Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
3.4.1
Communicative Approaches
An early suggestion to solve the problems of inequality and lack of influence of
many groups in cities has focused on reforming the decision-making processes,
especially in public planning in towns and cities. The approach tries to reduce the
extent to which the results of most decisions have been biased by those with pow-
erful interests, in which the voices of not only the disadvantaged, but the majority
of the population, have largely been ignored. Hence new ways of approaching the
decision-making process have been suggested. One approach is to
create greater
transparency
in the process of planning negotiation to expose and remove biases
from powerful groups. Another is to
involve stakeholders
with interests in the is-
sues, not simply developers, planners and politicians, but including all groups af-
fected, especially the marginalised. Their concerns could be better articulated if
they were able to benefit from the use of advocates, such as specialists in law or
planning, a method known as advocacy planning (Davidoff
1965
). These advocates
could use their expertise to develop and argue their case in public forums where
technical issues and complex rules of procedure and evidence are involved. A third
approach is by adopting more
communicative approaches
between all the affected
parties to try and produce greater consensus between the groups. There are many
alternative types of models, such as those based on Habermas's (
1989
) theoretical
ideas of Communicative Action, or those derived from more practical experiences
from actual planning (Healey
1997
). They all stress the need for discussions to be
far reaching, should include all affected people, and should aim to expose the rea-
sons why different opinions are held by participants. It is suggested that this type of
discursive process will mean that fair-minded people will eventually modify their
initial opinions when they understand the opinions of others and the constraints
involved. Hence, through good-will and compromise the discussions will lead to a
reconciliation of their differences and achieve a consensus that will be fair or just.
Although there can be little doubt that these approaches have had some useful
results in moving the process of planning away from its old top-down approach, to-
wards more open and democratic procedures, critics have argued that its weakness
lies in its focus upon the
process of decision-making
—the discursive element—
rather than the ends or the
products
. Indeed, it is far from likely that the ends of most
discursive process will produce a more just outcome. For example, it underestimates
the power of those with wealth to get their way, or the probability that the disadvan-
taged and independents will be co-opted by the powerful. Also it largely downplays
how some government bureaucracies, such as planning departments, manipulate
community forums for their own ends. On the other hand it may underestimate the
self-serving, even illiberal, nature of some community groups who argue for their
own interests, not for the city as a whole, as seen in so many cases of develop-
ments proposed in residential areas which meets recalcitrant Not-In-My-Back Yard
(NIMBY) attitudes. Moreover, there is always the problem of the inability of many
of the poorest to effectively argue their case, or to consider their alternatives. More
generally, of course, it pays little attention to the societal context in which the ideas
