The case for a positive theory of planning. Part 1: What is wrong with planning theory?

Planning theory is lost. It seems remote from practice and uncertain of its own role. This situation is only in part a reflection of the shortcomings of theory. It is also a result of the reformist ethos of planning and a concommitant failure to contemplate the pressures that mould professional practice. Since the 1960s, when theory focused on procedural questions, the range of ideas and viewpoints has grown enormously, so that planning theory now includes extensive contributions covering the process, the aims, and the social context of planning. However, these contributions are heavily influenced by the ethos of the advocacy side of planning. They underplay the significance of the context of practice and there is a notable failure to develop a convincing positive theory of planning. In paper 1, the current disorientation of planning theory is examined. It is argued that this is caused first by the failure of theorists to separate clearly different types of theory and second by the lack of a widely accepted mainstream, <I>positive </I>theory able to explain planning as an activity and able to provide a basis for assessing the viability of normative proposals for planning. The resource for such a <I>positive </I>theory exists in 'public choice' theory. The development of that theory is the subject of paper 2 entitled "A positive theory of planning".