Complexity theory and planning: examining 'fractals' for organising policy domains in planning practice

This article examines selected methodological insights that complexity theory might provide for planning. In particular, it focuses on the concept of fractals and, through this concept, how ways of organising policy domains across scales might have particular causal impacts. The aim of this article is therefore twofold: (a) to position complexity theory within social science through a ‘generalised discourse’, thereby orienting it to particular ontological and epistemological biases and (b) to reintroduce a comparatively new concept – fractals – from complexity theory in a way that is consistent with the ontological and epistemological biases argued for, and expand on the contribution that this might make to planning. Complexity theory is theoretically positioned as a neo-systems theory with reasons elaborated. Fractal systems from complexity theory are systems that exhibit self-similarity across scales. This concept (as previously introduced by the author in ‘Fractal spaces in planning and governance’) is further developed in this article to (a) illustrate the ontological and epistemological claims for complexity theory, and to (b) draw attention to ways of organising policy systems across scales to emphasise certain characteristics of the systems – certain distinctions. These distinctions when repeated across scales reinforce associated processes/values/end goals resulting in particular policy outcomes. Finally, empirical insights from two case studies in two different policy domains are presented and compared to illustrate the workings of fractals in planning practice.

Metaphors in complexity theory and planning

This article reviews the use of complexity theory in planning theory using the theory of metaphors for theory transfer and theory construction. The introduction to the article presents the author's positioning of planning theory. The first section thereafter provides a general background of the trajectory of development of complexity theory and discusses the rationale of using the theory of metaphors for evaluating the use of complexity theory in planning. The second section introduces the workings of metaphors in general and theory-constructing metaphors in particular, drawing out an understanding of how to proceed with an evaluative approach towards an analysis of the use of complexity theory in planning. The third section presents two case studies – reviews of two articles – to illustrate how the framework might be employed. It then discusses the implications of the evaluation for the question ‘can complexity theory contribute to planning?’ The concluding section discusses the employment of the ‘theory of metaphors’ for evaluating theory transfer and draws out normative suggestions for engaging in theory transfer using the metaphorical route.

Dealing with complexity: an autopoietic view of the People's Planning Campaign, Kerala

Complexity is integral to planning today. Everyone and everything seem to be interconnected, causality appears ambiguous, unintended consequences are ubiquitous, and information overload is a constant challenge. The nature of complexity, the consequences of it for society, and the ways in which one might confront it, understand it and deal with it in order to allow for the possibility of planning, are issues increasingly demanding analytical attention. One theoretical framework that can potentially assist planners in this regard is Luhmann's theory of autopoiesis. This article uses insights from Luhmann's ideas to understand the nature of complexity and its reduction, thereby redefining issues in planning, and explores the ways in which management of these issues might be observed in actual planning practice via a reinterpreted case study of the People's Planning Campaign in Kerala, India. Overall, this reinterpretation leads to a different understanding of the scope of planning and planning practice, telling a story about complexity and systemic response. It allows the reinterpretation of otherwise familiar phenomena, both highlighting the empirical relevance of the theory and providing new and original insight into particular dynamics of the case study. This not only provides a greater understanding of the dynamics of complexity, but also produces advice to help planners implement structures and processes that can cope with complexity in practice.

Re-conceptualising public participation in spatial planning: a view through autopoiesis

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

Planning in the face of ‘deep divisions’: a view from Beirut, Lebanon

This article discusses planning in the global South-East while focusing on the specific context of social divides, political turmoil and conflict situations. The article proposes a five-way framework based on political science and planning to theory to analyse such contexts. The article explores the case of Beirut, Lebanon that has undergone several episodes of internal and external conflicts resulting in a society splintered along sectarianism. Three Two case studies of open urban spaces and their public activities are analysed using the five-way framework The discussion indicates how economic liberalism that is prevalent in countries of the South-East, along with place-based identities, interest-based identities, consensus orientated processes and institutionalism might facilitate a cultivation of deep values away from a narrowly constructed identity. The article argues that planners should understand the options for positive action that aim to bridge deep divisions and suggests that the five-way framework provides a reference for contextualising in different ways to suit particular contexts. Therefore, the framework is not necessarily restricted to the South-East but could be applicable to any context which manifests deep divisions.

Integrated planning for ecological urban regeneration

Considering that the vast majority of housing stock existing in 2011 will be used to satisfy residential needs in the year 2020 and beyond, ecological urban regeneration appears clearly as the key issue in relation to global urban sustainability for the most part of this century. Thus, if the 1992 Rio Summit identified the urban environment as the main arena where the global environmental crisis should be fought, 20 years later we must emphasize that it is mainly to the real cities and territories around us now where we should address our attention

Evaluating conditions for transboundary Marine Spatial Planning: challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland

Transboundary cooperation is viewed as an essential element of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). While much of the MSP literature focuses on the need for, and benefits of, transboundary MSP, this paper explores the political and institutional factors that may facilitate the effective transition to such an approach. Drawing on transboundary planning theory and practice, key contextual factors that are likely to expedite the transition to transboundary MSP are reviewed. These include: policy convergence in neighbouring jurisdictions; prior experience of transboundary planning; and good working relations amongst key actors. Based on this review, an assessment of the conditions for transboundary MSP in the adjoining waters of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is undertaken. A number of recommendations are then advanced for transboundary MSP on the island of Ireland, including, the need to address the role of formal transboundary institutions and the lack of an agreed legal maritime boundary. The paper concludes with some commentary on the political realities of implementing transboundary MSP.

Perceptions of the common good in planning

There has been plenty of debate in the academic literature about the nature of the common good or public interest in planning. There is a recognition that the idea is one that is extremely difficult to isolate in practical terms; nevertheless, scholars insist that the idea ‘…remains the pivot around which debates about the nature of planning and its purposes turn’ (Campbell & Marshall, 2002, 163–64). At the point of first principles, these debates have broached political theories of the state and even philosophies of science that inform critiques of rationality, social justice and power. In the planning arena specifically, much of the scholarship has tended to focus on theorising the move from a rational comprehensive planning system in the 1960s and 1970s, to one that is now dominated by deliberative democracy in the form of collaborative planning. In theoretical terms, this debate has been framed by a movement from what are perceived as objective and elitist notions of planning practice and decision-making to ones that are considered (by some) to be ‘inter-subjective’ and non-elitist. Yet despite significant conceptual debate, only a small number of empirical studies have tackled the issue by investigating notions of the common good from the perspective of planning practitioners. What do practitioners understand by the idea of the common good in planning? Do they actively consider it when making planning decisions? Do governance/institutional barriers exist to pursuing the common good in planning? In this paper, these sorts of questions are addressed using the case of Ireland. The methodology consists of a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 urban planners working across four planning authorities within the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. The findings show that the most frequently cited definition of the common good is balancing different competing interests and avoiding/minimising the negative effects of development. The results show that practitioner views of the common good are far removed from the lofty ideals of planning theory and reflect the ideological shift of planners within an institution that has been heavily neoliberalised since the 1970s.

Informal strategies of power in the local planning system

Existing studies that question the role of planning as a state institution, whose interests it serves together with those disputing the merits of collaborative planning are all essentially concerned with the broader issue of power in society. Although there have been various attempts to highlight the distorting effects of power, the research emphasis to date has been focused on the operation of power within the formal structures that constitute the planning system. As a result, relatively little attention has been attributed to the informal strategies or tactics that can be utilised by powerful actors to further their own interests. This article seeks to address this gap by identifying the informal strategies used by the holders of power to bypass the formal structures of the planning system and highlight how these procedures are to a large extent systematic and (almost) institutionalised in a shadow planning system. The methodology consists of a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 urban planners working across four planning authorities within the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. Empirical findings are offered that highlight the importance of economic power in the emergence of what essentially constitutes a shadow planning system. More broadly, the findings suggest that much more cognisance of the structural relations that govern how power is distributed in society is required and that ‘light touch’ approaches that focus exclusively on participation and deliberation need to be replaced with more radical solutions that look towards the redistribution of economic power between stakeholders.

Morality, Power and the Planning Subject

Ethical issues are at the heart of planning. Thus, planning theory has long displayed an interest in debating both the ethical justification for planning and how the activity of planning can be rendered more ethically sensitive. However, comparatively little attention has been shown to how the very constitution of the planner as a ‘moral subject’ may be ethically problematic for planning practice. This article addresses this lacuna through an engagement with the philosophy of Michel Foucault. In contrast to how his work is normally applied, this article accords with Foucault’s own direction that his later examination of ethics be used as a lens through which to read his earlier analysis of power and knowledge. Accordingly, the article first outlines Foucault’s innovative reinterpretation of how power and knowledge operate in society before setting this within his novel reconception of ethics. This theoretical exposition is then employed to interpret the material drawn from in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 planning officers working in a range of different contexts. The article subsequently employs Foucault’s ethically informed reading of power and knowledge to identify ethical issues arising from the approaches used by practitioners to justify their planning activities. The article concludes by suggesting how such issues can be resolved.