The next configuration of planner-public relationship we will unpack frames the planner as negotiator; where the planner is more integrated with the political realm and its communicative expectations. The planner as negotiator arises from the recognition that there are limitations to the planner as expert. In response to these limitations, planners have had to negotiate between the objectives of scientific and technical expertise, and the social dynamics of the political realm. This negotiator role is best exemplified in planning theories like incrementalism (1) and mixed-scanning (2). For example, in building a case for incrementalism, Lindblom elaborates on the limitations of planning expertise:
“Making policy is at best a very rough process. Neither social scientists, nor politicians, nor public administrators yet know enough about the social world to avoid repeated error in predicting the consequences of policy moves. A wise policy-maker consequently expects that his policies will achieve only part of what he hopes and at the same time will produce unanticipated consequences he would have preferred to avoid. If he proceeds through a succession of incremental changes, he avoids serious lasting mistakes in several ways” (1).
The process of negotiation for Lindblom, is realized through the incrementalization of action. Rather than taking sweeping actions towards planning ends, Lindblom’s incrementalism encourages planners to make piecemeal interventions. Limiting the scope of planning interventions gives space for the public to respond to any changes and refine the direction of planning, albeit only through the voices of key stakeholders in the political realm. This space serves as an expansion of the feedback system that was introduced in the planner as expert configuration. Essentially, incrementalism has incorporated the public’s feedback earlier into the planning process creating a model of negotiation between the planner and the public about the nature of the outcomes planning is working towards. This thought is expanded upon by Etzioni:
“Policies are the outcome of a give-and-take among numerous societal “partisans.” The measure of a good decision is the decision-makers’ agreement about it. Poor decisions are those which exclude actors capable of affecting the projected course of action; decisions of this type tend to be blocked or modified later” (2).
Etzioni is describing the increased power the public has in the planner as negotiator configuration. While planners are still bringing their expertise to the decision-making process they are balancing it with the increased voices of the political realm. By engaging with the political realm planners get more access to the levers which implement their recommendations. However, there are challenges to planners engaging more with the political realm. Etzioni observes that “the strategy followed is determined neither by values nor by information but by the positions of and power relations among decision makers” (2). By engaging with the political realm, planners are not just negotiating with the many stakeholders of the public but they are also negotiating with and across systems of power.
Some may feel that planning is ceding too much of its technical expertise by engaging with the political realm. This is a limitation Etzioni feels that planners in democratic societies must accept “because of their greater need to gain support for new decisions from many and conflicting sub-societies, a need which reduces their capacity to follow a long run plan” (2). From this dynamic, Etzioni proposes mixed-scanning as a compromise between the rational-comprehensive model and incrementalism; empowering planners to balance between their roles as experts and negotiators. Planners can use their scientific and technical expertise to get a good understanding of the broader public interest and the best path forward to achieve that end, and then negotiate with the public to determine the most feasible of those paths given the political and logistical realities.
As seen in the planner as expert relationship, the planner as negotiator also points to elements of care through the planner’s quest to advance the public interest. However, incrementalism and mixed-scanning recognize that planners cannot achieve the public interest in single large-scale actions but rather through smaller scale interventions and compromises. In these models, planners negotiate with stakeholders to determine what parts of the public interest should be prioritized and how they should best be implemented. Through a lens of care, planners are essentially negotiating how much care a community needs in relation to how much care is feasible to provide.
The act of negotiating adds another layer of caring to the planner’s portfolio in that the planner now has targeted relationships with key stakeholders. Care becomes an element of negotiation — fostering stronger relationships as a means of advancing the public interest. Planners care for the public by advancing outcomes in the public interest and they care for key stakeholders, especially those with political or financial power, in the pursuit of realizing those outcomes. The role of power in the planner as negotiator highlights a point of tension that continues to push the planner-public relationship as it evolves into the next two configurations.
“Making policy is at best a very rough process. Neither social scientists, nor politicians, nor public administrators yet know enough about the social world to avoid repeated error in predicting the consequences of policy moves. A wise policy-maker consequently expects that his policies will achieve only part of what he hopes and at the same time will produce unanticipated consequences he would have preferred to avoid. If he proceeds through a succession of incremental changes, he avoids serious lasting mistakes in several ways” (1).
The process of negotiation for Lindblom, is realized through the incrementalization of action. Rather than taking sweeping actions towards planning ends, Lindblom’s incrementalism encourages planners to make piecemeal interventions. Limiting the scope of planning interventions gives space for the public to respond to any changes and refine the direction of planning, albeit only through the voices of key stakeholders in the political realm. This space serves as an expansion of the feedback system that was introduced in the planner as expert configuration. Essentially, incrementalism has incorporated the public’s feedback earlier into the planning process creating a model of negotiation between the planner and the public about the nature of the outcomes planning is working towards. This thought is expanded upon by Etzioni:
“Policies are the outcome of a give-and-take among numerous societal “partisans.” The measure of a good decision is the decision-makers’ agreement about it. Poor decisions are those which exclude actors capable of affecting the projected course of action; decisions of this type tend to be blocked or modified later” (2).
Etzioni is describing the increased power the public has in the planner as negotiator configuration. While planners are still bringing their expertise to the decision-making process they are balancing it with the increased voices of the political realm. By engaging with the political realm planners get more access to the levers which implement their recommendations. However, there are challenges to planners engaging more with the political realm. Etzioni observes that “the strategy followed is determined neither by values nor by information but by the positions of and power relations among decision makers” (2). By engaging with the political realm, planners are not just negotiating with the many stakeholders of the public but they are also negotiating with and across systems of power.
Some may feel that planning is ceding too much of its technical expertise by engaging with the political realm. This is a limitation Etzioni feels that planners in democratic societies must accept “because of their greater need to gain support for new decisions from many and conflicting sub-societies, a need which reduces their capacity to follow a long run plan” (2). From this dynamic, Etzioni proposes mixed-scanning as a compromise between the rational-comprehensive model and incrementalism; empowering planners to balance between their roles as experts and negotiators. Planners can use their scientific and technical expertise to get a good understanding of the broader public interest and the best path forward to achieve that end, and then negotiate with the public to determine the most feasible of those paths given the political and logistical realities.
As seen in the planner as expert relationship, the planner as negotiator also points to elements of care through the planner’s quest to advance the public interest. However, incrementalism and mixed-scanning recognize that planners cannot achieve the public interest in single large-scale actions but rather through smaller scale interventions and compromises. In these models, planners negotiate with stakeholders to determine what parts of the public interest should be prioritized and how they should best be implemented. Through a lens of care, planners are essentially negotiating how much care a community needs in relation to how much care is feasible to provide.
The act of negotiating adds another layer of caring to the planner’s portfolio in that the planner now has targeted relationships with key stakeholders. Care becomes an element of negotiation — fostering stronger relationships as a means of advancing the public interest. Planners care for the public by advancing outcomes in the public interest and they care for key stakeholders, especially those with political or financial power, in the pursuit of realizing those outcomes. The role of power in the planner as negotiator highlights a point of tension that continues to push the planner-public relationship as it evolves into the next two configurations.
1. Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through, Public Administration Review. 19:79-88.
2. Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision Making. Public Administration Review. 27:385-392.
2. Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision Making. Public Administration Review. 27:385-392.