Planning Theory

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

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 Chettiparamb, A.
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. 6, No. 3, 263-281 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1473095207082034

Re-Conceptualizing Public Participation in Planning: A View Through Autopoiesis

Angelique Chettiparamb

Cardiff University, UK, chettiparamba{at}cardiff.ac.uk

This article examines the relevance of the concept of autopoiesis for public participation in spatial planning. The concept of autopoiesis within social science, as advanced by Niklas Luhmann (1995) argues for a systemic, consistent and sophisticated theory of society based on a systems view, as opposed to more familiar action-based theories (for instance as in the case of the Habermasian tradition). By examining the relevance of the concept for public participation in spatial planning, this article highlights specific aspects of public participation that draw attention to dimensions of planning that are not currently explicitly highlighted within mainstream discourses in planning.1

Key Words: autopoiesis • interaction systems • Luhmann • People's Planning Campaign • public participation

References

  • Arnoldi, J. (2001) ` Niklas Luhmann: An Introduction', Theory , Culture and Society 18(1): 1—13 .
  • Bailey, K.D. (1997) ` The Autopoiesis of Social Systems: Assessing Luhmann's Theory of Self-Reference ', Systems Research and Behavioral Science 14(2): 83—100 .
  • Bausch, K. (2002) ` In Response to Robert Kay: Luhmann's Ontology, Ontogeny, and Epistemology ', Systems Research and Behavioural Science 19: 599—602 .[CrossRef]
  • Boland, P. (2001) `Community Involvement in Spatial Planning: Economic Development in Merseyside', in L. Albrechts, J. Alden and A. da Rosa Pires (eds) The Changing Institutional Landscape of Planning, pp. 230—56. Aldershot: Ashgate .
  • Branch, M.C. (1981) Continuous City Planning — Integrating Municipal Management and City Planning. New York: Wiley-Interscience .
  • Brans, M. and Rossbach, S. (1997) ` The Autopoiesis of Administrative Systems; Niklas Luhmann on Public Administration and Public Policy ', Public Administration 75: 417—39 .[CrossRef]
  • Camhis, M. (1979) Planning Theory and Philosophy. London: Tavistock Publications .
  • Campbell, H. and Marshall, R. (2000) ` Public Involvement and Planning: Looking beyond the One to the Many ', International Planning Studies 5(3): 321—44 .[CrossRef]
  • Chettiparamb, A. (2005) ` Fractal Spaces in Planning and Governance ', Town Planning Review 76(3): 317—40 .
  • Chettiparamb, A. (2006) ` Bottom-up Planning and the Future of Planning Education in India ', Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(2): 185—94 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books .
  • Dunsire, A. (1996) ` Tipping the Balance: Autopoiesis and Governance ', Administration and Society 28(3): 299—334 .[CrossRef]
  • Economic Review (2001) Kerala State Planning Board, Trivandrum .
  • Harris, N. (2002) `Collaborative Planning: From Theoretical Foundations to Practice Forms', in P. Allmendinger and M. Tewdwr-Jones (eds) Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, pp. 21—43. London: Routledge .
  • Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Politics of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell .
  • Healey, P. (1992) ` Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory ', Town Planning Review 63(2): 143—62 .
  • Healey, P. (1996) ` The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and Its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation ', Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23: 217—34 .[CrossRef]
  • Healey, P. (1998) ` Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning ', Environment and Planning A 30: 1531—46 .[CrossRef]
  • Healey, P. (1999) ` Institutionalist Analysis, Communicative Planning, and Shaping Places ', Journal of Planning Education and Research 19: 111—21 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Isaac, T.T.M. and Franke, R.W. (2000) Local Democracy and Development — People's Planning for Decentralized Planning in Kerala. India: Left Word .
  • Jessop, B. (2001a) ` Regulationist and Autopoieticist Reflections on Polanyi's Account of Market Economies and the Market Society ', New Political Economy 6(2): 213—32 .[CrossRef]
  • Jessop, B. (2001b) ` State Theory, Regulation and Autopoiesis: Debates and Controversies ', Capital and Class 75: 83—92 .
  • Kay, R. ( 2001) ` Are Organizations Autopoietic? A Call for New Debate' , Systems Research and Behavioural Science 18: 461—77 .[CrossRef]
  • Kerala Municipality Act and Rules (2004) Kochi , India: Em Tee En publications .
  • Kerala Panchayat Law Manual (2004) Kochi , India: Em Tee En Publications .
  • Kickert, W.J.M. (1993) ` Autopoiesis and the Science of (Public) Administration: Essence, Sense and Nonsense ', Organization Studies 14(2): 261—78 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Knodt, E.M. (1995) `Foreword', in N. Luhmann (ed.) Social Systems, trans. J. Bednarz Jr with D. Baecker, pp. ix—xxxvi. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981) `Introduction: The Micro-Sociological Challenge of Macro-Sociology: Towards a Reconstruction of Social Theory and Methodology ', in K. Knorr-Cetina and A.V. Cicourel (eds) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology — Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, pp. 1—47. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul .
  • Kooiman, J. (ed.) (1993) Modern Governance—New Government—Society Interactions. London: Sage .
  • Leydesdorff, L. (2000) ` Luhmann, Habermas and the Theory of Communication ', Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17: 273—88 .[CrossRef]
  • Luhmann, N. (1984) Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp .
  • Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems, trans. J. Bednarz Jr with D. Baecker. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
  • Maffesoli, M. (1996) Ordinary Knowledge — An Introduction to Interpretive Sociology, trans. D. Macey. Cambridge: Polity Press .
  • Mingers, J. (1995) Self-Producing Systems — Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis. London: Plenum Press .
  • Morgan, G. (1998) Images of Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler .
  • Paul, A.T. (2001) ` Organizing Husserl — On the Phenomenological Foundations of Luhmann's Systems Theory', Journal of Classical Sociology 1(3): 371—94 .
  • Rasch, W. and Wolfe, C. (eds) (2000) Observing Complexity — Systems Theory and Postmodernity. London: University of Minnesota Press .
  • Schön, D.M. (1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Aldershot : Ashgate .
  • Shields, R. (1995) `A Guide to Urban Representations and What to Do about It: Alternative Traditions in Urban Theory', in A. King (ed.) Re-presenting the City: Ethnicity, Capital and Culture in the Twenty-first Century Metropolis , pp. 227—52. London: Macmillan .
  • Teubner, G. and Febbrajo, A. (eds) (1992) State, Law, and Economy as Autopoietic Systems — Regulations and Autonomy in a New Perspective. Milan : Dott. A. Giuffre Editore .
  • Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Thomas, H. (1998) ` Collaborative Action in Local Plan-Making: Planner's Perceptions of `Planning through Debate ', Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25: 127—44 .[CrossRef]
  • Thomas, H. (2004) ` What Future for British Planning Theory ', Planning Theory 3(3): 189—98 .[CrossRef]
  • Van Twist, M.J.W. and Schaap, L. (1991) `Introduction to Autopoiesis Theory and Autopoietic Steering', in R. In't Veld, L. Schaap, C.J.A.M. Termeer and M.J.W. Van Twist (eds) Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory: New Approaches to Societal Steering, pp. 31—44 London: Kluwer Academic .
  • Varela, F.G., Maturana, H.R. and Uribe, R. (1974) ` Autopoiesis: The Organization of Living Systems, Its Characterization and a Model ', Biosystems 5: 187—96 .[CrossRef]
  • Viskovotoff, A. (1999) ` Foundations of Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems ', Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29(4): 481—516 .[Abstract]

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 Chettiparamb, A.
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?