The final configuration of the planner-public relationship I found reflected in planning theory is centred on the way planning intersects with systems of power. This configuration sees the planner as advocate; using their position in the decision-making process to advance the interests of members of the public with less power and those who have traditionally lost out in planning decisions.
The first major example of the planner as advocate role can be seen in Davidoff’s advocacy planning, where the focus is on pursuing more equitable planning outcomes (1). Davidoff encouraged planning to expand its scope of knowledge to better understand the costs and benefits of planning proposals on all members of the public and in particular marginalized groups. By expanding their knowledge, Davidoff saw an opportunity for planning to play a greater role in social transformation:
“The prospect for future planning is that of a practice which openly invites political and social values to be examined and debated. Acceptance of this position means rejection of prescriptions for planning which would have the planner act solely as technician” (1)
Davidoff is not advocating for the rejection of planning expertise, but rather for an expanded scope of that expertise. Technical expertise can be used to produce varied outcomes for different segments of the public. Paring technical expertise with more understanding of the social context, particularly as it relates to the dimension of power, can allow planners to better wield their expertise to more equitable ends. Davidoff says that the “relative ignorance of social and economic analysis has caused planners to propose solutions in the absence of sufficient knowledge of the costs and benefits of proposals upon different sections of the population” (1).
Communicative planning theorists have also explored the potential of planners to be advocates. Public participation processes are often seen as venues to advance equalization (2) and as a means of empowerment (3). For example, Hillier describes public engagement as “a process in which hierarchical steering by power is excluded and substituted by cooperating networks” (2). The idea is that in a carefully curated space, planners can help the public communicate across or even outside of the power structures that divide them. Elling is skeptical that planners can overcome power dynamics solely through facilitative relationship as outlined in Healey’s collaborative planning (4). Instead they argue that the planner must take a more active role in public participation processes to counter the systemic power of things that enforce inequality like capitalism and globalism. These communicative action theorists implore planners to pursue not only more equitable outcomes but also more equitable processes.
The connections between the planner as advocate configuration and elements of care are more immediately apparent than the previous three. There is now an added layer of responsibility to planning’s relationship to care as the planner as advocate recognizes that the public is comprised of power imbalances and inequalities. Caring for the public interest then, involves providing targeted support to marginalized members of the public, even at the expense of other members of the public that have more privilege. Planners care for these marginalized members of the public by amplifying their voices and perspectives. Planners are also required to cultivate a greater sensitivity and potentially some more clinical communication skills to accurately understand what marginalized people need in a way that does not further any trauma or loss of autonomy.
The targeted lens to caring that was introduced by advocacy planning is also now being applied in public engagement processes. Every interaction of the planner-public relationship is an opportunity for the planner to create more space for marginalized voices and to advocate for their interests. This means that caring requires planners to be more thoughtful in the design and approach of engagement process so that they become channels for equity on top of information gathering and discourse. By taking an advocacy role, planners wade deeper into the legacies of conflict and trauma that bisect communities. As planners move in this direction, it raises the question whether planners are equipped to manage these complex social spaces.
The first major example of the planner as advocate role can be seen in Davidoff’s advocacy planning, where the focus is on pursuing more equitable planning outcomes (1). Davidoff encouraged planning to expand its scope of knowledge to better understand the costs and benefits of planning proposals on all members of the public and in particular marginalized groups. By expanding their knowledge, Davidoff saw an opportunity for planning to play a greater role in social transformation:
“The prospect for future planning is that of a practice which openly invites political and social values to be examined and debated. Acceptance of this position means rejection of prescriptions for planning which would have the planner act solely as technician” (1)
Davidoff is not advocating for the rejection of planning expertise, but rather for an expanded scope of that expertise. Technical expertise can be used to produce varied outcomes for different segments of the public. Paring technical expertise with more understanding of the social context, particularly as it relates to the dimension of power, can allow planners to better wield their expertise to more equitable ends. Davidoff says that the “relative ignorance of social and economic analysis has caused planners to propose solutions in the absence of sufficient knowledge of the costs and benefits of proposals upon different sections of the population” (1).
Communicative planning theorists have also explored the potential of planners to be advocates. Public participation processes are often seen as venues to advance equalization (2) and as a means of empowerment (3). For example, Hillier describes public engagement as “a process in which hierarchical steering by power is excluded and substituted by cooperating networks” (2). The idea is that in a carefully curated space, planners can help the public communicate across or even outside of the power structures that divide them. Elling is skeptical that planners can overcome power dynamics solely through facilitative relationship as outlined in Healey’s collaborative planning (4). Instead they argue that the planner must take a more active role in public participation processes to counter the systemic power of things that enforce inequality like capitalism and globalism. These communicative action theorists implore planners to pursue not only more equitable outcomes but also more equitable processes.
The connections between the planner as advocate configuration and elements of care are more immediately apparent than the previous three. There is now an added layer of responsibility to planning’s relationship to care as the planner as advocate recognizes that the public is comprised of power imbalances and inequalities. Caring for the public interest then, involves providing targeted support to marginalized members of the public, even at the expense of other members of the public that have more privilege. Planners care for these marginalized members of the public by amplifying their voices and perspectives. Planners are also required to cultivate a greater sensitivity and potentially some more clinical communication skills to accurately understand what marginalized people need in a way that does not further any trauma or loss of autonomy.
The targeted lens to caring that was introduced by advocacy planning is also now being applied in public engagement processes. Every interaction of the planner-public relationship is an opportunity for the planner to create more space for marginalized voices and to advocate for their interests. This means that caring requires planners to be more thoughtful in the design and approach of engagement process so that they become channels for equity on top of information gathering and discourse. By taking an advocacy role, planners wade deeper into the legacies of conflict and trauma that bisect communities. As planners move in this direction, it raises the question whether planners are equipped to manage these complex social spaces.
1. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 31 :331-338.
2. Hillier, J. (2010). Introduction to Part Three. In the Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory, edited by J. Hiller and P. Healey, 367–398. Surrey: Ashgate.
3. Andersen, J. (2007). “Empowermentperspektivet i planlægning.” [The Perspective of Empowerment in Planning]. In Planlægning i teori og praksis – et tværfagligt perspektiv [Planning in Theory and Praxis – An Interdisciplinary Perspective], edited by A. Jensen, J. Andersen, O. E. Hansen, and K. Aa. Nielsen (red.), 46–62. Copenhagen: Roskilde University Press.
4. Elling, B. (2017). Communicative planning as counter-power. International Planning Studies,22(3), 226-241.
2. Hillier, J. (2010). Introduction to Part Three. In the Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory, edited by J. Hiller and P. Healey, 367–398. Surrey: Ashgate.
3. Andersen, J. (2007). “Empowermentperspektivet i planlægning.” [The Perspective of Empowerment in Planning]. In Planlægning i teori og praksis – et tværfagligt perspektiv [Planning in Theory and Praxis – An Interdisciplinary Perspective], edited by A. Jensen, J. Andersen, O. E. Hansen, and K. Aa. Nielsen (red.), 46–62. Copenhagen: Roskilde University Press.
4. Elling, B. (2017). Communicative planning as counter-power. International Planning Studies,22(3), 226-241.