Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions

Abstract

This article reviews shortcomings in the synoptic, or rational comprehensive planning tradition, as well as in other, countervailing theories that have attempted to fill specific deficiencies in the synoptic tradition. The chief problem of the synoptic approach appears to be its lopsided application due to the difficulties of simultaneously bringing to bear other counterpart planning traditions. Each tradition resists blending with others; each has its own internally consistent, mutually sustaining web of methods, social philosophies, professional standards, and personal styles. Yet real world problems are not so consistent or self-contained. Effective solutions require diverse perspectives and multiple levels of action, extending beyond the scope of any contemporary American planning theory. A five-part classification of planning traditions is discussed under the heuristic rubric of SITAR, covering the Synoptic, Incremental, Transactive, Advocacy, and Radical schools of planning thought. Comparison is made of their relative strengths and weaknesses, revealing ways they are often complementary, but often strongly at odds. Contradictions among them are not seen to be deficiencies in the theories themselves, but reflections of homologous tensions and contradictions in society at large. Parallel application of more than one theory is usually necessary for arriving at valid, three-dimensional perspectives on social issues and appropriate action implications.