How can you distinguish rational from communicative planning models?

1 Rational planning

Rational planning is based on the idea that planning is a logical and technical process that can be guided by scientific methods and objective criteria. Rational planning follows a linear and sequential approach that consists of four main steps: defining the problem, identifying and evaluating alternatives, choosing the best option, and implementing and monitoring the plan. Rational planning aims to maximize efficiency, effectiveness, and utility, and to minimize uncertainty, conflict, and waste. Rational planning is often associated with top-down, expert-driven, and quantitative forms of planning.

2 Communicative planning

Communicative planning is based on the idea that planning is a social and political process that can be guided by ethical norms and democratic values. Communicative planning follows a circular and interactive approach that consists of four main elements: dialogue, deliberation, consensus, and action. Communicative planning aims to foster mutual understanding, learning, and agreement among diverse and affected stakeholders, and to empower them to participate in and influence the planning process. Communicative planning is often associated with bottom-up, participatory, and qualitative forms of planning.

3 Strengths and weaknesses

Both rational and communicative planning models have their strengths and weaknesses, depending on the context, purpose, and scope of the planning situation. Rational planning can provide clarity, consistency, and transparency in planning, and can help to optimize the use of resources and evidence. However, rational planning can also be criticized for being unrealistic, rigid, and insensitive to the complexity, diversity, and uncertainty of planning problems and solutions. Communicative planning can provide flexibility, responsiveness, and legitimacy in planning, and can help to enhance the quality and equity of planning outcomes. However, communicative planning can also be criticized for being idealistic, vague, and inefficient in planning, and for neglecting the power relations and conflicts that shape the planning process.

4 Practical implications

How can you distinguish rational from communicative planning models in your own planning practice? One way is to reflect on the following questions: Who are the main actors and what are their roles and interests in the planning process? How are the planning problems and solutions defined and framed? What are the sources and methods of information and analysis used in the planning process? How are the planning decisions made and communicated? How are the planning actions implemented and evaluated? By asking these questions, you can identify the dominant or mixed features of rational or communicative planning models in your planning practice, and assess their advantages and disadvantages for your planning goals.

5 Critical perspectives

Another way to distinguish rational from communicative planning models is to adopt a critical perspective that challenges the underlying assumptions and implications of these models. For example, you can question whether rational planning is truly objective and scientific, or whether it is influenced by hidden values and interests. You can also question whether communicative planning is truly democratic and ethical, or whether it is manipulated by dominant actors and discourses. By adopting a critical perspective, you can expose and address the potential biases, gaps, and contradictions of rational or communicative planning models, and explore alternative or complementary planning models that can better suit your planning context and purpose.

6 Further resources

If you want to learn more about rational and communicative planning models, there are several resources that can be consulted. Allmendinger's Planning Theory (3rd ed.) is a great place to start, as well as Forester's Planning in the Face of Power. Healey's Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (2nd ed.) and Hoch's Rationality and Planning from The Routledge Handbook of Urban Politics are also recommended. Finally, Innes and Booher's Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy is a must-read.

7 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?