Innovation in Public Planning Calculate Communicate and Innovate 1St Ed Edition Aksel Hagen Full Chapter

Innovation in Public Planning:
Calculate, Communicate and Innovate

1st ed. Edition Aksel Hagen
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/innovation-in-public-planning-calculate-communicate-
and-innovate-1st-ed-edition-aksel-hagen/
Innovation in
Public Planning
Calculate,
Communicate
and Innovate
Edited by
Aksel Hagen · Ulla Higdem
Innovation in Public Planning
Aksel Hagen • Ulla Higdem
Editors
Innovation in Public
Planning
Calculate, Communicate and Innovate
Editors
Aksel Hagen Ulla Higdem
Inland Norway University of Applied Inland Norway University of Applied
Sciences Sciences
Lillehammer, Norway Lillehammer, Norway
ISBN 978-3-030-46135-5 ISBN 978-3-030-46136-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46136-2
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: © Maram_shutterstock.com
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
As planning researchers, we have long recorded that planners and

politicians have used the concept of innovation for many years to
inspire and improve their practices. Over the last 15 years, the body of
literature on innovation in, for and about the public sector, including
public planning, has expanded substantially. Innovation has become
an imperative for the public sector including planning. In planning
theory, discussion of the innovation concept is less common than
might be expected given the public sector’s overall level of theoretical
interest in the topic.
If planning theory still aims both to describe and to prescribe planning,
then it is our view that innovation also must be given more theoretical
attention. This book aims at contributing to the discourse on innovation
in planning theory. Our efforts have led to the introduction of a theoreti-
cal framework for how to understand innovation in planning today by
building on other scholars and the several contributions of this book. A
central inspirational force for this book is the planning theorist John
Fiedmann, who introduced innovative planning in 1966. The main initiat-
ing force to realise a book on innovation and planning was Palgrave
Macmillan, for which we are thankful. We would also like to thank all the
contributors for joining us in this adventure in a positive, disciplined and
innovative manner.
v
vi PREFACE
Finally, we hope the book inspires further discourse on innovative

planning, be it theoretical or practical.
Lillehammer, Norway Aksel Hagen

January 2020 Ulla Higdem
Contents
1 Innovation on the Planning Theory Agenda: An

Introduction 1
Aksel Hagen and Ulla Higdem
2 Calculate, Communicate and Innovate? 11

3 Planning and Innovation in a Collaborative Framework 33

Roar Amdam
4 Politicians’ Roles in Planning: Seen or Ignored? What Do

We Know About Politicians’ Roles in Planning? 53
5 Strategic Turn in Planning and the Role of Institutional

Innovation 73
Kaisa Granqvist and Raine Mäntysalo
6 Sustainable Development: A Question of ‘Modernization’

or ‘Degrowth’? 91
Petter Næss
vii
viii Contents
7 To Enhance Social Equity Through Urban Planning: The

Potential for Innovation111
Hege Hofstad
8 Climate Leadership: Developing Innovative Strategic

Tools to Improve the Partnership Mode of Planning131
Gro Sandkjær Hanssen and Hege Hofstad
9 Innovative Planning in Rural, Depopulating Areas:

Conditions, Capacities and Goals151
Josefina Syssner and Marlies Meijer
10 Lost or Found? Translating Innovative Participation171

Toril Ringholm
11 Planning for Innovation as Innovative Planning?189

Ann Karin Tennås Holmen
12 Innovation in Planning Theory: The Upcoming

Perspective205
Index219
Notes on Contributors
Roar Amdam is Full Professor of Planning and Leadership at the Volda

University College, Norway. He was head of the master programme in
planning and leadership at the college from 1999 to 2019. His major
research question has been how to use planning as a tool in the develop-
ment of regions and local communities, organisations and public health
work. Central themes in his research are innovation, collaboration,
empowerment, capacity building and legitimacy. He has written several
books and articles.
Kaisa Granqvist is pursuing her PhD at Aalto University School of
Engineering, Finland. Her dissertation deals with strategic spatial plan-
ning, especially spatial imaginaries in the dialectics of soft strategic and
statutory planning institutions and practice. Her dissertation draws from
five case studies on strategic spatial planning in Finnish local governments
and city regions. She will complete her PhD in 2020.
Aksel Hagen is Associate Professor of Planning at the Inland Norway
University of Applied Sciences, Norway. He has served 22 years as an
elected representative at all three levels of government in Norway, and
more than 20 years as a teacher and researcher in planning. His research
focus has been local and regional planning, and the normative and descrip-
tive contribution of planning theory to planning practice.
Gro Sandkjær Hanssen is a senior researcher and research professor at
the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Oslo
Metropolitan University, Norway. She is also Professor II in the
ix
x NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Life

Science. She led the evaluation of the Norwegian Planning and Building
Act and has been project leader of research projects about citizen partici-
pation in and political steering of compact city development, of climate
change adaptation and of urban public spaces.
Ulla Higdem is Full Professor of Planning at the Inland Norway
University of Applied Sciences, Norway. Her research covers the areas of
regional and local planning and development, and new forms of directing,
steering (governance) and planning, as well as public innovation. Higdem
is also an experienced planner in the field of regional planning and devel-
opment processes.
Hege Hofstad is Research Professor of Political Science at the Norwegian
Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Oslo Metropolitan University,
Norway. Her research interest and publications centre on how the
public aims of health promotion, social equity, sustainability and cli-
mate change are handled in planning and urban development, as well
as through leadership and interactive governance.
Ann Karin Tennås Holmen is Associate Professor of Political Science at
the University of Stavanger, Norway, and holds a Doctorate in
Administration and Organizational Science from the University of Bergen.
In 2019 the book Innovation Meets Municipality was published, for which
she was the editor. Furthermore, Holmen leads the national research net-
work INNOFF (innovation in the public sector). She has developed, led
and participated in a number of research projects on collaboration
and innovation in the public sector and in particular research on gov-
ernance and innovation processes in municipalities.
Raine Mäntysalo is Full Professor of Strategic Urban Planning at Aalto
University School of Engineering, Finland. With his team, he has done
research on different aspects of strategic spatial planning. He has super-
vised 12 doctoral theses and is an editorial board member of Planning
Theory, Planning Theory & Practice and European Planning Studies.
Marlies Meijer is Assistant Professor of Spatial Planning at Utrecht
University, the Netherlands. Her research focuses on planning for decline,
citizen initiatives and community-led planning.
Petter Næss is Full Professor of Planning in Urban Regions at the
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway, where he is heading the
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xi
research group on Urban Sustainability. Næss’ main research areas are

sustainable urban development, relationships between urban form and
transport, driving forces in urban development, planning theory and phi-
losophy of science. During recent years, he has increasingly investigated
the possibilities and limitations of ecological modernisation strategies to
achieve sustainable urban development.
Toril Ringholm is Full Professor of Public Planning at University of
Tromsø (UiT)—The Arctic University of Norway, Norway. She is affili-
ated with the Arctic Center for Sustainable Energy (ARC) at UiT. Her
research covers the areas of local and regional development, local democ-
racy, citizen participation, public planning and public innovation. She has
been the editor of two books on public innovation and has contributed
with chapters in several other books within the themes of planning, arctic
sustainability and local development.
Josefina Syssner is Associate Professor of Human Geography at
Linköping University, Sweden. Her current research focuses on local
policy and planning in depopulating and rural areas.
List of Figures
Fig. 3.1 The collaborative co-creation spiral in planning and innovation 44

Fig. 5.1 Modes of institutional change (authors’ adaptation from
Mahoney & Thelen, 2010: 19) 78
Fig. 7.1 Creating healthy urban planning 124
Fig. 7.2 Core conditions for health promotion and social health equality 126
Fig. 8.1 Illustrating how climate leadership must embrace four
categories of steering mechanisms (based on Alber and Kern in
OECD, 2008: 39) 134
Fig. 9.1 Planning resources 157
Fig. 9.2 Planning challenges in depopulating rural areas 158
Fig. 9.3 Local growth policy and local adaptation policy. (Source:
Syssner, 2018) 164
xiii
List of Tables
Table 10.1 Types of participation and arenas in the ByLab process 178
Table 10.2 Number of people that the politicians/planners have had a
dialogue with during the ByLab 179
Table 12.1 A framework for innovative planning 207
xv
CHAPTER 1
Innovation on the Planning Theory Agenda:

An Introduction
Innovation: An Upcoming Field of Interest

In Europe’s public sector today, innovation is given frequent attention,
including a policy push (De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2016; Geuijen,
Moore, Cederquist, et al., 2017). One of the main contributors to policy
development in Europe, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD), emphasizes that innovation is imperative for
the public sector (OECD, 2015), and hence the public sector must create
an environment that fosters innovation (OECD, 2017). During the past
15 years, the literature on innovation in relation to the public sector has
expanded substantially. Some examples of the themes it has covered are
innovation in public welfare delivery (i.e. services) (Djellal, Gallouj, &
Miles, 2013; Hartley, 2005; Hartley, 2008), innovation in various forms
of public governance (Hartley, 2005; Moore & Hartley, 2008) and initia-
tion and promotion of innovation within public sector organizations
(Bason, 2010). We have also seen that the public sector may be both a
driver or facilitator of, and a contributor to, innovation (Teigen, 2007);
A. Hagen (*) • U. Higdem

Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway
e-mail: aksel.hagen@inn.no; ulla.higdem@inn.no
© The Author(s) 2020 1

A. Hagen, U. Higdem (eds.), Innovation in Public Planning,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46136-2_1
2 A. HAGEN AND U. HIGDEM
for example, using public procurement as a policy measure (Edler &

Georghiou, 2007) or through a more systematic, network-based approach
(Bryson, Sancino, Benington, et al., 2017; Edquist, 2005). The territorial
framing of the public sector’s tasks in an institutional context reveals the
substantial cooperation on local and regional development and innovation
goals (Cahoon, Pateman, & Chen, 2013; Higdem, 2017; Metze &
Melika, 2012). The public innovation imperative also has implications for
public planning as public planning is a vital part of the public sector’s stra-
tegic long-term policy, which directs societal development (Albrechts,
2012; Amdam & Veggeland, 2011; Healey, 2010).
Planning involves viewing the future as being different from today by
recognizing that humans can make fundamental changes. Planning aims
to make a difference by preparing for, contributing to and facilitating
change. The public sector is characterized by a large and varied range of
planning activities, such as financial, services, land use, business develop-
ment and comprehensive societal planning. When the public sector is
increasingly concerned about innovation, public planning must seek to
make equal contributions to innovation.
We recognize that planners and politicians have used the concept of
innovation to inspire their practices for many years. Over the last 15 years,
the literature on innovation in, for and about the public sector, including
public planning, has expanded substantially. In recent decades, the term
‘innovation’ has largely replaced expressions such as ‘change’ and ‘creativ-
ity’; it has also replaced ‘modernization’, ‘improvement of efficiency’ and
‘improvement of planning methods’ in the vocabulary driving public sec-
tor and public planning performance. The concept of innovation has been
widely adopted in public planning, primarily after the turn of the millen-
nium (c.f. Agger & Sørensen, 2016; Amdam, 2014; Innes, 2004;
Albrechts, 2012; Gunn & Hillier, 2012; Healey, Birch, Campbell, et al.,
2000; Stein & Harper, 2012).
Innovation in the Planning Theory Field: Past

and Present
The observant reader may have noticed that a definition of innovation has
not yet been provided. To develop a comprehensive definition of innova-
tive planning, we turn to the main source of inspiration for this book: the
planning theorist John Friedmann (1926–2017). Published over 50 years
1 INNOVATION ON THE PLANNING THEORY AGENDA: AN INTRODUCTION 3
ago, Friedmann’s thoughts are important in relation to how the innova-

tion concept has been understood in planning since the 1960s. He identi-
fied innovative planning, or planning as innovation, as one of the two
main forms of planning within his conceptual model of planning behav-
iour (Friedmann, 1966). The other form, ‘allocation’, which is sometimes
the only mode of public planning, describes the balancing and distribution
of scarce resources for what he termed ‘optimal use’. These two planning
types, according to Friedmann (1966), are necessary if we are to accu-
rately describe and prescribe planning. He also formulated a definition of
innovative planning:
Innovative planning is defined as (1) seeking to legitimize new social objec-

tives or effect a major reordering in the priority of existing objectives, (2)
concerned with translating general value propositions into new institutional
arrangements and concrete action programs, (3) being more interested in
the mobilization of resources than in their optimal use, and (4) proposing to
guide innovation processes through information feedback of the actual con-
sequences of action. (Friedmann, 1966, p. 194)
In 1966, Friedmann (1966) argued that, “The need for creative inno-
vation is among the imperative needs of an age in which structural changes
are the normal pattern and social equilibria are always fragile and short-
lived” (p. 196). This statement is as appropriate today as it was in the
1960s. The growing number of unruly and distressing societal problems
makes innovation in the public sector imperative (Geuijen et al., 2017;
Hartley, Sørensen, & Torfing, 2013; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011).
Friedmann’s (1966) similar concerns pinpointed the need to take new,
collective practices and actions on complex, interrelated issues. At that
time, interrelated aspects such as “the distribution of income, the supply
of low-cost housing and the spatial demand pattern of housing” (p. 194)
were treated separately; hence, innovative planning was much needed.
Friedmann (1966) promoted, and experienced, innovative planning
that was effective and both broke with established planning practices and
changed institutional arrangements and specific actions. This was neces-
sary for challenging the conventional wisdom of treating complex or
unruly issues as interlinked and part of the same problem with the same
solution.
How have the definitions, the understanding and the uses of the con-
cept of innovation in planning theory discourse evolved since the 1960s?
We undertook the challenge of reviewing the planning theory literature

for contributions on innovation. Our search led to many publications dur-
ing 1966 to 2018, including about 70 planning theory contributions from
both newer and well-established theoreticians. The connection between
innovation and planning theory began during the second half of the 1960s
but then, with a few exceptions (Hagen & Higdem, 2019), disappeared
from the theoretical discourse.
However, this changed around the turn of the millennium when the
most visible and influential planning theorists began adopting the concept
of innovation and new voices joined the debate (Agger & Sørensen, 2016;
Hagen & Higdem, 2019). It was then argued that strategic planning pro-
vides a good vehicle for innovation (Albrechts, 2012; Healey, 2006),
which is why we attend to these planning types in this book.
In planning theory, discussion of the innovation concept is less com-
mon than might be expected given the public sector’s overall level of theo-
retical interest in the topic. However, several articles identified in our
search treat innovation as a simple, common word, not one with a specific
definition or impacts for planning theory (Hagen & Higdem, 2019).
We argue that if planning theory still aims to both describe and pre-
scribe planning, then innovation must be given more than theoretical
attention. It seems that the theorists and researchers are lagging behind
the practitioners (i.e. planners, politicians). Over the years, several con-
tributors to the field of planning theory have criticized the field’s domi-
nant theoretical positions of ‘Communicate’ and ‘Calculate’, which do
not allow, and may even stifle, creativity and innovation (Mäntysalo, 2002;
Stein & Harper, 2012). Therefore, we need planning theory to develop in
ways that address the innovation theme.
To extend our exploration of how innovation may be understood in
planning, we will return to this topic in the book’s final chapter, where we
bring the innovation concept more distinctly into planning theory by con-
sidering how it may be added to the traditional ‘Calculate’ and
‘Communicate’ perspectives that form the basic theory’s framework. In
the final chapter, we also return to Friedmann’s understanding of innova-
tive planning, with a discourse on development of a new theory on inno-
vation in the public sector.
We also discuss Friedmann’s understanding of innovative planning fur-
ther in Chap. 2 in relation to contemporary theory on innovation in the
public sector and planning. To further explain innovative planning in that
chapter, we have combined Friedmann’s 1966 description of innovation
with today’s multi-actor, co-production governance systems (Kickert,

Klijn, & Koppenjan, 1999; Osborne, 2010; Sørensen & Torfing, 2006).
We also consider innovation theory’s contribution to the public sector
(Hartley, 2005; Hartley et al., 2013; Osborne & Brown, 2011) and its
applicability to today’s planning theory and practice.
In sum, we now recognize innovative planning as being mainly con-
cerned with systematic, territorial, societal and co-produced change,
which breaks with established practices and seeks to legitimize new social
objectives or effect a major reprioritization of existing objectives. However,
we emphasize that the term ‘innovation’ may be in danger of becoming a
buzzword describing a quick fix for complex societal issues or to legitimize
public sector downsizing or cutbacks. We do not support these uses. It is
important to note that innovation, according to our use, has the potential
to both succeed and fail. This element of uncertainty separates innovation
from work on development and change (Hartley, 2005; Osborne &
Brown, 2011). Furthermore, innovation in the public sector is not limited
to services or products but may also be reflected in processes, organiza-
tions, policy and governance (Crosby, ‘t Hart, & Torfing, 2017; Moore &
Hartley, 2008). This is important for planning purposes since planning
may spur innovation in each of these areas, including the form of planning
itself, and has the potential to contribute to public value.
Contributions to Planning Theory

and Understanding of Practice
The following chapters contribute to the discourse on innovation in plan-

ning theory. They address pivotal and unruly issues in ways applicable to
both innovative planning and planning innovation. We briefly introduce
each chapter here. In the final chapter, we reflect further on how each
chapter contributes to the innovation perspective of planning.
In Chap. 2, Aksel Hagen and Ulla Higdem describe the emergence of
the innovation theme within theories for both planning and the public
sector. They explore the relationship between Friedmann’s understanding
of innovative planning in the 1960s and contemporary innovation theo-
ries and present the planning theory field’s ‘Calculate’ and ‘Communicate’
positions. They argue that planning and acting innovatively are about to
become dominant in planning, equal to the traditional ‘Calculate’ and
‘Communicate’. On this basis, they suggest that planning needs three, not
two, interplaying approaches: Communicate, Calculate and Innovate.
In Chap. 3, Roar Amdam claims that both collaborative planning and
innovation involve attempts to combine instrumental and communicative
rationality to link knowledge to action and to organize multiple actors in
a network. Amdam argues that both collaborative planning and innova-
tion need democratic legitimacy. He discusses the similarities between the
planning and innovation processes, how different governance regimes
influence these processes and how actors contributing wisdom to collab-
orative processes can increase the network’s legitimacy and institutional
capacity.
Drawing on a systematic literature review, Aksel Hagen and Ulla
Higdem describe how politics and politicians have been regarded in the
most widely read and quoted contributions to mainstream planning the-
ory debate. Their review of the latest major evaluations of Norwegian
planning allows a comparison between international and Norwegian per-
spectives. The general impression they provide is that politicians and polit-
ical activity are clearly understudied. Hagen and Higdem conclude Chap. 4
by outlining an innovative societal planning type in which politicians are
expected to play a leading role.
Strategic planning is recognized as a tool for generating innovation;
however, Kaisa Granqvist and Raine Mäntysalo argue that strategic plan-
ning may itself be an innovation. In Chap. 5, they show how strategic
planning is implemented in practice, relative to the existing planning sys-
tem, through what they frame as ‘institutional innovation’. Institutional
innovation is necessary to overcome the gap between strategic planning
practices and the regular statutory planning system. However, the modes
of innovation may differ, which they illustrate with two cases from Finland.
Is sustainable development a question of ‘modernization’ or degrowth?
This is Petter Næss’ overarching question in the next chapter. Increasing
evidence shows that only a partial ‘decoupling’ between growth and nega-
tive environmental impacts is achievable. He argues that we are in a dire
need of profound, macro-scale, radical societal innovation in this double-
edged crisis of ecological unsustainability and growing inequality. At the
conclusion of Chap. 6, Næss explains how planners and planning scholars
should contribute to a radical sustainability innovation.
In Chap. 7, Hege Hofstad explores the innovation potential of one of
the most challenging and unruly planning goals: that is, how it can sup-
port the development of more socially equal communities and how it can
consider innovation in terms of the need for development of new ideas,

practices and instruments of planning. Based on a Delphi panel’s ideas and
experiences, as well as relevant research results, Hofstad identifies and dis-
cusses promising steps for strengthening awareness of social inequality as
a goal for local development and planning, as well as specific instruments
for elevating this concern in the planning core.
Gro Sandkjær Hanssen and Hege Hofstad discuss in Chap. 8 how strate-
gic planning tools are used in the performance of climate leadership in a
‘forerunner’ city, especially related to urban planning. They also contrib-
ute by illustrating how urban climate leadership is performed in an institu-
tional ‘hybrid’ planning landscape, with a special attention on the role of
strategic planning in climate transition. Strategic planning represents an
effective meta-governance instrument for mobilization and anchorage of
policy goals, strategies and institutional networks with multiple actors,
including citizens.
Depopulation, economic decline and shrinkage of rural areas is a grow-
ing concern for European countries. In Chap. 9, Josefina Syssner and
Marlies Meijer contribute vital reflections on the conditions, capacities and
goals for planning in rural and declining areas, based on empirical studies
of planning policies in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.
They advocate for innovative planning practices in depopulating and
declining areas, simultaneously mobilizing further societal resources and
adapting and adjusting local governments to a diminishing resource base.
Syssner and Meijer underscore that such planning requires a new vocabu-
lary that includes descriptions of the processes of shrinkage and their
effects.
In Chap. 10, Toril Ringholm asks how knowledge, experiences and
ideas generated within innovative participation arenas are translated into
decision-making. Many new and innovative forms of participation con-
nected to public planning and strategy occur; these are often informal and
sometimes expressive. However, public planning is a formal activity, largely
based on written documents. As these new forms gain strength, this ques-
tion gains importance. Ringholm’s analysis is based on a strategy process
case study of a medium-sized Norwegian town carried out within several
innovative arenas.
Through a study of two municipalities’ planning processes for innova-
tion that would build a culture and infrastructure for innovation, Ann
Karin Tennås Holmen contributes to our understanding of innovative
planning in Chap. 11. This study shows that planning for innovation does
not necessarily involve choosing paths for innovative planning. Supported

by perspectives of institutional logics, Tennås Holmen seeks to explain
variations in how municipalities translate the idea of innovation into their
institutional planning systems.
References
Agger, A., & Sørensen, E. (2016). Managing collaborative innovation in public
bureaucracies. Planning Theory, 1, 1–21.
Albrechts, L. (2012). Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction
perspective. Planning Theory, 12, 46–63.
Amdam, J., & Veggeland, N. (2011). Teorier om samfunnsstyring og planlegging.
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Amdam, R. (2014). An Integrated planning, learning and innovation system in the
decentralized public sector; a Norwegian perspective. The Innovation Journal:
The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 19, Article 3.
Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society.
Portland: The Policy Press.
Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., et al. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory
of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19, 640–654.
Cahoon, S., Pateman, H., & Chen, S.-L. (2013). Regional port authorities:
Leading players in innovation networks? Journal of Transport Geography,
27, 66–75.
Crosby, B., ‘t Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017). Public Value Creation through
Collaborative Innovation. Public Management Review, 19, 655–669.
De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector:
A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration,
94, 146–166.
Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation
in services: Which place for public services? Structural Change and Economic
Dynamics, 27, 98–117.
Edler, J., & Georghiou, L. (2007). Public procurement and innovation –
Resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy, 36, 949–963.
Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, &
R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 181–209). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Friedmann, J. (1966). Planning as innovation: The Chilean case. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 32, 194–204.
Geuijen, K., Moore, M., Cederquist, A., et al. (2017). Creating public value in
global wicked problems. Public Management Review, 19, 621–639.
Gunn, S., & Hillier, J. (2012). Processes of innovation: Reformation of the English
strategic spatial planning system. Planning Theory & Practice, 13, 359–381.
Hagen, A., & Higdem, U. (2019). Calculate, communicate and innovate – Do we
need innovate as a third position? Journal of Planning Literature, 34, I–13.
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present.
Public Money & Management, 25, 27–34.
Hartley, J. (2008). The innovation landscape for public service organizations. In
J. Hartley (Ed.), Managing to improve public services. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable
alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public
Administration Review, 73, 821–830.
Healey, P. (2006). Network complexity and the imaginative power of strategic
spatial planning. In L. Albrechts & S. J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), The network soci-
ety. A new context for planning? (pp. 146–160). London: Routledge.
Healey, P. (2010). Making better places. The planning project in the twenty-first
century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Healey, P. (2012). The universal and the contingent: Some reflections on the
transnational flow of planning ideas and practises. Planning Theory, 11, 188–207.
Healey, P., Birch, G., Campbell, H., et al. (2000). Editorial. Planning Theory &
Practice, 1, 7–10.
Higdem, U. (2017). Dimensions of collaborative strategies and policy innovation.
Current Politics and Economics of Europe, 28, 7–30.
Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning
Theory, 3, 5–20.
Kickert, W., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1999). Managing complex net-
works. Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage Publications.
Mäntysalo, R. (2002). Dilemmas in critical planning theory. Town Planning
Review, 73, 417–436.
Metze, T., & Melika, L. (2012). Barriers to credible innovations: Collaborative
regional governance in the Netherlands. The Innovation Journal: The Public
Sector Innovation Journal, 17, 1–15.
Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management
Review, 10, 3–20.
OECD. (2015). The innovation imperative in the public sector, setting an agenda
for action. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017). Fostering innovation in the public sector. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Osborne, S. P. (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the
theory and practise of public governance. London: Routledge.
Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services
delivery in the UK. The word that would be king? Public Administration, 89,
1335–1350.
Sager, T. (1992). Why plan? A multi-rationality foundation for planning.

Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, 9, 129–147.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2006). Netværksstyring. Fra Government til
Governance. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the
public sector. Administration & Society, 43, 842–868.
Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2012). Creativity and innovation: Divergence and
convergence in pragmatic dialogical planning. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 32, 5–17.
Teigen, H. (2007). Innovativ forvaltning. Avgrensingar og omgrepsbruk. In
R. Rønning & H. Teigen (Eds.), En innovativ forvaltning? (pp. 13–43).
Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
CHAPTER 2
Calculate, Communicate and Innovate?
Introduction
John Friedmann (1926–2017), the famous planning theorist, is an essen-
tial inspiration for this book about innovation and planning. In 1966,
when he was working as an advisor to the Chilean government, he
launched the field of innovative planning with a paper on how fundamen-
tal changes can improve a country’s social situation. In his article, ‘Planning
as Innovation: The Chilean Case’ (1966), Friedmann argued that innova-
tion can help change society’s social objectives by proposing new values.
Later in this chapter, we explore this more deeply, but for now, we just
note that Friedmann’s paper on innovative planning received little interest
from planning theorists at the time (Hagen & Higdem, 2019).
Consistent with Friedmann’s argument in 1966, in this chapter, we
argue that the growing number of wicked and unruly societal problems
makes innovation imperative for public sector planning, albeit in different
ways than in America in the 1960s. The need for new collective practices
and action to address complex and interrelated issues is obvious today. Of
course, we do not believe that innovation is the answer to all of society’s
difficulties, or that it provides quick-fix solutions or a means for
A. Hagen • U. Higdem (*)

Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway
e-mail: aksel.hagen@inn.no; ulla.higdem@inn.no
© The Author(s) 2020 11

A. Hagen, U. Higdem (eds.), Innovation in Public Planning,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46136-2_2
downsizing and reducing public sector expenses. However, innovation in

planning has the potential to make changes that can contribute to pub-
lic value.
Innovation is a rising perspective in the public sector, as well as in plan-
ning, as noted in the introductory chapter of this book. Innovation has
become pertinent in public sector administration (de Vries, Bekkers, &
Tummers, 2016; Geuijen, Moore, Cederquist, Rønning, & van Twist,
2017), public welfare delivery (services) (Djellal, Gallouj, & Miles, 2013;
Jean Hartley, 2005; Hartley, 2008), public governance and public sector
organizations (Hartley, 2005; Moore & Hartley, 2008) and public plan-
ning and planning theory (Albrechts, 2013; R Amdam, 2002; Gunn &
Hillier, 2012; Healey, 2011; Healey, Birch, Campbell, & Upton, 2000;
Hillier, 2008; Innes, 2004; Savini, Majoor, & Salet, 2015; Stein & Harper,
2012; Throgmorton, 2003).
Innovation has become popular in the strategic planning literature.
Terms such as social innovation, community innovation, spatial innova-
tion and socio-spatial innovation are widely used (Bafarasat Ziafati, 2015).
Strategic planning is considered to be a tool for innovation and creative
action in organizations and local and regional societies (Albrechts,
Balducci, & Hillier, 2017).
Finally, there is an increased focus on innovation as a part of the grow-
ing criticism of the ‘Communicate’ planning theoretical position. Several
planning theorists argue that creativity and innovation are constrained by
planning theories, such as the ‘Calculate’ tradition and Cartesian rational-
ity (Hillier, 2008), as well as Habermasian-inspired communicative theo-
ries (Mäntysalo, 2002; Tewdwr-Jones, 1998). Tewdwr-Jones and
Almendinger emphasize that no innovative forms of planning have
occurred within the communicative or rationality frameworks (Tewdwr-
Jones, 1998). Mäntysalo argues that, “Habermas’ concept of dialogue is
too narrow, too static and uncreative. The central aspect of creativity is
missing” (Mäntysalo, 2002: 329). Stein and Harper (2012), argue that
the Habermasian-based Critical Planning Theory, with its communicative
ideal, does not allow—and may even stifle—creativity and innovation.
At the same time, we must not forget that many planning theorists treat
planning as a communicative activity that includes innovation in one way
or another (Hillier, 2008; Innes, 2004). Innes argues that communicative
approaches stimulate innovative thinking and action more than they
inhibit it (Innes, 2004: 302). Collaborative innovation processes are
expected in planning, and communicative practice must supplement
2 CALCULATE, COMMUNICATE AND INNOVATE? 13
instrumental practice (Agger & Sørensen, 2018; Booher & Innes, 2002;
Davidoff, 2016; Forester, 2013; Healey, 1997).
This chapter is structured as follows. We begin by presenting the calcu-
late and communicate positions in the field of planning theory, including
the efforts to include innovation in the communicative approach. Then we
describe in greater detail the emergence of the innovation theme in theo-
ries for both planning and the public sector. We explore the relationship
between Friedmann’s understanding of innovative planning in the 1960s
and contemporary innovation theories, and explain why innovation has
started to become important in the planning theory literature. We sum-
marize by arguing that communicate, calculate and innovate should be
seen as the three interplaying approaches to be used to describe and pre-
scribe planning. Thinking, planning and acting innovatively are about to
become dominant in planning, equivalent to calculate and communicate.
Innovation is considered to be so critical in organizations and societies,
and so analytically different from calculating and communicating, that it
requires its own defined position. We suggest that planning needs three,
not two, interplaying approaches: communicate, calculate and innovate.
We also present some key issues/themes/factors for the innovation posi-
tion in planning theory.
Calculate and Communicate

Two of the most basic and dominant theoretical perspectives in planning
are the instrumental and communicative perspectives. The instrumental
perspective refers to the analytical or calculative tradition, which is charac-
terized by key words such as ‘instrumental’, ‘technical’, ‘expert-based’ and
‘positivistic’ (Habermas, 1984; Harper & Stein, 2012; Sager, 1990). The
communicative perspective stresses on dialogue and communication, and
can be characterized by key words such as ‘communicative rationality’,
‘dialogue-based’, ‘social learning’, ‘participatory’ and ‘pragmatic’ (Harper
& Stein, 2012).
Calculate
Instrumental planning is dominated by experts and their knowledge, and
is linear and directed towards enhancing effectiveness. Planning experts
separate planning and action to coordinate with political decisions. As
early as the 1960s, planning theoreticians claimed that the instrumental
rationality concept, with related planning models and methods, was an

excessively narrow approach to planning. Planning was seen as more than
implementing instrumental rational thinking in organizations and societ-
ies. Planning needed an alternative to the ideal of rationality that Banfield
introduced in 1959 (Banfield in Faludi, 1973) in his often-quoted article
about means and ends in planning. We needed a broader and more diverse
attitude so that we could be reliable and effective planners and politicians.
This critical debate took place at the same time that John Friedmann
(1966) introduced the concept of innovation into planning.
The search for alternatives to instrumental rationalism took different
directions. One alternative that appeared immediately was the incremen-
talist approach (Lindblom, 1959). Etzioni introduced another alternative
‘Mixed-scanning: A ‘third’ Approach to Decision-making’, which criti-
cized both the rationalistic and incrementalist approaches (Etzioni, 1967,
1986). It is particularly interesting that Etzioni also paid attention to the
innovation theme. In his argument against the incremental position, the
term ‘innovation’ appears twice: (i) “incrementalism would tend to neglect
basic societal innovations” (p. 220) and (ii) incrementalism contributes to
the “reinforcement of … anti-innovation forces” (p. 221).
Communicate
Some years later, communicative rationality was introduced as a more fun-
damental alternative to Banfield’s calculative position (Forester, 1989;
Habermas, 1984; Healey, 1992). The term ‘communicative rationality’ is
closely tied to the Habermasian ideal of a dialogue free from mastery.
People are basically democratic and have a central experience of the uncon-
strained, unifying, consensus-building force of argumentative speech. The
only force in ideal discourse situations and communicative rationality is
that of the better argument (Flyvbjerg, 1991: 381). Communicative plan-
ning emphasizes participation, learning and democracy. Planning is inter-
active, and planning and action are not separate (Healey, 1997).
The communicative turn has inspired many theoreticians and practitio-
ners, and it is often said to have inspired planning practice to move in a
more democratic and participatory direction (Healey, 1992, 1996). The
ideas of a workable consensus and collaborative planning efforts are
important (Healey, 1997, 1998).
We use Patsy Healey to represent the dominant communicative posi-
tion. In her influential article, ‘Planning Through Debate: The
Communicative Turn in Planning Theory’ (Healey, 1992), she claims that

planning is a child of modernity. By using scientific reason and knowledge,
people and society can be liberated from the intellectual tyranny of reli-
gious belief and political despots. One of the most important challenges
for this planning paradigm is the criticism of scientific reason itself, which
we find in various postmodernist approaches. This enormous challenge is
not just in planning theory; this criticism challenges thinking throughout
Western civilization. We have to move from a position of individual reason
to a form of inter-subjective reason to avoid destructive relativism. Thus,
the idea of the workable consensus is important (Healey, 1992).
In ‘Collaborative Planning’ (Healey, 1997), Healey introduces collab-
orative planning efforts and argues that we need to reframe how we think
about winning and losing in planning processes: “It looks for an approach
which asks: can we all get on better if we change how we think to accom-
modate what other people think?” (Healey, 1997: 312). She constructs an
idealistic vision that releases the constraints of past ways of doing things
and re-designs institutional frameworks to allow a rich, inventive, locally
contingent and inclusionary form of local environmental planning to
flourish (Healey, 1997: 313, 314).
Calculate and Communicate

The dominant planning theory paradigm at the dawn of the new century
was that planning comprises normative calculative and communicative
activities in interaction. Both approaches are necessary. Sager, in common
with many other normative planning theorists, argues for strong and clear
ideals in planning to maximize both calculative and communicative ambi-
tions (Healey, 1992; Sager, 1990, 1994). As late as 2012, Harper and
Stein (2012) confirmed that the calculative and communicative approaches
remain the two main approaches to planning, although over the years,
many alternatives have been proposed and discussed (Benhabib, 1996;
Benveniste, 1989; Bond, 2011; Flyvbjerg, 1991, 1998; Hellspong, 1995;
Hillier, 2008; Lindblom, 1979; Luhmann, 1989; Mandelbaum, 1986;
Nylund, 1995; Ramírez, 1995a, 1995b; Throgmorton, 1996; Watson,
2006; Wellmer, 1991). The commonality among these critical and oppo-
sitional scholars is that they emphasize the importance of politics, conflict,
context, knowledge shortage, uncertainty and exercise of power in norma-
tive planning approaches more so than the proponents of the two main
perspectives do.
Another commonality is that hardly any of the other contributors to the

various planning theory debates before the millennium discussed the
theme of innovation except Friedmann (Friedmann, 1966, 1967/2017)
and a few others (Acoff, 1970; Alexander, 1994; Galloway, 1992; Grabow
& Heskin, 1973; Hoch, 1994; Jefferson, 1973b; Kulinski, 1970;
Nambiar, 1976).
Innovate
Planning, by definition, seeks change. Planning requires people to envis-
age the future as different from today, and it assumes that humans have
the ability to create change. Even when the aim is conservation, planning
still seeks to change current policies, regimes and practices, because if they
were to continue, conservation would be endangered, lost or destroyed.
Innovation: Definition
Innovation also requires change. Innovation can be defined as disruptive,
fundamental changes or as changes of space, as Hartley, Sørensen, and
Torfing (2013) have expressed. Therefore, innovation is more than con-
tinuous improvement (Jean Hartley, 2005; Hartley et al., 2013; Torfing,
2016; Torfing & Triantafillou, 2016). In the recent literature on innova-
tion related to the public sector, innovation is understood to be “an inten-
tional and proactive process that involves the generation and practical
adoption and spread of new and creative ideas, which aim to produce a
qualitative change in a specific context” (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011: 849).
Torfing and Triantafillou (2016) later extended this definition to remind
us that innovation involves a break with established practices and chal-
lenges conventional wisdom. Public innovation emphasizes: (i) reframing
existing definitions of problems; (ii) searching for, creating and valuing
new, untried and creative ideas and actions; (iii) discovering what works
through the processes of experimentation and (no-blame) feedback loops;
and (iv) iterative processes of design, assessment and diffusion (Crosby, ‘t
Hart, & Torfing, 2017).
The understanding of what innovation is, or may be, differs between
the public and private sectors. Innovation in the private sector is com-
monly comprehended as new products or services to be brought to mar-
ket. The litmus test of whether it is an innovation, instead of an invention,
is that the product or service is actually produced and sold in the market
(Hartley, 2008; Hartley et al., 2013). Even though many countries have
outsourced or (partly) privatized public sector services, in principle, inno-
vations in the public sector do not rely on market validation to define
innovation. Rather, it is an understanding of what is of value to society and
its citizens or to users. Therefore, we must always ask “who or what ben-
efits from this innovation”, which means that innovations may contribute
to public value in this way or that way, but not in every way. We may even
discover innovations that have gone wrong.
Innovation in the public sector is not limited to services or products; it
can also occur in processes, organizations, policy and governance (Crosby
et al., 2017; Moore & Hartley, 2008). This is important for planning
because planning may spur innovation in all of these areas, as well as in
planning itself (Grankvist & Mäntysalo, 2020).
Inspired by Jean Hartley et al. (2013), we understand public value
development in planning terms as “a collective effort of societal improve-
ment of public value within policies and strategies approved by public
authorities in a given geographical area”. This implies that actors outside
of the public sector can also contribute to the creation of public value, and
that the public planning authorities have the normative decision-making
power regarding what is of public value (see also Chap. 12).
Innovation: Planning
Our understanding of innovative planning is inspired by Friedmann’s defi-
nition of innovation combined with today’s multi-actor and co-production
governance systems, which we discuss more thoroughly later in this chap-
ter. We see innovative planning as being mainly concerned with system-
atic, territorial, societal and co-produced change that breaks with
established practices and seeks to legitimize new social objectives or effect
a major reprioritization of existing objectives.
Friedmann introduced the concept of innovation into planning theory
in 1966 and pursued this research for the next three decades, making a
number of new contributions (Friedmann, 1966, 1967/2017, 1973,
1987, 1994). Other planning theorists joined the discussion on innovative
planning (Acoff, 1970; Albrechts, 2013; Grabow & Heskin, 1973;
Jefferson, 1973a; Kulinski, 1970; Nambiar, 1976). The concept of inno-
vation then disappeared from the theoretical debate, with several excep-
tions (Alexander, 1994; Galloway, 1992; Hoch, 1994).
There are few instances in which planning scholars have defined innova-
tion. Innovation is mostly used as a common term for creating something
new (Healey, 2011). More important for the understanding of innovation
is doing something new (Levitt, 2002). Levitt finds that creativity and
invention may be prerequisites for innovation, but innovation comes into
existence through implementation (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011). Another
understanding of innovation is the introduction of new and different
things and methods (Damurski & Oleksy, 2018), which are closely con-
nected to knowledge and technology in the European policy perspective,
as well as to creativity and entrepreneurship. Agger and Sørensen (2018:
55) also define innovation in planning terms, in line with the tradition of
Sørensen and Torfing (2011) cited above: “a more or less intentional for-
mulation, realization and diffusion of new public policies and services and
new ways of organizing and processing policy making and service
provision”.
Some planning scholars take a normative view of innovation outcomes.
For example, as Levitt puts it, innovation is “doing something new that
serves human purposes, that is, something that is useful” (Levitt, 2002).
As Fisher notes, there is a predisposition to regard innovation as such as
being good. He argues that “the good does not exist like that. The good
is defined by us; it is practiced, it is invented. And this is a collective work”
(Fischer & Forester, 1993: 188). Hence, a good innovation is co-created
in society.
The literature on innovation in planning emphasizes public sector plan-
ning, but it also covers strategic territorial planning, a field in which inno-
vation has now become a key issue and a widely used approach. Terms
such as social innovation, community innovation, spatial innovation and
socio-spatial innovation are used in this context (Bafarasat Ziafati, 2015).
Strategic planning is considered to be a planning tool for innovation and
creative actions (Albrechts et al., 2017).
Methods for including innovation in strategic planning systems are dis-
cussed by planning scholars such as Wolf and Floyd (2017). They argue
that the ways in which plans are written, including visual and textual rep-
resentations of strategies, appear to affect the behaviours they trigger,
ranging from ignoring plans to strategic innovation and wholehearted
strategy implementation. Others emphasize that we must create spaces for
innovative practices and bottom-up initiatives that generate innovations
and be open to unplanned innovations (Savini et al., 2015).
A vital aspect of strategic planning is the ability to co-produce results in

a multi-actor and multilevel context (Healey, 2006a, 2006b). There are
arguments for innovative and emancipatory planning practices to achieve
co-production (Albrechts, 2013). Albrechts stresses that the legitimacy of
strategic planning depends upon a combination of its creative and innova-
tive forces, its capacity to deliver positive outcomes and formal acceptance
by government, which, of course, is vital in a liberal democratic context.
He claims that interactions must work efficiently and contribute to
innovation.
Many planning theorists have worked extensively with collaborative
planning (Agger & Sørensen, 2018; Booher & Innes, 2002; Davidoff,
2016; Forester, 2013; Healey, 1997). Those authors have all argued that
planning needs to take into account different institutional structural pow-
ers. Agger and Sørensen (2018) maintain that there are many obstacles to
public innovation and highlight institutional barriers such as bureaucratic
rules and routines, rigorous goals and performance management systems
and control-oriented performance measurement systems. A systematic
form of analysis has also been developed for mapping collaborative inno-
vation in politics from a relational and territorial perspective to assist the
societal development of public value as planning spurs new strategic activi-
ties (Higdem, 2017). To assist planners in their collaborative innovation
tasks, Agger and Sørensen have defined the following four management
roles by synthesizing collaborative planning theory, theories of network
governance and public innovation: the pilot, the whip, the culture-maker
and the communicator (Agger & Sørensen, 2018).
Innovation: Friedmann from 1966 and Today

Friedmann’s thoughts that were published over 50 years ago are impor-
tant for understanding how the concept of innovation has been under-
stood in planning since the 1960s. In his conceptual model for the analysis
of planning behaviour, he included ‘innovative planning’ (or planning as
innovation) as one of the two main forms of planning (Friedmann, 1966).
The other main form of planning was the only form of public planning at
that time, namely, the allocation and distribution of scarce resources for
‘optimal use’. These two types of planning were both necessary in
Friedmann’s thinking to understand and prescribe planning (Friedmann,
1966). He formulated the following definition of innovative planning.
“Innovative planning is defined as (1) seeking to legitimize new social

objectives or effect a major reordering in the priority of existing objectives,
(2) concerned with translating general value propositions into new institu-
tional arrangements and concrete action programs, (3) being more inter-
ested in the mobilization of resources than in their optimal use, and (4)
proposing to guide innovation processes through information feedback of
the actual consequences of action” (Friedmann, 1966: 194).
In 1966, Friedmann asked how prevalent innovative planning was. He
argued that “[t]he need for creative innovation is among the imperative
needs of an age in which structural changes are the normal pattern and
social equilibria are always fragile and short-lived” (Friedmann, 1966:
196). This is a statement for today as well as for the 1960s. The growing
number of wicked and unruly problems related to societal issues such as
(forced) migration, sustainable development, public health, housing, pov-
erty and urbanization makes innovation in the public sector imperative
(Geuijen et al., 2017; Hartley et al., 2013; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011).
Friedmann’s concerns were similar: he pinpointed the need for new collec-
tive practices and action to address the complex and interrelated issues of
“the distribution of income, the supply of low-cost housing and the spatial
demand pattern of housing”, which were treated separately at that time
(Friedmann, 1966: 194).
In most modern liberal democracies, planning for societal development
to legitimize new social objectives or reprioritize existing social objectives
(Friedmann, 1966) is conducted by a public sector body in which plan-
ning authority is given to a democratically elected national, regional or
local council, or a combination of these according to the country’s insti-
tutional design. Thus, the legitimization process must be anchored to
politics and policy-making. As several authors have noted, when the public
sector has an interest in innovation because of a task or its authority, inno-
vation is legitimized by the creation of public value for a given society
(Hartley et al., 2013; Moore & Hartley, 2008). Actors situated outside of
the public sector, such as for-profit and non-profit organizations, may also
contribute to the societal development of public value (Bryson, Sancino,
Benington, & Sørensen, 2017). However, it is the politicians’ task and
privilege to make the final designation regarding public value at any par-
ticular time in history.
Public planning is a territorial activity, which means that the planning
authority exists within a given area, such as a municipality, region or
nation-state. Today, the public sector and its planners seldom hold a
monopoly on planning. As several strands of the literature emphasize, the

public sector, and thereby planning, depends on numerous other actors to
achieve societal development goals (Cars et al., 2002; Healey et al., 2000;
Kjær, 2004; Kooiman, 2003). New types of public-sector-based gover-
nance have developed into what Osborne (2010) has called new public
governance, which is different from classic public administration and new
public management. Wicked and unruly problems (Rittel & Webber,
1973) are growing in number, which leads to complex interactions in
policy-making arenas, including planning. Therefore, as Sørensen (2017)
has argued, this situation calls for efforts to improve politicians’ capacity
for (policy) innovation.
Innovation: Collaboration Arenas

Planning establishes arenas of interaction among all of the actors, interests
and professions who will use their competencies to build an institutional
capacity for collaborative action (Healey, 1998, 2006a). The network per-
spective highlights the network of relationships in governance (steering)
to achieve outcomes such as the development of places in which the public
and both for- and non-profit sectors are linked in collective processes of
change, crossing boundaries created by levels of government, public sec-
tor bodies and other steering systems (J. Amdam & Veggeland, 2011).
Thus, planning serves as a mechanism for interactive governance and
policy-making (Torfing & Triantafillou, 2016), and the planning system is
a hybrid composed of different but parallel logics (Mahoney &
Thelen, 2010).
Collaboration can spur innovation precisely because of the number of
actors involved in processes such as planning. The literature on innovation
agrees that innovation is more likely when diverse actors meet (Fagerberg,
2003; Granovetter, 1983; Powell & Grodal, 2005) than when homoge-
neous actors meet. Innovation, including interrelated innovations, may
well be the result of a process over time (Fagerberg, 2003). Hence, inno-
vation does not emerge from nothing; it comes out of interaction and
cooperation with others.
The collaborative perspective in the literature on public sector innova-
tion emphasizes that collaborative networking has great potential to foster
innovative solutions to wicked and unruly problems (Hofstad & Torfing,
2015). According to Hofstad and Torfing (2015: 67), this can be explained
by the ability to facilitate mutual learning, the sharing of risks and benefits
and the creation of joint ownership of new solutions.
Governance network research (Kickert, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 1999;
Rhodes, 1997), partnerships (Pollitt, 2003; Røyseland & Vabo, 2012;
Veggeland, 2003) and the meta-governance of networks (Kooiman, 2003;
Sørensen, 2006; Sørensen & Torfing, 2005, 2007) are all important
sources of inspiration for planning research on how planners and planning,
as a network arena, can stimulate collaboration and possibly innovation in
planning (c.f. Agger & Sørensen, 2018; Albrechts, 2013; Albrechts,
Healey, & Kunzmann, 2003; Healey, 2006a).
First, these perspectives must be concerned with how to manage, facili-
tate, motivate and coordinate collaboration and steer a broad set of sectors
and interests in such complex situations (Agger & Sørensen, 2018).
Second, these perspectives must nurture the democratic guidance of
planning (Falleth, Sandkjaer Hanssen, & Saglie, 2011; Hanssen Sandkjær,
Nergaard, Pierre, & Skaalholdt, 2011) by helping public sector planning
actors see how their roles may change from authority to partner (Fainstein,
2000; Higdem, 2015) and thereby resolve the challenges of the different
logics of partnership and participation in planning (Higdem, 2014). There
have been theoretical studies of planning as an institutionalized arena for
collaborative innovation (R Amdam, 2014) and the co-creation of futures
(Higdem, 2014), as well as studies of the various dimensions of collabora-
tive strategies (Higdem, 2017) and the impact of meta-governance in col-
laborative and territorial strategic planning situations (Higdem, 2015).
Mainstream Innovation Theory Versus Friedmann

Returning to Friedmann’s understanding of innovative planning, we shall
discuss how the various factors of innovative planning relate to the current
mainstream innovation theory. Friedmann (1966) promoted innovative
planning that was clearly effective and that broke with established prac-
tices in planning as well as changing institutional arrangements and spe-
cific actions. Challenges to conventional wisdom are necessary to see
complex or unruly issues as interlinked parts of the same problem with a
common solution.
It is interesting that Friedmann argued for a strategic focus in planning
on the most urgent issues in society that required management through
new ways of planning, rather than on advocating a comprehensive view. A
strategic focus allows for several innovative moves. It is especially
important that Friedmann introduced the resource-oriented perspective,

which focuses on the combination of resources and attempts to mobilize
them using different types of actors who could provide appropriate
resources. This approach is valuable for understanding how a complex set
of networked actors can create innovative change in practice.
Innovative planning can either “legitimize new social objectives or …
accomplish a major realignment of existing objectives” (Friedmann, 1966:
195). Friedmann also stated that innovative planning is “concerned with
translating general value propositions into new institutional arrangements
and concrete action programs”. Innovative planning is planning for not
only politically given ends, but also ‘the ends of action’. As we have seen
above, Friedmann called for innovation in mobilizing for action and in the
actual initiatives and measures, which presupposes a change of values (or
the value propositions) of a given society.
The more recent literature on innovation regards the goal of collabora-
tive innovation as the creation of new and qualitatively better solutions in
society (Agger & Sørensen, 2018; Hartley, 2008; Hartley et al., 2013;
Sørensen & Torfing, 2011), although from a more liberal democratic and
harmonious perspective than that of Friedmann’s. The presumption of a
certain homogeneity of public value does not exist in his framework.
Therefore, the movers and shakers pursuing changing goals or value prop-
ositions in society are usually ‘a creative minority’ who disagree with or are
dissatisfied with the existing situation. These self-organized groups are an
inevitable part of the innovative planning process and part of bottom-up
planning. In addition, the planners themselves play vital roles in the emer-
gence of innovative planning or of what we may call entrepreneurs in the
planning system.
The newer innovation literature emphasizes that it is possible to institu-
tionalize potential types of innovation activity that can establish new are-
nas that create suitable institutional set-ups (Agger & Sørensen, 2018;
Higdem, 2017), for example, and that may also evolve to become innova-
tive solutions (Mahoney & Thelen, 2010). As we understand it (Friedmann,
1966), no institutionalization of innovative planning or innovative solu-
tions to societal challenges will occur without the strategic and collective
entrepreneurial skills of a creative minority and innovative planners. The
current literature has broadened the scope of the types of actors that may
act as change agents, or those described as ‘boundary-spanners’ (Sørensen
& Waldorff, 2014), such as politicians, representatives of NGOs and local
communities, as well as business organizations and partners developing

new policies (Higdem, 2017).
The emphasis on public innovation in networked settings implies new
roles for policy-making authorities and politicians when legitimacy may be
ambiguous (Ringholm, 2017). Theories on the so-called interactive politi-
cal leadership (Sørensen & Torfing, 2018a, 2018b) contribute to our
understanding of how local, regional and national politicians may interact
with a more ‘active and empowered citizenry’ to develop new policies for
complex issues. Sørensen and Torfing’s project (2018a, 2018b) is to
empower politicians in a legitimate and interactive democratic setting, and
to design institutional arenas to enhance such positions. As mentioned
above, local and regional strategic and innovative planning projects may
provide such arenas.
Gathering feedback on the actual consequences of innovation, which is
consistent with the view that collaborative public innovation for public
value should proceed in several steps, entails the testing of actions or major
projects and assessment of their consequences (Friedmann, 1966). As we
know, innovation may favour some groups or interests in society while
disadvantaging others—or it may have unintended positive or negative
side effects (Geuijen et al., 2017).
Innovation: The Emerging Third Approach

in Planning
As recently as 2012, Harper and Stein (2012) referred to calculation as the

dominant tradition in planning, and regarded communication as a vital
part of emerging approaches at that time. The field of planning theory is
still dominated by these two main perspectives with respect to rationalities
and planning focus (Sager, 1990, 1994).
Earlier in this chapter, we discussed the growing interest in the field of
planning theory for innovative planning—not least in the governance and
management of the public sector—to manage situations characterized by
wicked problems and for the methodical development of strategic plan-
ning and collaborative process development. The question we ask in this
chapter is whether this growing interest means that innovation should be
recognized as a third approach.
Earlier we noted that some planning theorists treat planning as a com-
municative activity that includes innovation in one way or another (Hillier,
2008; Innes, 2004). Innes (2004) argues that each of the following factors
should be regarded as indicators of success: joint learning; intellectual,
social and political capital; feasible actions; innovative problem-solving; a
shared understanding of issues; shared heuristics for action; reframing of
identities; partnership creation; and new institutional forms. Her argu-
ment is that communicative approaches stimulate innovative thinking and
action more than they inhibit it (Innes, 2004: 302). Other planning theo-
rists argue that creativity and innovation are restrained by planning theo-
ries rooted in Cartesian rationality and the calculative tradition (Hillier,
2008), as well as the Habermasian communicative theories (Mäntysalo,
2002; Stein & Harper, 2012; Tewdwr-Jones, 1998).
Innovate: An Emerging Third Approach

A growing number of planning theorists are using the concept of innova-
tion. Inspired by Friedmann’s understanding of innovation combined
with modern multi-actor and co-production governance systems, we have
noted that innovative planning is mainly concerned with strategic, territo-
rial, societal and co-produced change that breaks with established prac-
tices and seeks to legitimize new social objectives or effect a major
reprioritization of existing objectives.
Taking Harper and Stein’s typology and defining terms as a starting
point, we explore innovation as an emerging perspective in Chap. 12. We
suggest to expand the table by one more approach, that is innovate as an
interplaying and upcoming perspective to the two others, ‘calculate and
communicate’ to Calculate, Communicate and Innovate.
References
Acoff, R. (1970). A concept of corporate planning. Long Range Planning, 3(1),
2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(70)90031-2
Agger, A., & Sørensen, E. (2018). Managing collaborative innovation in public
bureaucracies. Planning Theory, 17(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1473095216672500
Albrechts, L. (2013). Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction
perspective. Planning Theory, 12(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1473095212452722
Albrechts, L., Balducci, A., & Hillier, J. (2017). Situated practices of strategic plan-
ning: An international perspective (Vol. 18). Oxon: Routledge.
Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzmann, K. R. (2003). Strategic spatial planning
and regional governance in Europe. APA Journal, 69(2), 113–129.
Alexander, E. R. (1994). The non-Euclidean mode of planning what is it to be?
Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(3), 372–376. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01944369408975594
Amdam, J., & Veggeland, N. (2011). Teorier om samfunnsstyring og planlegging.
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Amdam, R. (2002). Sectoral versus territorial regional planning and development
in Norway. European Planning Studies, 10(1), 99–111. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09654310120099281
Amdam, R. (2014). An integrated planning, learning and innovation system in the
decentralized public sector: A Norwegian perspective. The Innovation Journal:
The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 19(3), 1–16.
Bafarasat Ziafati, A. (2015). Reflections on the three schools of thought on strate-
gic spatial planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(2), 132–148. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0885412214562428
Benhabib, S. (1996). Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the
political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Benveniste, G. (1989). Mastering the politics of planning: Crafting credible plans
and policies that make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bond, S. (2011). Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Moving beyond the agonis-
tic—Communicative divide. Planning Theory, 10(2), 161–186. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1473095210383081
Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221–236. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301
Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-
actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review,
19(5), 640–654.
Cars, G., Healey, P., Madanipour, A., & De Magalhaes, C. (2002). Urban gover-
nance, institutional capacity and social milieux. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Crosby, B. C., ‘t Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017). Public value creation through col-
laborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 655–669. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192165
Damurski, Ł., & Oleksy, M. (2018). Communicative and participatory paradigm in
the European territorial policies. A discourse analysis. European Planning Studies,
26(7), 1471–1492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1462302
Davidoff, P. (2016; 1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. In S. S. Fainstein
& S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory. Chichester: Wiley.; [Journal
of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 331–338.]
de Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector:
A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration,
94(1), 146–166.
Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation
in services: Which place for public services? Structural Change and Economic
Dynamics, 27, 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005
Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning: A “third” approach to decision-making.
Public Administration Review, 27(5), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.2307/
973394
Etzioni, A. (1986). Mixed scanning revisited. Public Administration Review,
46(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/975437
Fagerberg, J. (2003). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In (Vol. 20031012):
Centre for technology, innovation and culture, University of Oslo.
Fainstein, S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review,
35(4), 451–478.
Falleth, E. I., Sandkjaer Hanssen, G., & Saglie, I. L. (2011). Challenges to democ-
racy in market- oriented urban planning in Norway. European Planning Studies,
18(5), 737–753.
Faludi, A. (1973). A Reader in planning theory (Vol. 5). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and
planning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1991). Rationalitet og magt: 1: Det konkretes videnskab (Vol. 1).
København: Akademisk Forlag.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative
practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5–22. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1473095212448750
Friedmann, J. (1966). Planning as innovation: The Chilean case. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 32(4), 194–204.
Friedmann, J. (1967/2017). A conceptual model for the analysis of planning
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 225–252. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2391550
Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning.
Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Friedmann, J. (1994). The utility of non-Euclidean planning. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 59(4), 482–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944369308975902
Galloway, T. D. (1992). Threatened schools, imperiled practice: A case for col-

laboration. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(2), 229–234.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975798
Geuijen, K., Moore, M., Cederquist, A., Rønning, R., & van Twist, M. (2017).
Creating public value in global wicked problems. Public Management Review,
19(5), 621–639.
Grabow, S., & Heskin, A. (1973). Foundations for a radical concept of planning.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39(2), 106–114. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01944367308977664
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/202051
Grankvist, K., & Mäntysalo, R. (2020). Strategic Turn in Planning and the Role of
Institutional Innovation. In A. Hagen, & U. Higdem, Innovation in Public
Planning. Calculate, Communicate and Innovate. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gunn, S., & Hillier, J. (2012). Processes of innovation: Reformation of the English
strategic spatial planning system. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(3), 359–381.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.706630
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: 1: Reason and the ratio-
nalization of society (Vol. 1). London: Heinemann.
Hagen, A., & Higdem, U. (2019). Calculate, communicate and innovate—Do we
need Innovate as a third position? Journal of Planning Literature, 34, 421–433.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412219851876
Hanssen Sandkjær, G., Nergaard, E., Pierre, J., & Skaalholdt, A. (2011). Multi-
level governance of regional economic development in Norway and Sweden:
Too much or too little top-down control? Urban Research & Practise,
4(1), 38–57.
Harper, T. L., & Stein, S. M. (2012). Dialogical planning in a fragmented society:
Critically liberal, pragmatic, incremental (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present.
Public Money & Management, 25(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9302.2005.00447.x
Hartley, J. (2008). The innovation landscape for public service organizations. In
J. Hartley (Ed.), Managing to improve public services. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable
alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public
Administration Review., 73(6), 821–830.
Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate. The communicative turn in planning
theory. Town Planning Review, 63(21), 143–162.
Healey, P. (1996). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning

theory. In S. Campell & S. Fainstain (Eds.), Readings in planning theory
(pp. 234–257). Oxford: Blackwell.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies.
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches
to urban planning. Environment and Planning, 30(9), 1531–1546.
Healey, P. (2006a). Network complexity and the imaginative power of strategic
spatial planning. In L. Albrechts & S. J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), The network soci-
ety. A new context for planning? (pp. 146–160). London: Routledge.
Healey, P. (2006b). Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic
spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 14(4), 525–546.
Healey, P. (2011). Planning theory—By Philip Allmendinger. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(5), 1088.
Healey, P., Birch, G., Campbell, H., & Upton, R. (2000). Editorial. Planning
Theory & Practice, 1(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350050135167
Hellspong, L. (1995). Retorik och praktisk logik (Vol. 4). Stockholm: Nordplan.
Higdem, U. (2014). The co-creation of regional futures: Facilitating action
research in regional foresight. Futures, 57, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
futures.2014.01.006
Higdem, U. (2015). Assessing the impact on political partnerships on coordinated
meta-governance of regional government. Scandinavian Journal of Public
Administration, 19(4), 89–109. Retrieved from http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/
index.php/sjpa/article/view/3302/2817
Higdem, U. (2017). Dimensions of collaborative strategies and policy innovation.
Current Politics and Economics of Europe, 28(1), 7–30.
Hillier, J. (2008). Plan(e) speaking: A multiplanar theory of spatial planning.
Planning Theory, 7(1), 24–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207085664
Hoch, C. (1994). What planners do: Power, politics, and persuasion. Chicago, IL:
Planners Press: American Planning Association.
Hofstad, H., & Torfing, J. (2015). Collaborative innovation as a tool for environ-
mental, economic and social sustainability in regional governance. School of
Public Administration, University of Gothenburg.
Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning
Theory, 3(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042315
Jefferson, R. (1973a). Planning and the innovation process. Progress in Planning,
1, 233–312. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/0305900673900044?via%3Dihub
Jefferson, R. (1973b). Planning and the innovation process (Vol. 1). Oxford and
New York: Pergamon Press.
Kickert, W., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1999). Managing complex net-
works. Strategies for the public sector (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Kjær, A. M. (2004). Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage Publications.
Kulinski, A. R. (1970). Regional development, regional policies and regional plan-
ning. Problems and issues. Regional Studies, 4(3), 269–278. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09595237000185291
Levitt, T. (2002). Creativity is not enough. Harvard Business Review,
80(8), 137–144.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public
Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration
Review, 39(6), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.2307/976178
Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In
J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity,
agency and power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mandelbaum, S. (1986). ETHICS (Vol. 5, p. 830). New York: Wiley Periodicals Inc.
Mäntysalo, R. (2002). Dilemmas in critical planning theory. The Town Planning
Review, 73(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.73.4.3
Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management
Review, 10(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701763161
Nambiar, K. V. (1976). Framework for multi-level planning. [Decentralisation of
planning in India, V. K. Nataraj]. Social Scientist, 4(8), 73–76. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3516382
Nylund, K. (1995). Det förändrade planeringstänkandet (Vol. 19).
Stockholm: Nordplan.
Osborne, S. P. (2010). The new public governance?: Emerging perspectives on the
theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.
Pollitt, C. (2003). Partnerships, networks, joined-up governance, the information
age (and all that). In C. Pollitt (Ed.), The essential public manager (pp. 52–82).
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovation. In J. Fagerberg,
D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation
(pp. 56–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramírez, J. L. (1995a). Skapande mening: 13:1: Bidrag till en humanvetenskaplig
handlings- och planeringsteori: presentation av ett avhandlingsarbete 1984–1994
(Vol. 13:1). Stockholm: Nordplan.
Ramírez, J. L. (1995b). Skapande mening: 13:2: En begreppsgenealogisk under-
sökning om rationalitet, vetenskap och planering (Vol. 13:2).
Stockholm: Nordplan.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance. Policy networks, governance,
reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ringholm, T. (2017). Ambiguous accountability in municipal innovation. The

Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal , 22(3), article 2, 1–19.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.
Integrating Knowledge and Practice to Advance Human Dignity, 4(2),
155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Røyseland, A., & Vabo, S. I. (2012). Styring og samstyring—governance på norsk.
Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Sager, T. (1990). Communicate or calculate: Planning theory and social science
concepts in a contingency perspective (Vol. 11). Stockholm: Nordplan.
Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Savini, F., Majoor, S., & Salet, W. (2015). Dilemmas of planning: Intervention,
regulation, and investment. Planning Theory, 14(3), 296–315. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1473095214531430
Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in pro-
cesses of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration,
36(98), 98–114.
Sørensen, E. (2017). Political innovations: Innovations in political institutions,
processes and outputs. Public Management Review, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1200661
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance net-
works. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network gover-
nance. Houndmills: Palgrave.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the
public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842–868. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0095399711418768
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2018a). The democratizing of governance networks:
From pluralization, via democratic anchorage, to interactive political leader-
ship. Public Administration, 96, 302–317.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2018b). Designing institutional platforms and arenas
for interactive political leadership. Public Management Review, 21, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1559342
Sørensen, E., & Waldorff, S. B. (2014). Collaborative policy innovation: Problems
and potential. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal,
19(3 article 2). Retrieved from http://www.innovation.cc/scholarly-
style/19_3_2_sorensen-waldorff_collaborate-policy494f11nov.pdf.
Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2012). Creativity and Innovation: Divergence and
convergence in pragmatic dialogical planning. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 32(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11417829
Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1998). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented
societies, P. Healey (Ed.), 338 pp. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-49573.
Throgmorton, J. A. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical con-

struction of Chicago's electric future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Throgmorton, J. A. (2003). Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale
web of relationships. Planning Theory, 2(2), 125–151. https://doi.
org/10.1177/14730952030022003
Torfing, J. (2016). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2016). Enhancing public innovation by transform-
ing public governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Veggeland, N. (2003). Det nye demokratiet- et politisk laboratorium for partner-
skap. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.
Watson, V. (2006). Deep difference: Diversity, planning and ethics. Planning
Theory, 5(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095206061020
Wellmer, A. (1991). The persistence of modernity: Essays on aesthetics, ethics, and
postmodernism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wolf, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2017). Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-
driven agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1754–1788.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
A Disappearing Towel
The Weight Draws the Towel into the Case Out of Sight When Not in Use
Nothing is more unsightly to a stranger entering a home than a

dirty towel in either the bathroom or the kitchenette. To keep the
towel out of sight I made a hanger as shown in the illustration. A wire
was bent into shape similar to a clothes hanger and a sliding clip
made to hold the towel in place. A cabinet was made to
accommodate the towel, and the hanger was attached to a cord run
over a pulley fastened at the top, through a weight pulley, and then
tied to a screw eye at the top. The weight draws the towel into the
cabinet. Near the bottom edge a slot was cut and a small panel fitted
in it. This small panel is fastened to the lower end of the towel. It is
only necessary to pull out the small panel to get at the towel. When
through with the towel, let loose of it and the weight will draw it into
the opening.—Contributed by Chas. C. Bradley, W. Toledo, O.
Ammonia-Carrying Case for Insect Bites
An old clinical-thermometer case can be easily turned into a vial in

which to carry ammonia for insect bites. Fit a small rubber stopper in
the case, then push a darning needle into the stopper so that its end
will be a little more than midway in the case. Cut or break off the
needle end projecting on the outside and attach a small wad of
cotton to the inside end. The case is then filled with ammonia. For
bee stings this works fine, as the ammonia completely neutralizes
the formic acid which the bee deposits.—Contributed by E. Everett
Buchanan, Elmira, N. Y.
¶The contact points of a firm-joint caliper should never be struck on
hard surfaces to adjust them.
How to Make Combined Kites
By C. M. MILLER
PART II—A Festooned Kite
Morekite.thanTheoneonekiteillustrated
on the same framework is known as a compound
consists of three tailless kites on one
long stick, called the spine. The upper one is 3 ft.; the center one, 2
ft., and the lower one, 1 ft. in width. There will be needed for the
construction of this kite a stick of light wood—spruce is best, but it
may be of pine or bass—7 ft. long by ¹⁄₄ by ¹⁄₂ in. If the wood breaks
easily it will be better to increase the width from ¹⁄₂ in. to ³⁄₄ in., or the
stick might be made ³⁄₈ in. thick without increasing the width, but with
a good spruce stick the dimensions first given will be sufficient. The
stick should be straight-grained and without a twist. If the spine is
twisted, the kites will not lie flat or in a plane with each other, and if
one is out of true, it will cause the kite to be unsteady in the air. The
bow sticks are three, the upper one being 4 ft. long by ¹⁄₄ by ¹⁄₂ in.;
the center one, 2 ft. long by ¹⁄₄ by ³⁄₈ in., and the lower one, 1 ft. long
by ¹⁄₄ by ¹⁄₄ in. About five sheets of tissue paper will be required, but
more may be needed for color combinations. The so-called French
tissue paper is much better, as it comes in fine colors and is much
stronger than the ordinary tissue. It costs a trifle more, but it pays in
making a beautiful kite. The Chinese rice paper is the strongest, but
it comes only in natural colors.
The Spine with the Bow Sticks The Kite as It Appears with the
Properly Spaced as Shown by the Festoons Hung to the Ends of the
Dimensions Sticks
It will be seen that the kites do not extend to the top and bottom of
the spine stick. The first bow stick is placed 13 in. from the top end of
the spine, and each of its ends extends 6 in. beyond the kite for
fastening the festoons. The bow sticks should be lashed to the spine,
not nailed. Wind diagonally around the two sticks, both left and right,
then wind between the two, around the other windings. This draws
all windings up tightly to prevent slipping.
To string up the upper kite, drill a small hole through the spine, 6
in. from the top, at A, and also 6 in. from each end of the bow stick,
at B and C. If a small drill is not available, notch the stick with a knife
or saw to hold the string. Another hole is made in the spine 29 in.
from the upper bow stick, or at D. Tie the outline string at A, then
pass through the hole at C, then through D, up through B and back
to the starting point at A. In tying the last point, draw up the string
tightly, but not enough to spring the spine or bow. Measure carefully
to see if the distance AC is the same as AB, and if CD is equal to
BD. If they are not, shift the string until they are equal and wind at all
points, as shown at E, to prevent further slipping. Proceed in the
same way with the center and lower kite, and it will be ready for the
cover.
The cover tissue should be cut about 1 in. larger all around than
the surface to be covered, but turn over about half of this allowance.
This will give plenty of looseness to the cover. For the fringe
festoons, cut strips of tissue paper, 2¹⁄₂ in. wide, paste ¹⁄₂ in. of one
long edge over a string, and cut slits with scissors at intervals of 1 in.
along the loose edge. After the fringe has been made, attach it as
shown in the illustration. Do not stretch it tightly, but give sufficient
looseness to make each length form a graceful curve and keep the
sides well balanced.
To bend the bows of the upper and center kites, attach a string
from end to end of each bow on the back side of the kite and spring
in short brace sticks in the manner usual for tailless kites.
Attach the upper end of the bridle at A. The length of the bridle
string is 87 in. and the kite line is attached to it 30 in. from A, leaving
the lower part from this point to F, where it is tied to the spine, 57 in.
long.
The kite should fly without a tail, but if it dodges too much, attach
extra streamers to the ends of the bow sticks of the lower kite, and to
the bottom of the spine.
If good combinations of colors are used a very beautiful kite will be
the result, and one that will fly well.
Simple Experiment in Electromagnetism
A Small Coil of Wire Mounted on a Cork Floating in Dilute

Sulphuric Acid
The following simple experiment, which may be easily performed,

will serve to prove the theory that there is a magnetic field produced
about a conductor carrying a current, and that there is a definite
relation between the direction of the current in the conductor and the
direction, or polarity, of the magnetic field produced by the current.
The current in the experiment is to be produced by a battery
consisting of a small copper and zinc plate fastened to the under
side of a large flat cork, as shown in the sketch, the whole being
placed in a glass or rubber vessel partly filled with diluted sulphuric
acid. A small coil of wire is formed and mounted on top of the cork,
and its terminals are connected to the copper and zinc plates. The
electromotive force generated will cause a current to circulate
through the coil from the copper plate to the zinc plate. If the poles of
a permanent magnet be presented in turn to the same side of the
coil it will be found that there is a force of attraction between one
pole of the permanent magnet and the coil, and a force of repulsion
between the other pole and the coil. If the same operation be
performed on the opposite side of the coil, it will be found that the
force between the poles of the magnet and the coil are just the
reverse of what they were in the first case; that is, the pole that
attracted the coil in the first case will now repel it, and the one that
repelled it, will now attract it. Applying one of the fundamental laws of
magnetism—like poles attract and unlike repel each other—it can be
readily seen that the two sides of the coil are of opposite magnetic
polarity.
If the direction of the current around the coil be changed, the
action between the coil and the magnet will be opposite to what it
was originally, and if the plates be placed in clean water, there will be
no current and no attraction or repulsion between the coil and the
poles of the magnet.
Double Lock for a Shed
Four boys using the same shed as their workshop wished to lock it
so that any one of them could enter alone. Usually only two keys are
supplied with a lock, so two locks were purchased and applied to the
staples as shown. Each boy was provided with a key and could enter
at his pleasure.—Contributed by George Alfred Moore, Versailles, O.
Ferrules for Tool Handles
Discarded metal caps from broken gas-mantle holders should be

saved, as they will come in handy for several purposes, such as
ferrules on wood handles, and the like. The wire screen is removed
from the end, and the cap is fastened to the handle with a nail or
screw.—Contributed by James M. Kane, Doylestown, Pa.
Mallet Made from Wagon-Wheel Felly and Spoke
A Well-Shaped Mallet Made from a Section of a Wagon-Wheel Felly and

Spoke
When in need of a mallet and if an old broken and discarded

wagon wheel is at hand, one can be made quickly as follows: Cut
through the rim at A and B, and through the spoke at any distance
desired, as at C, for instance. The spoke is dressed into the shape of
a handle and sandpapered smooth. The section of the felly is used
as head and is shaped properly and fastened to the handle with two
nails.—Contributed by Mark Gluckman, Jersey City, New Jersey.
A Mystery Sounding Glass
Procure a thin, tapering drinking glass, a piece of thin, black
thread, about 2 ft. long, and a long lead pencil. Cut a small groove
around the pencil near one end. Make a slip noose in each end of
the thread and slip one into the notch and place the thin glass in the
other with the thread near the top. When the pencil is revolved slowly
the thread will be wound on it slightly and it will slip back with a jerk
that produces a ring in the glass. This may be kept up indefinitely.
The movement necessary is so small that it is imperceptible. The
glass can be made to answer questions by two rings for “yes” and
one ring for “no.”
¶A lighted match held to the outside of a fish-pole joint causes an

expansion of the outer ferrule and allows the pole to be readily pulled
apart.
Repairing a Broken Canoe Paddle
While paddling a rented canoe one day the paddle struck a rock
and snapped in two a little below the center of the handle. The
boatman laughed at the idea of trying to fix it, but after paying his
price for the paddle I decided to try mending it. The barrel of an old
bicycle pump was procured and I found that it fitted over the paddle
at the break a trifle loosely. It was pushed on the handle out of the
way. Then with a No. 8 bit I bored a hole 8 in. deep in the end of
each broken part. Into these holes, which formed one cavity when
the broken ends were brought together, was forced and glued a
tight-fitting 16-in. dowel pin. The outside of the handle was then
wrapped with tape for about 10 in. each side of the break, and the
pump barrel was forced down over this tape until it completely and
firmly enveloped the broken ends.—Contributed by Clarence G.
Meyers, Waterloo, Iowa
Tightening Lever for Tennis Nets
The Upper Rope on a Tennis Net Held Taut with a Lever on the Post
Tennis nets are always sagging and to keep them at the proper
height requires considerable attention, especially so where the posts
are not solidly set in the ground. A very effective net tightener, and
one that is easy to make is the lever shown in the illustration. One
end of a piece of hardwood board is shaped into a handle the other
end being left large. In the latter a hole is cut to fit loosely over the
post for the net. The upper end of the post is notched and a sheave
pulley is placed in it so that the groove will be in line with the net.
The upper rope on the net is run over the pulley and is attached to
the lever handle. A downward pressure on the handle draws the
rope taut and locks it on the post. It is easily removed from the post
and can be left attached to the rope and rolled up in the net when not
in use.
A Desk Watch Holder
A watch holder for the desk is a great convenience for the busy
worker, and many calendar devices are sold for this purpose, yet
they are no more efficient than the one illustrated, which can be
made from an ordinary spindle desk file. If the wire is too long it can
be cut off and the bend made in it to form a hook for the watch ring.
Cleaning Silverware
To clean silverware or anything made of the precious metals, such
as jewelry, etc., is very simple with the following method: Place a
piece of zinc in a cup, dish, or any glazed ware; put in the articles to
be cleaned, and pour over them a hot solution of water and
carbonate of soda—washing soda—in proportions of one
tablespoonful of soda to ¹⁄₂ gal. of water. This is a solution and
method used by many jewelers for cleaning pins, rings, chains, and
many other small articles made in gold and silver.
¶A machine should never be stopped in the midst of a fine cut.

An Eight-Pointed Star Kite
By CHARLES M. MILLER
Nearly every boy can make kites of the several common varieties
without special directions. For the boy who wants a kite that is not
like those every other boy makes, an eight-pointed star kite,
decorated in an original and interesting manner, in various colors, is
well worth while, even if it requires more careful work, and extra
time. The star kite shown in Fig. 1 is simple in construction, and if
carefully made, will fly to a great height. It is balanced by streamers
instead of the common type of kite tail. Any regular-shaped kite
should be laid out accurately, as otherwise the error appears very
prominent, and unbalances the poise of the kite.
The frame for this star kite is made of four sticks, joined, as
indicated in Fig. 5, with strings running from one corner to the
second corner beyond, as from A to C, from C to E, etc. A little
notching of each pair of sticks lessens the thickness of the sticks at
the center crossing, and strengthens the frame, The sticks are ¹⁄₄ by
¹⁄₂ in. by 4 ft. long, They are set at right angles to each other in pairs,
and lashed together with cord, and also held by a ³⁄₄-in. brad at the
center. The strings that form the sides of the squares, A to G, and B
to H, must be equal in length when tied. The points where the strings
forming the squares cross each other and the sticks are also tied.
The first cover, which is put on with paste, laying it out on a
smooth floor or table as usual in kite making, is plain light-colored
paper. The darker decorations are pasted onto this. The outside
edges of the cover are turned over the string outline, and pasted
down. The colors may be in many combinations, as red and white,
purple and gold, green and white, etc. Brilliant and contrasting colors
are best. The decoration may proceed from the center out, or the
reverse. The outside edge in the design shown has a 1¹⁄₂-in. black
stripe. The figures are black. The next octagonal black line binds the
design together. The points of the star are dark blue, with a gilt stripe
on each. The center design is done in black, dark blue, and gilt.

Innovation in Public Planning Calculate Communicate and Innovate 1St Ed Edition Aksel Hagen Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Innovation in Public Planning Calculate Communicate and Innovate 1St Ed Edition Aksel Hagen Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovation in Public Planning Calculate Communicate and Innovate 1St Ed Edition Aksel Hagen Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovation in Public Planning:

Calculate, Communicate and Innovate

ISBN 978-3-030-46135-5 ISBN 978-3-030-46136-2 (eBook)

Cover illustration: © Maram_shutterstock.com

As planning researchers, we have long recorded that planners and

Finally, we hope the book inspires further discourse on innovative

Lillehammer, Norway Aksel Hagen

1 Innovation on the Planning Theory Agenda: An

2 Calculate, Communicate and Innovate? 11

3 Planning and Innovation in a Collaborative Framework 33

4 Politicians’ Roles in Planning: Seen or Ignored? What Do

5 Strategic Turn in Planning and the Role of Institutional

6 Sustainable Development: A Question of ‘Modernization’

7 To Enhance Social Equity Through Urban Planning: The

8 Climate Leadership: Developing Innovative Strategic

9 Innovative Planning in Rural, Depopulating Areas:

10 Lost or Found? Translating Innovative Participation171

11 Planning for Innovation as Innovative Planning?189

12 Innovation in Planning Theory: The Upcoming

Roar Amdam is Full Professor of Planning and Leadership at the Volda

Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Life

research group on Urban Sustainability. Næss’ main research areas are

Fig. 3.1 The collaborative co-creation spiral in planning and innovation 44

Innovation on the Planning Theory Agenda:

Aksel Hagen and Ulla Higdem

Innovation: An Upcoming Field of Interest

A. Hagen (*) • U. Higdem

© The Author(s) 2020 1

for example, using public procurement as a policy measure (Edler &

Innovation in the Planning Theory Field: Past

ago, Friedmann’s thoughts are important in relation to how the innova-

Innovative planning is defined as (1) seeking to legitimize new social objec-

We undertook the challenge of reviewing the planning theory literature

with today’s multi-actor, co-production governance systems (Kickert,

Contributions to Planning Theory

The following chapters contribute to the discourse on innovation in plan-

consider innovation in terms of the need for development of new ideas,

not necessarily involve choosing paths for innovative planning. Supported

Sager, T. (1992). Why plan? A multi-rationality foundation for planning.

Calculate, Communicate and Innovate?

Aksel Hagen and Ulla Higdem

A. Hagen • U. Higdem (*)

© The Author(s) 2020 11

downsizing and reducing public sector expenses. However, innovation in

Calculate and Communicate

rationality concept, with related planning models and methods, was an

Communicative Turn in Planning Theory’ (Healey, 1992), she claims that

Calculate and Communicate

Another commonality is that hardly any of the other contributors to the

A vital aspect of strategic planning is the ability to co-produce results in

Innovation: Friedmann from 1966 and Today

“Innovative planning is defined as (1) seeking to legitimize new social

monopoly on planning. As several strands of the literature emphasize, the

Innovation: Collaboration Arenas

Mainstream Innovation Theory Versus Friedmann

important that Friedmann introduced the resource-oriented perspective,

communities, as well as business organizations and partners developing

Innovation: The Emerging Third Approach

Lillehammer, Norway Aksel Hagen

1 Innovation on the Planning Theory Agenda: An

2 Calculate, Communicate and Innovate? 11

3 Planning and Innovation in a Collaborative Framework 33

4 Politicians’ Roles in Planning: Seen or Ignored? What Do

5 Strategic Turn in Planning and the Role of Institutional

6 Sustainable Development: A Question of ‘Modernization’

7 To Enhance Social Equity Through Urban Planning: The

8 Climate Leadership: Developing Innovative Strategic

9 Innovative Planning in Rural, Depopulating Areas:

10 Lost or Found? Translating Innovative Participation171

11 Planning for Innovation as Innovative Planning?189

12 Innovation in Planning Theory: The Upcoming

Fig. 3.1 The collaborative co-creation spiral in planning and innovation 44