International Journal of Urban Management and Energy Sustainability

International Journal of Urban Management and Energy Sustainability

Conceptualizing of power in urban planning theories

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mahsa Fallahi 1
Amin Rezapour Ahangar 2
Saeede Alikaei 3
1 Faculty of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Urban Planning , Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Faculty of Urban planning, College of fine arts, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/ijumes.2024.2015773.1176
Abstract
In the current literature of social and political theories, power is regarded as one of the most controversial dynamics and a unique feature of social systems. Throughout the urban planning context, power is depicted as the interrelationship between urban planning policies and the accumulation as well as circulation of capital. The importance of this process comes from the distribution of capital in support of social justice, while power is a critical factor that influences planners' decisions in the way of applying urban resources. As a result of power relations which reproduced along with each planning decision making, democratic and rational decisions may be restricted in many cases, making it difficult to alter or modify these frameworks. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the impact of different power types as a main source of power relations, to comprehend urban planning decision-making thoroughly. This article presents fundamental research using a descriptive-explanatory methodology with qualitative content analysis that is mapped chronologically to provide a comprehensive analysis of the types of power that influence urban planning. To accomplish this goal, the article presents different types of power definitions and explanations. Following that, a complete classification of powers will be interpreted, and seven types of power will be examined at various levels of urban society. Furthermore, the last part analyzes how these seven types are embodied and conceptualized in the evolution of contemporary urban planning theories.
Keywords
Analysis conceptualizing
power
power relations
qualitative content
urban planning theories
  • Adams, N. (2007). The ideal speech situation. In Habermas and Theology(pp. 23-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511621260.003
  • Ahlborg, H., & Nightingale, A. (2018). Theorizing power in political ecology: the ‘where’ of power in resource governance projects. Political Ecology, 25(1), 381-401.
  • Alikaei, S., & Amin Zadeh Gohar Rizi, B. (2019). An analysis of substantial and procedural evolution of urban design process and its application in Iranian urban design projects. Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning, 23(4), 67-80. doi:10.22059/jfaup.2019.266627.672126
  • Allmendinger, P. (2009). Planning theory. Macmillan International Higher Education.
  • Avelino, F. (2017). Power in sustainability transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environmental Policy Governance, 27(6), 505-520.
  • Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947-952.
  • Baldwin, D. A. (2013). Power and international relations. In Handbook of International Relations(2nd ed., pp. 273-297).
  • Barlow, M., & Tietze, W. (2001). Outlining the power of planning. In The Power of Planning: Spaces of Control and Transformation(pp. 1-20). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  • Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2010). Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2, 271-282.
  • Boonstra, W. (2016). Conceptualizing power to study social-ecological interactions. Ecology and Society, 21(1).
  • Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross‐sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44-55.
  • Chadwick, G. (1971). A systems view of planning: Towards a theory of the urban and regional planning process. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Chaigneau, T., Brown, K., Coulthard, S., Daw, T. M., & Szaboova, L. (2019). Money, use and experience: Identifying the mechanisms through which ecosystem services contribute to well-being in coastal Kenya and Mozambique. Ecosystem Services, 38, 100957.
  • Clegg, S. (1989). Radical revisions: Power, discipline and organizations. Organization Studies, 10(1), 97-115.
  • Clegg, S. R., & Haugaard, M. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Power. Sage.
  • Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215.
  • Daneshpour, Z. (2003). An introduction to the theoretical foundations and classification of planning theories with special emphasis on urban planning. Honar-ha-ye Ziba, 15(15), 65-78.
  • Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331-338.
  • Davidoff, P. (2015). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. In The City Reader(pp. 92-103). Routledge.
  • Daw, T. M., Hicks, C. C., Brown, K., Chaigneau, T., Januchowski-Hartley, F. A., Cheung, W., & Sandbrook, C. (2016). Elasticity in ecosystem services: Exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecology and Society, 21(2).
  • De Frantz, M. (2013). Culture-led urban regeneration: The discursive politics of institutional change. In Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration: Global Constraints, Local Opportunities(pp. 198-208). Routledge.
  • Domaradzka, A. (2018). Urban social movements and the right to the city: An introduction to the special issue on urban mobilization. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29, 607-620.
  • Dusdal, J., & Powell, J. J. (2021). Benefits, motivations, and challenges of international collaborative research: A sociology of science case study. Science and Public Policy, 48(2), 235-245.
  • Esmailpour, N., Goodarzi, G., & Esmailpour Zanjani, S. (2021). The model of good sustainable urban governance based on ESG concepts. Journal of Urban Management and Energy Sustainability, 3(1), 96-107. doi:10.22034/jumes.2021.249506.
  • Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 451-478.
  • Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(2), 121-130.
  • Fainstein, S. S. (2014). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18, 1-18.
  • Faludi, A. (1973). Planning Theory: Urban Regional Planning Series, 7.
  • Forester, J. (1982). Planning in the face of power. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(1), 67-80. doi:10.1080/01944368208976167
  • Forester, J. (1987a). Critical Theory and Public Life. MIT Press.
  • Forester, J. (1987b). Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(3), 303-314.
  • Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press.
  • Forester, J. (1993). Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice. SUNY Press.
  • Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with Differences: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes. Oxford University Press.
  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison(A. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Allen Lane Penguin.
  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Vintage.
  • Frank, A. (2006). Three decades of thought on planning education. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(1), 15-67.
  • Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Doubleday.
  • Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton University Press.
  • Friedmann, J. (1998). Planning theory revisited. European Planning Studies, 6(3), 245-253.
  • Friedmann, J. (2011). Insurgencies: Essays in planning theory. Routledge.
  • Gaventa, J. (1982). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. University of Illinois Press.
  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.
  • Habermas, J. (1984). Reason and the rationalization of society. The theory of communicative action (T. McCarthy, Trans., Vol. 1).
  • Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.
  • Habermas, J. (1992). Autonomy and solidarity: Interviews with Jürgen Habermas. Verso.
  • Hamilton, T., & Sharma, S. (1996). Power, power relations, and oppression: A perspective for balancing the power relations. Peace Research, 28(1), 21-41.
  • Hamilton, W. D., & Krus, A. M. (2018). The myths and realities of Bayesian chronological modeling revealed. American Antiquity, 83, 187-203.
  • Harvey, D. (1985). The urbanization of capital: Studies in the history and theory of capitalist urbanization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Harvey, D. (2001). Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. Routledge.
  • Harvey, D. (2015). The right to the city. In The city reader(pp. 292-300). Routledge.
  • Haugaard, M. (2002). Power: A reader. Manchester University Press.
  • Hayward, C., & Lukes, S. (2008). Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: A dialogue. Journal of Power, 1(1), 5-20.
  • Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143-162.
  • Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23(2), 217-234.
  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. University of British Columbia Press.
  • Healey, P. (1998a). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(9), 1531-1546.
  • Healey, P. (1998b). Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Planning Review, 69(1), 1-16.
  • Healey, P. (1999). Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), 111-121.
  • Healey, P. (2006). Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 14(4), 525-546.
  • Healey, P. (2007). The new institutionalism and the transformative goals of planning. Institutions and Planning, 61, 61-87.
  • Holford, W. D., & Holford, W. D. (2020). Knowledge and power across the material-discursive practice of agential realism. In Managing knowledge in organizations: A critical pragmatic perspective(pp. 109-131).
  • Huchzermeyer, M. (2018). The legal meaning of Lefebvre’s the right to the city: Addressing the gap between global campaign and scholarly debate. GeoJournal, 83(3), 631-644.
  • Hudson, B., Galloway, T., & Kaufman, J. (1979). Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions. The American Planning Association, 45(4), 387-398.
  • Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 333-342.
  • Imbeau, L., Tomkinson, S., & Malki, Y. (2021). Descriptive, explanatory and interpretive approaches. In Research methods in the social sciences: An A-Z of key concepts(pp. 81-83).
  • Innes, J. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183-189.
  • McLoughlin, J. (1969). Urban & regional planning: A systems approach. Faber and Faber.
  • Mohammadian, F., & Sandil, N. (2020). Explaining the conceptual framework of good city-based governance on integrated urban management. Journal of Urban Management and Energy Sustainability, 2(1), 118-128. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijumes.2019.4.10.038
  • Morriss, P. (1987). Power: A philosophical analysis. In Power(pp. 1-81). Manchester University Press.
  • Mousie, J. (2023). Henri Lefebvre’s "Right to the City": Key elements and objections. In The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Politics and Theory. Springer.
  • Muchadenyika, D., & Williams, J. (2017). Politics and the practice of planning: The case of Zimbabwean cities. Cities, 63, 33-40.
  • Navarrete, D., & Pelling, M. (2015). Subjectivity and the politics of transformation in response to development and environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 35, 558-569.
  • Njoh, A. (2007). Planning power: Town planning and social control in colonial Africa. CRC Press.
  • Nouri, S. A., & Alikaei, S. (2022). Analyzing urban development evolutions in the age of globalization with emphasis on coastal recovery plans. Journal of Urban Management and Energy Sustainability, 4(1), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.22034/jumes.2022.551360.1074
  • Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of political power. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107(3), 232-262.
  • Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory, 8(2), 140-165.
  • Sharp, J., Pollock, V., & Paddison, R. (2020). Just art for a just city: Public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration. In Culture-Led Urban Regeneration. Routledge.
  • Shirazi, M. R. (2023). Discourse studies and urban research: Methodological challenges, achievements, and future prospects. Urban Science, 7(2), 42.
  • Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Understanding descriptive research designs and methods. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 34(1), 8-12.
  • Stein, S., & Harper, T. (2012). Creativity and innovation: Divergence and convergence in pragmatic dialogical planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1), 5-17.
  • Stone, C. (1998). Regime analysis and the study of urban politics: A rejoinder. Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(3), 249-260.
  • Sweeney, M. (2005). The nature of the game. In Wiley Online Library.
  • Taufiq, M., Suhirman, & Kombaitan, B. (2021). A reflection on transactive planning: Transfer of planning knowledge in local community-level deliberation. SAGE Open, 11, 21582440211022739.
  • Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945(M. Shoorcheh, Trans.). London.
  • Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(11), 1975-1989.
  • Throgmorton, J. A. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical construction of Chicago’s electric future. University of Chicago Press.
  • Tiesdell, S., & Adams, D. (2004). Design matters: Major house builders and the design challenge of brownfield development contexts. Journal of Urban Design, 9(1), 23-45.
  • Todes, A. (2011). Reinventing planning: Critical reflections. In Urban Forum(Vol. 22, pp. 115-133). Springer Netherlands.
  • Vale, L. (2014). The politics of resilient cities: Whose resilience and whose city? Building Research & Information Management, 42(2), 191-201.
  • Westin, M. (2022). The framing of power in communicative planning theory: Analyzing the work of John Forester, Patsy Healey, and Judith Innes. Planning Theory, 21(2), 132-154.
  • Wieland, A., Handfield, R., & Durach, C. (2016). Mapping the landscape of future research themes in supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 37(3), 205-212.
  • Yang, F. (2022). Between normativity and social facts: A sociological interpretation of Habermas’s discourse theory of law and democracy. In Habermas, Foucault and the political-legal discussions in China. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0132-4_2
  • Zieleniec, A. (2007). Space and social theory. Sage.

  • Receive Date 24 November 2023
  • Revise Date 30 December 2023
  • Accept Date 19 February 2024