Speaker
Description
Collaborative planning based on Habermasian communicative theories is a holistic planning theory different from action-oriented planning theories (Levin-Keitel & Behrend, 2023). In empirical research, collaborative planning is often explained well in the literature review, but its application in examining local planning cases tends to be superficial. Much of the focus is on whether the case includes stakeholders’ negotiation and/or reaching consensus, overlooking that collaborative planning is an advocation of a communicative due process. Perhaps planning researchers understand that applying the whole depiction by collaborative planning theorists to local contexts is problematic. Collaborative planning, like other holistic planning theories, is still what John Rawls called an “ideal theory,” so between holistic theory (ideal theory) and theory of action (action design and implementation), a “bridge” is needed. The authors contend that this “bridge” should be akin to a social process, which starts by recognizing the diverged ideal from a reality setting and restructuring the holistic theory. This paper will make headway toward this bridging by retheorizing collaborative planning through an empirical study of Hong Kong’s urban renewal. The retheorization will follow three subjects: mean-end presupposition, rationality, and procedure-substantive dichotomy.
Original collaborative planning influenced by Habermas takes the positions of mean-focused, communicative rationality, and proceduralism in the prior subjects, whilst the empirical context of Hong Kong’s urban renewal allows the authors to scrutinize these original positions. Methodologically, we choose digital ethnography and focus group discussion to investigate the stakeholder communication for negotiating compensation for property acquisition in urban renewal projects. Observations were conducted in an online chatroom of a self-help group representing the affected residential and commercial property owners of a redevelopment project in Kowloon City to comprehend the why and wherefores and the strategies the group took to communicate with the Urban Renewal Authority (URA). The observations also provided access to the physical meetings between the group and the URA and other actions the group initiated; we interviewed stakeholders, who were involved to various degrees. Other than the digital ethnography in a redevelopment project under property acquisition, the authors also organized focus group discussions with residential property owners and relevant personnel from projects that had not experienced the URA’s property acquisition. Using three types of data (ethnographic field notes, in-depth interview transcripts, and focus group discussion notes) from the empirical study, we attempt to modify collaborative planning’s positions in the aforementioned subjects based on our realization of the gap between the communicative ideal and reality.
The retheorization will take three steps. First, the end of collaborative planning will be reconstructed in terms of private interests rather than consensual public interest, adding the considerations of individual parties’ interests and their marginal private interests into the mean (discourse) of collaborative planning. This will address the transformation from an “objective truth” to a truth covering various subjectivities in the hermeneutics of a dialogical consensus. Second, the rationality of collaborative planning will amalgamate instrumentality, strategy, and communication to ensure that the collaborative end will be oriented to both success and reaching an understanding (Habermas, 1982). Last, introducing the collaborative end, private interest, and substantivism to the limit of a function will enable an infinite approach of proceduralism in collaborative planning to substantivism. Collaborative planning can be very close to a substantive theory if significant enough private interests are involved.
We believe the retheorization will contribute to the discussion of planning theory, especially in transiting Habermas’ ideal communicative theories to nonideal theories under the collaborative communication paradigm. Leads from mean-end presupposition, rationality, and procedure-substantive dichotomy backed by rich empirical evidence will put rigor to setting up a “bridge” between holistic and action-oriented planning theories.
References
Habermas, J. (1982) A Reply to my Critics. In Thompson, J.B. and Held, D. (eds.) Habermas: Critical Debates. London: Palgrave.
Levin-Keitel, M., & Behrend, L. (2023) The Topology of Planning Theories: A Systematization of Planning Knowledge (1st ed.). Springer.
| Keywords | Collaborative Planning; Jurgen Habermas; Urban Renewal; Property Acquisition |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
