Collaborative Planning Theory

In my paper, I will be looking at what the communicative and collaborative planning theory is, how it’s conceptualised and implemented in favour of society and the responsibilities it lays on officials in the planning realm. I will touch on the general and universal criticism communicative and collaborative planning theories have faced and then again deeper into Fainsteins criticism on these planning approaches. Fainstein is well known for not only critiquing different planning approaches but also for her contributions to planning, herself. I will delve into the theories and practices of ‘The Justice City Model’, critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the theory and in practice.

The communicative planning theory is largely

The communication between each of the participants should be as comprehensible as possible. This is key as it emphasizes the importance of clearly written documents, free of planning jargon. The agreement that none of the participants’ views should be suppressed unless it is for the better of the greater argument. Finally, the need and commitment from each of the stakeholders and groups to reach mutual agreements should be at the forefront of each discussion. This is not only to limit the presence of conflict but also to maximize the positive and common outcome of the dialogue.

Collaborative planning is defined by Harris (2002, 22) as “a framework for understanding spatial planning and to provide a framework for practical action”. Collaborative action challenged many aspects of the planning system we know. Primarily, The accepted idea of the planner is the main authority and decision maker. With the inclusion of various groups and stakeholders; the planning process does not only concentrate on the material resources but looks at the local needs and site specific aspects of a

Fainstein believes that it does not deal with the issues of “elitist tendencies” (Fainstein, 2000, 455). This is seen again in Flyvbjergs work ‘Empowering civil society: habermas, foucault and the questions of conflict, in cities for citizens: planning and the rise of civil society in a global age’ where its stated that the CPT was “unable to prevent powerful elites from influencing outcomes” (Flyvbjerg, 1998). ¬

Murrays (2005) work also outlines other complications with the CPT in relation to power, Murray believed that not all aspects of power were considered carefully especially that of political power struggles. The failure to recognise a struggle that is inherent in the decisions making process leaves communicative and collaborative planning theories vulnerable and open to failure. Murray believes that this political inequality must not merely be ignored but must be dealt with in order for the theory to reach its full