Through a literature review of planning theory, I have identified four configurations of the planner-public relationship that act as a foundation for how care could fit into the planning profession. The first configuration we will explore sees the planner as an expert, whose knowledge the public depends upon to assist with decision-making. The planner as expert configuration has existed as long as planning has been professionalized but is perhaps best represented by the rational-comprehensive model of planning theory. As laid out by Banfield, the rational comprehensive model frames planning as “a series of acts for the attainment of the end” (1).
The planner earns their expertise by their ability to identify and ultimately implement ends that are in the public interest. To legitimize planning expertise Banfield suggests that planners be comprehensive – able to identify the principal acts by which all the most important ends are attained; and rational – able to maximize the attainment of the relevant ends (1). By following the steps of the rational comprehensive model, planners are able to subsume Banfield’s principles and act as experts on behalf of the public. This mindset is supported by Friedmann:
“Planners claim that their advanced degrees in relevant disciplines and professional fields give them privileged access to scientific knowledge and technical know-how. They claim that this knowledge is generally superior to knowledge gained in other ways (from practical experience for example). In this respect they speak as the true heirs of the Enlightenment” (2).
To Friedmann, the rational comprehensive model is adjacent to the scientific model in the Enlightenment tradition through its desire to discern the world as it really is. Planners are experts because the actions they recommend seek to bridge the objective knowledge of science with the actions of the decision-making process. Friedmann presents three layers to this exchange that the planner as expert serves for the public:
Planners as experts are able to actionize the knowledge of science into change at the applied level as well as at the higher-level processes of social guidance and transformation. The assumption underlaying this expertise is that the increased understanding of rational analysis allows planners to identify the levers one needs to pull to get the right course of action (3). This assumption is at the heart of the planner-public relationship in the planner as expert configuration; the public grants the planner expertise by trusting their authority and in return the planner uses that expertise to recommend the right course of action to meet the public interest. In this relationship the public plays the role of the feedback system, highlighting the areas that require deeper rational analysis (3).This public role recognizes the limits of the planner as expert and the need to frame the planning process with a set of assumptions. Faludi describes this assumption setting process as political choice:
“From the point of view of decision-making, political choice is that process by which a community agrees to make those assumptions required to underpin and supplement knowledge so as to arrive at decisions” (3).
The public uses political choice to decide what ends, what parts of the public interest, should be prioritized while the planner as expert uses tools like the rational comprehensive model to determine the best course of action to achieve those ends. This planner as expert relationship has been solidified through the professionalization of planning and the creation of the Ontario Professional Code of Practice. It outlines how planners are responsible for the public interest, their clients and employer, and other members of the profession. For example, when it comes to the relationship with the public the code instructs planners to:
1.1 Practice in a manner that respects the diversity, needs, values and aspirations of the public and encourages discussion on these matters;
1.2 Provide full, clear and accurate information on planning matters to decision makers and members of the public, while recognizing both the client's right to confidentiality and the importance of timely recommendations;
1.3 Acknowledge the inter-related nature of planning decisions and their consequences for individuals, the natural and built environment, and the broader public interest; and
1.4 Identify and promote opportunities for meaningful participation in the planning process to all interested parties.(4)
This section of the code begins to show how the planner as expert configuration of the planner-public relationship points to elements of care. In this relationship, caring is embedded in the planner’s commitment to the public interest. The public trusts the planner’s expertise and the planner uses that expertise to recommend decisions that will best advance the needs of the public. The focus of care is on the outcomes of planning. Like a doctor, who focuses on improving the health of the patient, the planner as expert is concerned with improved outcomes for their community.
Through a lens of care, several parts of this code stand out. For example, section 1.1 centres planning under the principle of respect and includes several aspects of the socio-emotional realm of the public (i.e. needs, aspirations). By following this code, planners are granted status as experts and are afforded the trust of the public. This configuration of the planner-public relationship has played a dominant role in the framing of the profession and its understanding of care as seen by the code of conduct. That being said, there are many limitations to the planner as expert which have spawned the subsequent evolutions of the planner-public relationship.
The planner earns their expertise by their ability to identify and ultimately implement ends that are in the public interest. To legitimize planning expertise Banfield suggests that planners be comprehensive – able to identify the principal acts by which all the most important ends are attained; and rational – able to maximize the attainment of the relevant ends (1). By following the steps of the rational comprehensive model, planners are able to subsume Banfield’s principles and act as experts on behalf of the public. This mindset is supported by Friedmann:
“Planners claim that their advanced degrees in relevant disciplines and professional fields give them privileged access to scientific knowledge and technical know-how. They claim that this knowledge is generally superior to knowledge gained in other ways (from practical experience for example). In this respect they speak as the true heirs of the Enlightenment” (2).
To Friedmann, the rational comprehensive model is adjacent to the scientific model in the Enlightenment tradition through its desire to discern the world as it really is. Planners are experts because the actions they recommend seek to bridge the objective knowledge of science with the actions of the decision-making process. Friedmann presents three layers to this exchange that the planner as expert serves for the public:
- Planning attempts to link scientific knowledge to actions in the public domain.
- Planning attempts to link scientific knowledge to processes of social guidance.
- Planning attempts to link scientific knowledge to processes of social transformation.(2)
Planners as experts are able to actionize the knowledge of science into change at the applied level as well as at the higher-level processes of social guidance and transformation. The assumption underlaying this expertise is that the increased understanding of rational analysis allows planners to identify the levers one needs to pull to get the right course of action (3). This assumption is at the heart of the planner-public relationship in the planner as expert configuration; the public grants the planner expertise by trusting their authority and in return the planner uses that expertise to recommend the right course of action to meet the public interest. In this relationship the public plays the role of the feedback system, highlighting the areas that require deeper rational analysis (3).This public role recognizes the limits of the planner as expert and the need to frame the planning process with a set of assumptions. Faludi describes this assumption setting process as political choice:
“From the point of view of decision-making, political choice is that process by which a community agrees to make those assumptions required to underpin and supplement knowledge so as to arrive at decisions” (3).
The public uses political choice to decide what ends, what parts of the public interest, should be prioritized while the planner as expert uses tools like the rational comprehensive model to determine the best course of action to achieve those ends. This planner as expert relationship has been solidified through the professionalization of planning and the creation of the Ontario Professional Code of Practice. It outlines how planners are responsible for the public interest, their clients and employer, and other members of the profession. For example, when it comes to the relationship with the public the code instructs planners to:
1.1 Practice in a manner that respects the diversity, needs, values and aspirations of the public and encourages discussion on these matters;
1.2 Provide full, clear and accurate information on planning matters to decision makers and members of the public, while recognizing both the client's right to confidentiality and the importance of timely recommendations;
1.3 Acknowledge the inter-related nature of planning decisions and their consequences for individuals, the natural and built environment, and the broader public interest; and
1.4 Identify and promote opportunities for meaningful participation in the planning process to all interested parties.(4)
This section of the code begins to show how the planner as expert configuration of the planner-public relationship points to elements of care. In this relationship, caring is embedded in the planner’s commitment to the public interest. The public trusts the planner’s expertise and the planner uses that expertise to recommend decisions that will best advance the needs of the public. The focus of care is on the outcomes of planning. Like a doctor, who focuses on improving the health of the patient, the planner as expert is concerned with improved outcomes for their community.
Through a lens of care, several parts of this code stand out. For example, section 1.1 centres planning under the principle of respect and includes several aspects of the socio-emotional realm of the public (i.e. needs, aspirations). By following this code, planners are granted status as experts and are afforded the trust of the public. This configuration of the planner-public relationship has played a dominant role in the framing of the profession and its understanding of care as seen by the code of conduct. That being said, there are many limitations to the planner as expert which have spawned the subsequent evolutions of the planner-public relationship.
1. Banfield, E. (1955). "Note on a Conceptual Scheme," in Politics, Planning and the Public Interest, by Edward C. Banfield and Martin Meyerson. Free Press.
2. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Faludi, A. (1973). Planning Theory. Pergamon
4. OPPI. (2018). Professional Code of Practice http://ontarioplanners.ca/Knowledge-Centre/Professional-Code-of-Practice
2. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Faludi, A. (1973). Planning Theory. Pergamon
4. OPPI. (2018). Professional Code of Practice http://ontarioplanners.ca/Knowledge-Centre/Professional-Code-of-Practice