Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

New Directions in Planning Theory Introduction

1980; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 46; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/01944368008977041

1939-0130

George C. Hemmens,

Urban Planning and Governance

Abstract We have always been unsure about planning theory. We have argued whether there could be a theory of planning, what form it would take, and how it would relate to practice. We have never resolved these issues to the satisfaction of our professional community or even to the satisfaction of those, mainly in planning education, who worry about the state of theory in planning. In recent years there has been increasing criticism of the ruling planning theory—the rational planning model, or rational action model. But the rational model remains in force because no competitive set of ideas has attracted sufficient support to supplant it. We continue to teach the rational model to new entrants to the planning field. When asked what our “theory” is, we are inclined to talk about the four (five, six, or seven) steps of the rational model; but when we practice our profession, we operate from some amalgam of experience, intuition, technique, context, and personality. There are many who argue that the rational action model is the right theory for planning. There have been many criticisms of the rational model. Many modifications of, and alternatives to, the rational model have been proposed to guide planning. Arguments on all these positions are very familiar to readers of this Journal. No set of concepts or ideas has emerged that convinces a majority of practitioners or theorists that the theory of planning has been found. Some even scoff at the idea of a single theory of planning and recommend that planners pack up a kit bag of theories to go with their kit bag of tools, and get on with responsible adhocery.