Planning Theory

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaza, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Planning Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, 255-270 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1473095206068630

Tyranny of the Median and Costly Consent: A Reflection on the Justification for Participatory Urban Planning Processes

Nikhil Kaza

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA

Wide participation, in the urban planning context, is justified as the means of balancing multiple interests outside the traditional decision-making setup. However, this article argues that the participatory paradigm provides at best inadequate justification to the planning process. Particularly if consensus building is the aim of the participatory process, it suffers from a number of impossibility results well documented in the political economics literature. ‘Lazy deliberators’ will arrive at the acceptance of a priori median preference, and participatory processes necessarily exclude some groups, even under equitable capability and power distribution. This article intends to contribute to the debate on the nature of participatory planning by critically analyzing the motivations of participation and limitation of the participatory planning paradigms, and advocates a temperate view on their efficacy.

Key Words: consensus • consent • participation • persuasion • political economy

References

  • Abram, S. A. (2000) ‘Planning the Public: Some Comments on Empirical Problems for Planning Theory’ , Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(4): 352-357 .
  • Aitken, S. C. and Michel, S. M. (1995) ‘Who Contrives the "Real" in GIS? Geographic Information, Planning and Critical Theory’ , Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1): 17-29 .
  • Alfasi, N. (2003) ‘Is Public Participation Making Urban Planning More Democratic? The Israeli Experience’ , Planning Theory & Practice 4(2): 185-202 .[CrossRef]
  • Buchanan, J. M. and Tullock, G. (1965) The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press .
  • Cleaver, F. (2004) ‘Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to Development’, in B. Cooke and U. Kothari (eds) Participation: The New Tyranny, pp. 36-55. New York: Zed Books .
  • Cohen, J. (1986) ‘An Epistemic Conception of Democracy’ , Ethics 97(1): 26-38 .[CrossRef]
  • Crawford, V. and Sobel, J. (1982) ‘Strategic Information Transmission’ , Econometrica 50: 1431-1451 .[CrossRef]
  • Dahl, R. (1982) Dilemmas of a Pluralist Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
  • Donaghy, K. D. (2001) ‘Some Moral, Ethical, and Transethical Issues Raised by Biotechnology and How We Might Deliberate about Them’ , American Behavioral Scientist 44(8): 1267-1282 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Donaghy, K. D. and Hopkins, L. D. (2006) ‘Coherentist Theories of Planning are Possible and Useful’ , Planning Theory 5(2): 173-202 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Dworkin, R. (1978) Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
  • Elster, J. (1982) ‘Sour Grapes: Utilitarianism and the Genesis of Wants’, in A. K. Sen and B. Williams (eds) Utilitarianism and Beyond, pp. 219-238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
  • Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1983) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, 2nd edn. New York: Penguin .
  • Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press .
  • Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
  • Harwood, S. A. (2003) ‘Environmental Justice on the Streets: Advocacy Planning as a Tool to Contest Environmental Racism’ , Journal of Planning Education and Research 23(1): 24-38 .[Abstract]
  • Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Frameworks in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan .
  • Helling, A. (1998) ‘Collaborative Visioning: Proceed with Caution’ , Journal of American Planning Association 64(3): 335-349 .
  • Hillier, J. (2002) ‘Direct Action and Agonism in Planning’, in P. Allmendinger and M. Tewdwr-Jones (eds) Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, pp. 110-135. New York: Routledge .
  • Hopkins, L. D. (2001) Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans. Washington, DC: Island Press .
  • Huxley, M. (2000) ‘The Limits to Communicative Planning’ , Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(4): 370-377 .
  • Innes, J. E. (1996) ‘Planning through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal’ , Journal of the American Planning Association 62(4): 460-472 .
  • Innes, J. E. (1998) ‘Information in Communicative Planning’ , Journal of the American Planning Association 64(1): 52-63 .
  • Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. (1999) ‘Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning’ , Journal of American Planning Association 65(4): 412-423 .
  • Krehbiel, K. (1991) Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press .
  • Mansbridge, J. (1996) ‘Using Power/Fighting Power: The Polity’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 46-66. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
  • Margerum, R. D. (2002) ‘Collaborative Planning: Building a Distinct Model for Practice’ , Journal of Planning Education and Research 21(3): 237-253 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Morgan, T. (1990) ‘David Brower: Still Active after All These Years’ , E magazine 1(1): 10-14 .
  • Mouffe, C. (1999) ‘Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?’ , Social Research 66(3): 745-758 .
  • Neuman, M. (2000) ‘Communicate This! Does Consensus Lead to Advocacy and Pluralism?’ , Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(4): 343-350 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. E. (2000) Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Zeuthen lecture book series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
  • Quine, W. V. and Ullian, J. S. (1978) The Web of Belief, 2nd edn. New York: Random House .
  • Rawls, J. A. (1999) A Theory of Justice, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press .
  • Reardon, K. M. (1998) ‘Enhancing the Capacity of Community-based Organizations in East St. Louis’ , Journal of Planning Education and Research 17(4): 323-333 .[Abstract]
  • Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slater, B. and Edmunds, D. (1995) ‘Gendered Resource Mapping: Focusing on Women’s Spaces in the Landscape’ , Cultural Survival Quarterly, winter: 62-68 .
  • Rorty, R. (1987) ‘Posties’ , London Review of Books 15: 11-12 . (A review of Der Philosophische Diskurs der Moderne: Zwölf Vorlesungen, by Jürgen Habermas.)
  • Sager, T. (2002) Democratic Planning and Social Choice Dilemmas: Prelude to Institutional Planning Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate .
  • Schön, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books .
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2003) Why Societies Need Dissent. Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
  • Schwartz, B. (2004) The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. New York: Harper Collins .
  • Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Allmendinger, P. (1998) ‘Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning’ , Environment and Planning A 30(11): 1975-1989 .[CrossRef]
  • Young, I. M. (1996) ‘Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 120-135. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaza, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?