Planning: Rationality and “Realrationalität.”

https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=5100700861110860861201170120920201170520350530800910160220651130090950
7010609802709304305302403800500105508802206709000200708404102105908205209
6120127115001025017066036045082067126026083122025078094027125123000021066
028068102007005016006098004089028111&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

3. Cairns, G. (2004). Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition20042B. Flyvbjerg, N.

Bruzelius and W. Rothengatter. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003. 207 pp. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 17(3), 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550410530199

4. Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). Machiavellian Megaprojects. Antipode, 37(1), 18–22.

 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00471.x

5. Duineveld, M., Van Assche, K., & Beunen, R. (2017). Rationality and Power in Urban

Governance: on Bent Flyvbjerg. ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319536718_Rationality_and_Power_in_Urban_G

overnance_on_Bent_Flyvbjerg

6. Tribune. (2020, October 22). City to wait another five years for S-III sewerage plan. The

Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2269378/city-to-wait-another-five-years-for-

s-iii-sewerage-plan

7. Kaleem, M. (2017, June 29). Obstacles in the revival of Karachi Circular Railway. Herald

Magazine. https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153792