CHOICE THEORY OF

PLANNING AND
ADVOCACY AND
PLURALISM IN
PLANNING

Choice theory of planning

Paul Davidoff and Thomas Reiner
(1962)
Planning is a process of choice
Planning process is finding out and
assuring
Plannings ends are goals for the future
Planning must be directed to problems
of effectuation

continued
Choices are made at three levels:
1. Selection of ends and criteria
2. The identification if set of alternatives
consistent with these general perspectives
and a selection of desired alternative
3. Guidance of action toward determined ends
Each of these choices requires the exercise
of judgement
Judgement permeates planning

The ideas of advocacy

1. In the mid 1960s, advocacy planning was

defined by Paul Davidoff in his seminal article,
Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. JAIP
(November 1965): 331-338.
2. Davidoff called for citizen participation in
the planning process and the need to
rediscover an enlightened democracy.
3. He argued that planners could no longer
be neutral or value-free in their work, but that
a pluralistic political context was now a major
determinant as to how planners practiced their
profession.

4. For Davidoff, planning was to be done

in the public interest
5. The pursuit of those interests could no
longer be a matter of scientific expertise
solely, but must rather be a matter of
politics.
6. Davidoff recognized the role of the
planners expertise, but basically argued
that the planner must adopt a new role of
advocator.

7. Planners needed to remember is that

they were representing the interests of
their clients. This was more than just
doing research and participating as a
neutral, value free expert.
8. Planners should see themselves as
advocates for the poor and for distressed
communities. For Davidoff, this was a
matter of inclusion, making sure the voice
of the citizen is heard in the deliberation

9. It also would mean that planning must of

the necessity become adversarial. In a
democratic system, opposition to a public
agency should be just as normal and
appropriate as support.
10.
Further, in a pluralistic environment,
planners must be prepared to argue why one
plan is better than the other, and why one
plan is more inclusive and more persuasive
for the interests of the client, including the
interests of the community most affected.

11.For Davidoff, it would mean that attention

must be given to the art of persuasion, not to
mere fact-finding or plan development.
For Davidoff (1965):
the planner would have to prepare plans that take
account of the arguments made by other plans. Thus
the advocates plan might have some of the
characteristics of a legal brief. It would be a
document presenting the facts and reasons for
supporting one set of proposals, and facts and reasons
indicating the inferiority of counter proposals

12.In a pluralistic context, the advocate

planner would represent the interests of
his client. He would persuade decisionmakers that the interests of his client and
the plans made with input from the client
are the most compelling.
13.
Due to the adversarial nature of
such a discourse, the planner also might
function as a resource person, granting
technical information when necessary.

14. Planners should proceed in

adversarial relation:

Public
Planning
Agency

Planning
Expertise

Planning
Counter
Expertise

Interest Group

14.
According to Davidoff,
there are interests and
communities of interests out
there that must be
considered in the planning
process.

Advocacy Approach

Argument is based around three main

ideas that Davidoff considers outdated
and ineffective aspects of planning:
1) unitary planning,
2) the traditional planning commission,
and
3) too much focus on physical aspects of
urban areas

Offers an alternative to each problem:

1) pluralism in planning
2) a true democratic process of planning, and
3)a more inclusionary view of the scope of
planning field

Controversies, tension, opposing viewpoints

are natural and healthy to the planning process.
These tensions should not be avoided; rather
they are a means for true democratic decisionmaking.

Davidoffs arguments and

Alternative decision making
1.
Unitary vs. Plural Planning
process

a. Unitary Plan one agency prepares a

comprehensive plan with little or no outside input,
and without researching viable alternatives

b. Plural Plan Exploring and discussing multiple

options for each proposed plan, hearing from
different interest groups, giving all groups a voice
whether they have had traditional power within a
community or not.
c. Davidoffs encouragement of tension and
contentious discussion is critical to plural planning.

d. Three benefits to utilizing plural planning as

opposed to unitary planning:
It

better informs the public of alternative choices

Forces public agency to compete with other
organizations preparing plans, thereby increasing the
quality of the work generated by the public sector
Gives outside organizations a chance to take their
work to the next level not just protesting
governments plans, but creating their own
alternatives.

e. The correct process of planning is

pluralism

2). Planner as Advocate

The correct role of the planner is one of an
advocate.
1. Social values and justice must be integrated
into planning. Planning can no longer be just a
technical field; the act of recommending plans
and actions to the city is in itself infusing
technical worker with ideas of social and
economic justices. This shouldnt be fought or
discouraged.

2. Compares the role of advocacy

planning to that of a lawyer. Each
group/idea is entitled to fair
representation and deserves a voice.
Takes this comparison a step further and
suggests that an advocacy plan would be
similar to a legal brief, in that it not only
argues for its own ideas, but argues
against the alternative plans created by
other agencies

3. Beneficial to community as underrepresented groups (such as lowincome residents) will have a

professional to speak for them; also
beneficial to planners as they can
select to work with
organizations/firms that hold values
and interests similar to their own.

3. The public planning agency vs.

democratic planning process

Three groups should be involved with a

democratic, public planning process:
1. Political parties. Ideal situation would be if
parties in the legislative and executive branches
would form their own plans, these plans would be
discussed and appraised, and the planning
agency would carry out its activities based on
constituent demands. However, Davidoff admits
this is a lofty ideal that would be difficult to
realize.

2. Special interest groups. Chambers of

commerce, labor-rights organizations, civil
rights, environmental issues. Again, Davidoff
mentions this is also difficult, as many
organizations are reluctant to disagree with
city plans, as it decreasing their ability for
funding and support.
3. Ad-hoc protest organizations. Eg.,
neighborhood associations developing
alternative plans that better suit their
community.

4. Inclusive Definition of the Scope of Planning

a. Davidoffs third element that he argues should be
changed is the focus on only physical space of a
community.
b. The purpose of buildings is to serve people. Their
functional use is of primary concern. Spaces and
structures only take on true meaning when examining
them in relation to social and economic conditions.

c. Example Urban renewalarticle written during a time

when government practiced physical determinism
argued that if
the buildings were changed, the
social problems would change accordingly. Obviously,
Davidoff contends that this thinking should be
reversed.

d. Three ways that plannings scope can be

broadened to include more than physical
aspects:
1.
State legislation needed to allow municipal
planning departments to address issues outside of
land use. Should address all areas of public concern
2.
Planning education should allow students to
specialize in specific areas of public planning (not
necessarily physical planning)
3.
Professional body should widen its scope and
purpose. Current mission statement excludes those
planners not focused narrowly on physical planning

5.

Planning Education
1.Planners should be knowledgeable in a wide spectrum
of issues (on social, economic, systematic, physical
levels) affecting urban areas.

2.Planners should serve as coordinators and liaisons

3.Merge the advances in technical skills and resources

with the analytic practice of forming social policy. This
allows planners to address urban planning on many
levels design, social work, law. Problems planners
face are both pragmatic and philosophical, and its not
an either/or decisionall angles must be discussed
and fought over in order for meaningful decisions to
be made.

The End