Re - styling de la marca

This section explores some theories of planning that have shaped debates on the practice of planning. The entry point is the normative theories which took root after the fall of the ‘rational scientific planning influenced by growing disillusionment with modernist thinking and technocratic planning’ in the west (Watson, 2002:29). Three strands of the normative theories are explored; the communicative theory, the just city theory, and the co-production theory. These theories are explored for their relevance in an attempt to identify planning approaches that could best explain and address the urbanization challenges in an urban area such as Epworth. The discussion will conclude by looking at the arguments built on the inadequacies of the mainstream normative theories and elements of the normative theories mainly driven by planning theorists from the global south.

2.4.1 The Communicative Theory

The twin challenges of failure to communicate with citizens and limited democratic space motivated the communicative theories of planning. The communicative theory has its roots in Habermas’s ‘liberalism’ (Watson, 2006).

Habermas believed in the possibility of ‘rational consensus-formation’ and that people can genuinely discuss until a common acceptable solution is found (Hillier, 2003). The underlying argument in the communicative strand is that communication is the ‘most important’ aspect of planning (Healy, 1999). According to the communicative theory, the key elements that makes planning a success include interaction, communication, discussion and debating, all influenced by Habermas (Healy, 1992; Forester, 1989).

Patsy Healy argues against the ‘narrow’ democratic space accorded to other actors in the traditional rational planning approach and advocates for ‘democratic pluralism’

underpinned by debate as a way to find consensus. Whilst she acknowledged that people and interests differ, she still believed that through debate, a common position could still be reached that benefits all stakeholders (Healy, 1992; Graham and Healy, 1999). The communicative theory is also supported by Innes who touts the

‘communicative turn’ as a ‘new paradigm’ in planning with potential to deliver improved planning as it was based on ‘grounded theorizing’ (Innes, 1995).

The communicative theory is not without its critics. Hillier (2003:38) criticizes the communicative theory because of the ‘permanence of conflict, non-reciprocity and domination’ amongst some players in the planning process. Huxley and Yiftachel (2000) criticize the communicative theory particularly the way it ‘overstated’ the achievement of consensus. They argue that although the communicative turn seems to assume a break from rigid rational planning, the reality indicated that not to be entirely true. Huxley (2000) further refutes the assumption of argument as a basis to finding planning solutions. It is not always the best idea that is best articulated. Some of the most fluent and influential people do not necessarily have the best ideas for communities. For much of the global South and Sub-Saharan Africa where the public is rarely consulted in planning and the democratic space remains constrained, the communicative turn however could be useful in reflecting how planning occurs and should occur.

2.4.2 The Just City Theory

Another strand of the communicative theory that may be relevant in interrogating the appropriateness of current planning approaches of global South cities is Fainsten’s ‘just city’ theory. Her work is influenced by a concern for the ‘distributive effects’ of planning. Fainstein’s just city has elements of and relates to Henri Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’ (Purcell, 2013). Lefebvre’s right to the city theory was about access to urban spaces by all citizens. There are similarities between the earlier ‘right to the city’ theory and Fainstein’s just city theory in that whilst Lefebvre asserted the right to the city, Fainstein articulated how communication is key to achieving that right.

The right to the city can only be meaningfully achieved if and when all stakeholders are actively involved and participate in their governance. ‘A theory of the just city values participation in decision making by relatively powerless groups and equity of

outcomes’ (Fainstein, 2000:468). This like other communicative strands arose from a criticism of planners for being ‘undemocratic by not consulting the people most directly affected by their planning initiatives’ (Fainstein, 2005:123; Teitz, 1996; Hall, 1996).

This was built on a ‘post-Marxist political economy’ that assumed that the transformation of communities can be developed from the ‘bottom-up’ (Fainstein, 2005).

Fainstein uses the City of Amsterdam as a typical model demonstrating elements of a just city (Watson, 2002). Whilst believing in the power of communities to motivate their planning processes, Fainstein however concedes that some

‘marginalized’ societies may require certain individuals to advocate on their behalf.

Her departure from the mainstream communicative theory is her acceptance that just processes were not necessarily a panacea to just planning products (Fainstein 2009 and 2010). In an environment with a poisoned, contested and largely undeveloped democracy such as Epworth, this theory could be an interesting perspective from which to look at the appropriateness of planning regulations to food production, processing and retailing. An attempt to achieve a just city could be useful in influencing fair and inclusive planning in Epworth.

2.4.3 The Co-Production Theory

One way to understand the way residents or citizens in a city engage with authorities and participate in its development is through the co-production theory. The co-production theory has its origins in the work of the homeless people’s federations.

Mitlin (2008) argues that coproduction is advantageous as it helps prepare citizens for more effective and sustainable engagements with the state. This view is supported by Albrechts who also asserts that ‘it prepares citizens and grassroots organizations for a more substantive engagement with the political system’ (Albrechts, 2012:48).

Inherent in the co-production theories is the sharing of space by bringing together different parties affected by planning. Also, a common thread in this form of engagement is the avoidance of a radical approach rather embracing incrementalism, adopting an ‘evolutionary approach’, and embracing ‘social learning’ (Watson, 2014).

Due to intended spatial planning upgrading and regularization plans, and co-production’s adoption of strategic planning approaches offer hope as they address practical ‘immediate needs’ of communities, give a role to communities, and are geared towards ‘solution generation’ (Albrechts, 2013). These newer approaches to planning bring in two important dimensions: Firstly, an acknowledgement that both authorities and citizens are important in achieving sustainable planning; secondly, they achieve the bringing together of authorities and citizens in a gentle rather than a radical manner. This could prove more effective as it does not appear to threaten either party’s position hence more likely acceptable and beneficial. For low-income groups such as is the case with Epworth, the approach also offers a realistic mode of development.

2.4.4 Need for Southern Context to Theory

It is a fact that all the theories of planning have their origin in the north specifically Europe and North America and their application to cities of the global south is not always a perfect fit (Kamete, 2004; 2010; 2012). As a result of that scholars from the south have largely criticized the normative theories and come up with views ‘from the south’ (Watson, 2009a; Roy, 2005; Watson, 2014). There is need to consider the different nature of rationalities motivating the positions and approach those planners or supposed beneficiaries of a planning service operate in. Watson (2003) refers to this as a ‘conflict of rationalities’. This thesis leans towards the latter group of scholars who accept the efficacy of normative theories in understanding and shaping planning but recognize that a ‘view from the south’ is important. The thesis therefore adopts the hypothesis that the planned city ‘sweeps the poor away’ (Watson, 2009b) and therefore authorities must find ways of planning that responds to the views of the beneficiaries of planning. Perhaps the emerging co-production theories influenced by work in the informal settlements of India and South America remains an interesting theoretical perspective to suggest ways of engagement and planning in a settlement with strong informality such as Epworth.