theoretical perspectives on planning participation

zfgrrr tn Phnfng, Vol. 7. Pt. 1. pp. 147.1977 Peqpmon Pra. Printed tn Great Britain.

Theoretical Perspectives on Planning Participation

ANDREW THORNLEY

Planning Unit, rnte Polytechnic of Gwtral London, 35. Maryl@one Roai. London NW1 SLS

Contents

Adcnowlsdgements 2

1. lntroductlon

2.

3.

4.

Tire Need for a lboreticul Peqective Construction of a l7uoretbl Jbnework

&wensus 7%eory - Stability Emphasis Cbnflict Theory - Oumge Bnphzsis Conflict and buensus ~QwJ@ed lllreories Attempting a Synthesis 7Re Theoretical I+umework

Notes to Ouzpter I

ThtOlh0tSOddOdU

Mrvduclion &ample I - Marx Example 2 - Almond and Verba Example 3 - Dahrwuibrf Location of Examples Within the Theontical Bwwwork Notes to C9tapter 2

DeInocs&kTheory Deb&

Introduction Outline of Classical Theory The ‘Modem’ Democnztic Revtinism

Attitudes to Otange Attitudes to Rwticipation

A Retum to lbticipatory Denwcwy Location of &bate Within the Theoretical Fmmework Note to C%apter 3

The Development of IlaMing lhtkip8tion

Introduction Harming and Social Order The Planning Advisory Group Debate Reced&g the I968 Town and Cbunny l%nning Act Skejjlngton Report and Reaction to it Government Action She Skeflngton

Fbnning~ti~tion in Pktice

10

10 10 13 17 19 20

22

22 22 23 23 25 26 28 29

30

30 30 34 35 36 39

41

2 Progress in Planning

5. Synthesis - Altemative Perspectives on Planning Participation

Perspective I - Consensus and Stabi&v Information and System Adaptability Value Cohesion Stabili@ Efficiency of Elites

Perspective 2 - Conflict and Increased Consciousness Need for StructuraI Change Power Equality Increased Consciousness

Perspective 3 - Containment and Bargaining Management of Conflict Framework for Bargaining

Comments and Further Questions References and Bibliography

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

43

43 43 44 44 45 45 45 45 46 47 47 48 49 55

I would like to thank Brian McLaughlin, John Philo, and Jenny Thomley for their invaluable advice and encouragement during the preparation of this essay and Fran&e Miller for her immaculate typing.

CHAPTER 1

lnuoduction

THE NEED POR A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

Locll authorMe have been producing plans and polich to guide physical development for about 30 year8 and throughout this period public accountability haa been preseRad by a 8y8tem of elected representatives and a fhal appeal to the bhister. With the ctrtutocy requirement, in the 1968 Town and Country Fhning Act, that local authoritk~~ should undertake plrnntne participation exerclaes, a new’dimenrion arc. It will be demonstrated in Chapter 4 that the pressures for the inclusion of thb claw in the Act came from a number of different directiona but the ensuing debate revoIved around the question of whether this wa8 a @mhe attempt at participatory democracy or a XIKMU of ensuring that public re&ion, and hence the pbXUhg prooesa, was more mana@le. This dilemma of balandng Mdency with democratic demands hubanrmrjorroluceofcoaceminrlltheofAdrld~ taonpl8ndagpMidpathover the last 10 years, e.g. the Bill that preceded the 1968 Act exprsPed the problem very clearly,

. ..thueueconitictlnlbptbuicr#lrrfimnentltobe~dbd.Ontheoaehmd.thenbthedsdrefor more consultation and wider anodation of the public with phunhg; on the other hnd, thin b the aad for qui&ar &d&n& (Town and Country Plum& BiU, 1967, p. 2)

Further contradictiona arose aa an attempt was made to graft the new participatory idean onto the eq representative system of democracy. Thus the Skeffhgton Report, commhdoned by the government to examine the ways in which the 1968 Act requirement could be met, held fhly to I belief in a representative system but alno stresned the eduational beneflta that could be derhd from partidpation. As will be shown in Chapter 3, these educational or developmental aspect8 of involvement are a major platform of the partidpatory democracy school. The changing emphads in official documents, e.g. PAG, the 1968 Act, Skeffington and Circular 52/72, concerning the balance between mpresentative and participatory aspecta of democracy and between efficiency and public involvement produce cahsed and vague gui&linea for local authodtiea. MorerecentlytheDoEhan commhioned a research project @inked Research project, SheMeld UniveMy, 1974-1976), to examine suitable tedudquea for phning partidpation in structure planning. In their foreword to the reaearchen’ reports the DoE 8tates that

ThPlUpWLtO~thCXMd dircsmfnrte infonlutin &out the effacthlan of various tachniqwr of publicity and public putictprtion when employed in dlfbrent circumrtaa~. By drawing on the 8x-a

0ftb8authoritisrcoopaIm~inthe~ thODsputwathOpWtOpZ~pnctialhOlptOOttl~

intb&t8akaofpulbladngthsir &uctureplmapraponhand~rcomtmctiwrapowhomthe public.

The Mini&y obviously now feels that suffident experience exhts in local authoritier for more spedfIcguidelinesroln developed.

It t the thesis of this essay that in order to reach an anserrment of the effect&mesa of partidpotion thniquea it ia necessary to have a clear conception of the role and purpose of partidpation itaelf. The formulation of guidelines cannot therefore be conddered as a hhnhl operation but must be set within a normative context. It is euggeated that a dhusion of this context is mirdnginoffidplrtrtsmentrurdrpoaunsdrscwch.Onererronforthbominionirthrtrclw podth has to be formulated with respect to the ef?Idency and democracy dilemmaa outlined above and the M&try reem loath to do this. In other words, in or&r to produce technical guidelines the purpose of partidpation muat be stated but in or&r to define the purpore of puticipa- tion a clear attitude has to be adopted concerning the efWency/democracy contndiction. It is the aim of this essay to construct a framework within which to explore the &ore&al perapec-

3

4 Progress in Pianning

tives that must be examined in order to clarify these contradictory aspects of the planning participation issue. It will be shown that there are a number of alternative perspectives that have mutually exclusive objectives and approaches. Thus to avoid vagueness and confusion it is always necessary to state the particular theoretical perspective chosen.

It has been said that

. . . each discipline locater problems and solutions through a study of mal conditions mediated Theo@ P theomtical framework consisting of utcgorimtiona. propositions, suggested mktionshipr 8nd general conclusions. (Harvey, 1973.)

It can be said that this process occurs whether one likes it or not. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate explicitly the underlying theoretical issues that are implicir in planning participation. The reason for doing this is to test the belief that alternative theoretical perspectives produce alternative and uncompromising positions for evahrating the results of participation exercises.

The implications of different theoretical perspectives have been examined in relation to a number of practical policy areas, e.g. Harvey in relation to housing policy and Taylor, Walton and Young in relation to crime prevention. These particular authors divide theories into three types, e.g. conservative, liberal and radical, and demonstrate the assumptions behind each type and their broad implications for policymaking. They describe conservatirs theory as that which tends to perpetuate the status quo and is usually descriptive of existing social relations. Such theory treats human nature as in need of protection and control which is based on a system of hierarchy and dominance, legitimated by a morally conceived system of law and or&r. Puberal theory although accepting that man can never be master of his own fate, believes that existing social relations suppress human potential. This theoretical perspective hardly ever leads to an analyds of total society. Radical theory, on the other hand, believes in the unlimited nature of human potential and develops theory from practical experiences. It also takes a total view of problems, e.g. the ghetto is seen not as a problem of individual mobility that can be dealt with through rehousing but as a problem of the capitalist system of land rent.

It is further s-ggested that these alternative theories lead to alternative policy solutions. Conservative theories tend to produce research that explains the existing social relations and can be passed on to powerful agendes to organise social control and preserve the status quo. Puberal theory produces prescriptions that retain the basic legitimacy of the existing system but suggest institutional reforms and marginal improvements. Radical theory is oriented towards groups striving to change their social conditions through providing information baaed on practical experience within a comprehensive perspective.

It is not necessary to agree with this typology or these particular views to accept certain general conclusions, namely that implicit theoretical perspectives lie behind most social policies and that these perspectivea provide different interpretations of those policies. Thus without ad- hering to the distinctions made by Harvey, and Taylor et 01.) it ia still valid to examine the idea that the participation exercises of local authorities can be located within alternative theoretical viewpoints and as a result interpreted in alternative ways.

A number of factors could have been chosen to diatingui& between opposing theories, e.g. views of human nature, modes of sckntiflc analysis or the scope of issues conaidered as ‘political’. A common typology employed in political sociology is that of contrasting views on establishing and maintaining social order. Such theories differ between those that concentrate on consensus in society and those that emphaaise conflict. It is intended to employ this distinction in the hope that it provides a wide range of perspectives on participation in planning. As indicated above, the purpose of the theoretical framework is to provide the necessary background to the question ‘what is the purpose of participation in planning?’ Ranning is an activity that is concerned with formulating proposals that will be turned into action some time in the future. Attitudes to stability and change are crucial in determining the nature and extent of the proposals required. They are also, therefore, considered important in determining perspectives on participation in planning. Thus a particular framework has been deviaed that examines the relationship between stability or change and degrees of partidpation. This framework provides the focus of the essay and is uaed to organise the differing theoretical perspectives chosen for analysis.

The following assumptions are therefore implidt in this approach, namely, (1) all consideration of social problems have normative aspects; (2) that theories can be roughly divided into types;

Theoretical l%~titfes on Planning and P8mkipetion 5

(3) cummt 8pproncim to the explanation of sodal policy such as plauning participation can be located within theo& of the broader aodety.

The essay ia structured into four broad sections: (1) a framework is propcaed for examining theories in relation to partidpation , (2) three examples of theories of social or&r are discuswd within this framework; (3) the debate concerning the role of partidpation in democratic theory is placed within the

same framework; (4) the implications of the alternative theories for partidpation in the planning process are

demonstrated. In the first section alternative theories of social or&r are identified and their implications for

stability, social change and participation identified. This is then examined in more detail through an analysis in depth of three sample theorists who are then placed within the theoretical framework. Next, the examination turns to the d&us&m of partidpatory democracy that has often been MenUed as a factor contributing to the participation movemen t in planning. This debate is also placed within the framework. As a result the relationship can be made between the democratic the0Ae-s and theories of social order. ‘lhis is followed by a history of the participation movement in planning from its inception to the current attempts at implementation. This describes the activities of the proponents and the problems and contradictions of practice. Then the theoretical perspectives developed in the framework are applied to this material in order to draw implications concerning the purpoaa of partidpation. This takes the form of presenting perspectives on the historical material from three alternative locations within the framework and showing how they differ in their interpretation of the situation.

CONSTRUCTION OF A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theais of this essay is that a view of the success or failure of participation in planning cannot be separated from the objectives of such participation. These objectives cannot be determined in the abstract but need to be placed within some broader context of social relations. The aim of this section of the essay is to present a framework within which participation can be related to the discussion of social order.’ The discussion of social order has a long history and yet is still the focus of much contemporary academic thought. Hobbes’ view of government as the creator of social order in a situation of ‘wane of every man against everyman’ is a well-known example from the past, while Cohen in his recent book on social theory (Cohen, 1968, Chapter 2) considers sodal or&r as the central problem requiring analysis. ln view of these contributions from political philosophy and sodological theory, it is not surprising to find ‘the problem of sodal order’ considered central to political sociology, a discipline which in one way or another is seen as the interface between politics and sociology (Dowse and Hughes, 1972, p. 16). The essay could therefore be seen as oriented towards producing a framework for the political sociology of participation in planning.

Commentators on theories of social order have identified a number of different approaches and have usually categorised these into several groups (Cohen, 1968; Dahrendorf, 1959; Dowse and Hughes, 1972; Horton, 1966). These have been given a variety of names which include conflict, coerdon, interest, action frame, consensus, value-consensus, structural, functional and inertia. It is not the intention of this essay to dwell on the problem of untangling the different terminology used by different writers but to note that these different theories exist and to explore their different and often opposing perspectives on sodety. For this purpose it is therefore adequate to concentrate initially on what might be termed the polar opposites. If we adopt consensus and conflict theories as forming these extremes, we will be following a fairly common precedent (e.g. Dahrendorf, 1969, p. 157; Horton, 1966; Bailey, 1975, p. 74). However, this is not to say that conflict and consensus are neces&ly two opposing or incompatible elements in society, ‘two faces of society’ as Dahrendorf calls them. Rather we would see that both can coexist in an explanation of society (Lockwood, 1956; Stretton, 1969) and that these poles present differing emphases as to the relative importance of conflict or consensus. Conflict implies that there exists a number of points of view that somehow have to be resolved. ln this resolution some viewpoints or interests will remain unsatisfied and provide the tension for subsequent social


action. Consensus, on the other hand, implies that viewpoints or interests are in some form of harmony and that therefore there would be no further need for radical adjustment. These sup- positions indicate that a differing emphasis on conflict and consensus could also imply a differing emphasis on change and stability.

Consensus theoty - stabiliity emphasis

Consensus theories see society as a system of action unified at the most general level by shared culture, agreement on values and political organisation. Parsons, for example, sees society as a system composed of the interaction of individuals mediated by moral standards or norms. Regu- lation of behaviour results from individuals having a similar interpretation of a situation, leading to a stabihsed system. The analysis of society from this viewpoint concentrates on those functions such as goal deftition or socialisation processes that contribute to the maintenance of system balance. ‘Order - peaceful coexistence under conditions of scarcity - is one of the very iIrst of the functional imperatives of social systems’ (Parsons and Shils, 1951). This does not mean that the theory ignores the problem of change (Parsons, 1960). The problem of social change arises when the equilibrium conditions under which the system normally functions are disturbed. If this happens, then control processes are brought into operation to bring the system back into adjustment. According to Parsons, the concept of a system implies an interdependence of the elements and sub-systems within society. This means that no single overriding factor is responsible for initiating change. As a result there are no social processes which systematicuh’y make for deviance and social change to match those that contribute towards equilibrium. This theoretical perspective presents a very comprehensive framework for analysing the conditions contributing towards social order and equilibrium while seeming to treat social change as an excep- tional circumstance. This emphasis has led to the criticism that the theory constitutes an approval of the status quo.2 Whether the theory has an inherent property that creates this conservative tendency is perhaps not as important as the way in which the theory is usedP We ahall be examining this in relation to participation later.

Conflict theory - change emphasis

Whereas consensus theory concentrates on integration, stability and functionalism, conflict theory emphasises change and dissent. Conflict is seen as a necessary condition of social change and this is located within the social structure rather than within the individual personality as the consensus theorists postulate. Conflict can be seen as endemic in society due to the simultaneous desire for inevitable scarce resources and to the existence of incompatible interests. As a result, society is seen as a continually contested struggle between groups with opposing goals and world views. Any social order that exists stems from the condition of social organ&ration and not from the state of cultural integration. Marx, for example, would explain equilibrium as imposed by a ruling class. That class enforces rules and norms which legitimate the relations of production. Such an equilibrium must be temporary. If it lasts, it means that the relations of production and the means of production are stiIl efficiently related or that the ruling class is using past, once- justified, powers to defend outmoded relations. However, although the political superstructure can develop some such arresting power, this merely retards the date and increases the violence of the next stage of social change. This indicates how change is an implidt and continuous factor in the conflict theory and that equilibrium is seen as an unusual and short-lived phenomenon. This is the opposite emphasis to that of consensus theory.

Conflict and consensus theories cornwed

Dahrendorf (1959, p. 161) has summarised the assumptions behind these different theories, although he admits that this oversimplifies the case:-

Them tied pbnpectives on Planning and htic*tim

amjlict’

(1)

(2)

0)

(4)

-¶4 (1) EvsrVrodaybatasywint

8ubjrcttoprom88ofclL8nge; aodd change b ubiquitous.

(2) ~-Y~wdbphyr~tsvery point-8ndalankt; socidca@ktbubiquitou

(3) Everyebamtinraociety mndsn a wntribution to lta didntegntioa and chqc.

(4) Everyeocietybbasedonthe coerdon of some of Ita memben by others.

It is not intended to develop this simplified comparison as it provides mrtffcient evidence for the purpocer of this espy, when supplemented by the above, rather brief, commentary. ‘Ihe discusdon so far has been directed at supporting the rather broad asmrmption that: -

Sodo~~thrt8ttsmpt14exphlncobakntn~~anbennlsdrlanlrtpectrumrecordtnl

totheir&#eeofemphadmollstability.

We have tried to ahow, and Dahrendorf’r summary reinforces this, that notwithstanding the de&e of all theories to explain both the integration of a particular society at a pa&&r time and the forcea behind aodal change, they do vary in the emphasis given to these two faceta. Be- fore developing a framework based on thic assumption it is worth introducing theor&es (e.g. Dahrendorf, 1959; Corer, 1956) that attempt a synthesis of the two poles discusmd so far.

lReories attempting a synthesis

Lo&mad (1956) in hia critique of the cm theory of society pointr out how Rmons concentratea on the normative or&r and the content of people’s beliefs to the neglect of what he calls the ‘sub-stratum’. ‘Tlri~ mrb-atmtum ia the factual world which createa conflicts, contradictions and instability. It is the dedre to encompass theoretically the obviotu confh& evident in so&y that has kd to the attempts at synthe&. Co&s aim b to rectify this omission in am- rnsua theory. He acknowledgea the existence of conflict and nhows how this can be expldned within a rtnrchrnl functional framework. He distinguishes between different typea of con&t; those that occur within the system and an be functional to it, and those conflicts about the system which threaten it. The former variety are functional in that they &am tensions and help to keep the system in adjustment through gmdual l &ptation.

internal social conflicts which concern goals, valua. or interesta that do not contradict the basic emunp tionr upon which the relationship ir founded tend to be positively functional for the social structure . . . . Internal conflkta in which the contendiug putiea no longer ahue the basic v&ma upon which the bgiti- mecy of the social system rtrts threaten to disrupt the structure. One nfeguard against conflict disrupting the consenmal basb of the r&tionohip. however. ia contained in the Mckl structure itulf. it is by the institutioneliution and tolerance of conflict. Oaer, 1956. p. 151.1

As Stretton (1969) points out, it is difficult to know how one can distinguish between values which are basic to the system and those that can be allowed to be conflicting. How much tolerance can be allowed? Corer relies on a multitude of crisscrossing conflicts creating crisscrossing alliances which lead to a certain degree of stability and prevents the development of grander conflicts ‘about the system’. In this GNC the basic vahres which must be preserved cannot be derived from the beliefs of the majority of the population an this would lead to a permanent minority whom only outlet would be to generate conflict ‘about the system’. Having noted this problem of determining the basic value of the yatem, it is perhaps not important for our purpolel to dwell upon it. The important aspects of cuch an intermediate theory on which to concentrate are : the desire for many c&-crossing conflicts, the dedre to tderate but contain ther conflicts, the irutitutionaliaation of these and the emphasis given to the gradual nature of change.

Although Dahrendorf sets out from a different starung point, i.e. to expand upon Marx’s conflict theory and make this more relevant to contemporary society, he en& up with very similar concl~ons. We shall be returning to hia work later and at this point we would just mention the similarities between the two attempta at synthesis. The &miMty between Coser and

8 Propuss in Plenning

Dahrendorfhas been noted by a number of writers (e.g. Bailey, 1974; Stratton, 1969; Taylor er ul., 1973). One of the reasons gtven for this simihuity is the shift that Dahrendorf makes from conflict based upon the stru&urahy determined factor of class to that of conflict over authority. This generates the question of why people accept subjection to authority in the frrst place? Have they internal&d certain sodetal norms? This seems to push Dahrendorf towards an otomistic view of society in which authority+ubject relationships are accepted by individuals so that social order can persist in a situation of an infinite number of personal interactions. As Dahmadorf sees conflict resuMng from a person’s pommion of authority and as society requires the acosptance of this by the subject class in any ~rnpr~, it would seem to require some overriding set of societal vahres and norms to hold everything together. In this respect the simihuity to Coser and structural functionalists can be seen.

We have now sketched out a range of theories of social order that vary in the emphasis they give to stability. Consensus theories emphasise the relatively stable elements in society and am&se the functions that these provide for the maintenance of equilibrium, the most important factor being the cohesion provided through valueconsensus. Conflict theories see sodety ss a struggle of oppodng views that creates ubiquitous conflict which provides the perpetual force for inevitable social change. Lying between these views are others that are based on an attempted synthesis of consensus and conflict elements and that results in the view that change should be gradual and a product of the institutionalisation and containment of conflict based on certain accepted universal norms.

We have shown how essential differences can be demonstrated between theories with respect to their emphasis on stability or change. This provides a particular dimension along which theories can be arranged.

A second dimension is now postulated concerning the degree of participation. For our initial purposes participation is broadiy defined as the involvement in societal decision-making. Later this definition will be elaborated in more detail. At this stage we are concerned with the extent of partidpation desired, This could be measured in terms of the number of people infhrencing decisi~ns.~ Thus in Nazi Germany, although masses were participating in the rallies, the key decisions were being made by a very small group, perhaps even by one man based on the ieader- ship principle. Hence participation in our sense would be low in this situation. The range of possibilities varies from a situation in which all the people affected would have a voice in the decision, e.g. through referenda or general meetings, to a situation in which certain groups are involved, a small elite of decision-makers, perhaps with e&ted mandate, perhaps self-appointed, to a situation in which a single individual makes all the key decisions.

Hiqh

Lenin Marx Syndlcolistr

Hitler

P e t

;i”

H

Fobianc wuwldut

CoSef

Dnhl Almond &

Verbo Roueseau

LOrr

Degree of participation

Mgh

FlG 1.1. Xypotbtlal locatbn d tlmakts

l?mmtical ~tqwctiw$ on Planning md Pudcipmtion 9

We havs now two dimendons; atability/chanp and no participation/full participation. It is now proporsd to - a fianmwork built on them two dimendons to explore the differencxts between social thaorists or rchoola of thou&t and to demonstrate their alternative implicatiox~ for putidpatlon. Some exam* of theorista have been plotted within this framework and are ahown in F@. 1 .l . Tbeae plotting can be treated I hypothetical propcuitior~ nquirirg con- f3rmatkm through cantent analyda. Aa hypotheses they could be tested throu@ a thorough analyd~ of the work of each writer. However, in a short essay this ir not po&ble and. instead a brief uulyri, will be made of three v%wpoints in the hope that between them they provide a Pdnnge*

CHAPTER 2

Theories of Social Order

INTRODUCTION

In the last chapter a framework was developed within which the relationship between theoretical perspectives and attitudes to participation could be explored. The positions within the framework of various theorists of social order were hypothesised. In this chapter three of these positions are tested in depth through a content analysis of the major writings of authors representing a range of perspectives. Those selected are Marx, Almond and Verba, and Dabrendorf. In examinin g the literature three questions will be posed;

(1) what particular view of social order is taken by the authors and what implications does this have for their treatment of social change?

(2) within this perspective of social order, what role is given to participation and what form does it take?

(3) as a result of (1) and (2), where can the authors be placed within the framework outlined in the previous chapter and to what extent is it necessary to modify the hypothetical positions proposed there?

It will be found that Marx’s writings contain two views of participation. That of full participation in a harmonious future communist society and a slightly more limited version involving mandated delegation. Whereas the first view is accompanied by a low degree of social change, the latter is developed within the context of the class struggle and overthrow of capitalism. Participation in this case is therefore seen as an agent of very considerable social change. Almond and Verba are concerned with the examination of the political sub-system within a consensus view of society. They explore in considerable detail the nature of participation required within this particular perspective and they conclude that only a limited amount is needed and that elites should be given considerable freedom to make decisions. Dahrendorf’s position is seen as lying in the middle ground. He sees participation as necessary to control conflicts within society and to ensure that social change is gradual. However, it will be seen that in a more recent example of his writing a shift to a position favourfng less participation is evident.

The three perspectives will now be examined in detail.

EXAMPLE 1 - MARX

The basic concern of Marxism is with social change. (M&&h, 1969.)

For Marx the driving force of change is located in the economic foundations of society. ‘The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure’ (Marx, 1859). Thus the level of productive forces of a given society conditions the general level of culture, knowledge, ideology and laws. Change occurs through changes in the relationship between the productive forces of a society and its productive relations.

Thus the social relatim within which individuals produce, the social relations of production, change, are tisfor~~A, with the change and development of the material means of production and productive forces. The relations of production in theix totality constitute what are alled the social relations, society, and specifIcally. a society at a definite stqe of historical development, a society with a peculiar, distinctive character. (Marx, 1849.)

10

Theomtical Perspectiws on Planning am9 Pwtici~tion 11

C%aqe is #mented throu& contradictions dUVC1OpiQ between productive forces and prod- relations. The main agent of chant in modem industrial society is the clam struggl, that &v&pa from this contradiction. Advances in the productive forces reach 8 point in an txiath~ mode of production where they come into conflict with the ownership of property, that is, with the existing social relations. Since productive forces on the one hand and the maintenana of existing social relations on the other are linhed with the interests of different classes, this conflict is expressed in class stn@e. The exploiting class tries to prevent the social relations from changing as these are the basis for their privileges while the class whose interesta lie with’the further development of the productive forces is the revolutionary class.

~htrtoryof~~exirthUrodctyirthehirOoryof~~.~,1848.) Maulwhile tha aIltago&m between the pmletutst and the bolugeoW is 8 8trug@ of d8n rsdnrt dur. a stqgle whkh carried to ita bighat expression is a total revolution. (MUX, l(u7.)

According to Marx, change, although OCCUrring through the vehkle of class struggle which is generated by structural contradictions in the economic base, also requires a development of comdmrsness by the oppressed class. In fact he only conddered a class to exist if it was conscious of itself as such and of its position in society. Social change, for Marx, is therefore a product of individual consciousness and action but only to the extent that this occurs within the context of cl- interests and the rtruggle that emanates from the contradictions in the economic strudum. ‘Ihis position is summa&d in the following wel&hnown quote which epitomises Marx’8 view of social change.

Men make tb& own history; but they do not make it bt as they please; they do not make it under m charm by thenuelve~ but under circumstances directly found given and trauanitted from the pn (Marx, 1869.)

From the above ~mmary of Marx’s thoughts on social order it can be seen that change is inherent within his analysis. His dialectical approach implies that nothing hr the world is static and that, on the contrary, everything is in the process of change or latent tendon. Thfs belief lies at the very centre of his theory and, in his view, social change occurs through contradictions between structural factors rather than throu$r peripheral adjustments.

When Marx’s views on participation are explored it will be seen that the above exposition needs m&cation. This results from the necessity to distinguish between the role of pPrtfdpatfonuheuwitinthe~etyofhir~,i.e.,withinthecontextofr~struggle, and partidpation as he conceived it in an ideal duration. This ideal was, of course, communist society and as an ideal was free of antagonistic conflict and hence must be considered in a stable state. within this harmonious ideal future society Marx sees everyone having the mty to partidpate in everything as the following well-known quote expresses.

In communist rocicty, where nobody has one exclwlve sphere of r&t&y but ead~ can become m in any branch he arbha. society regulatea the general production and thus makea it posdbk for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fbh in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, aiticise after dinner, just aa I have a mind, without ever ba3miug hunta, fisherman, ahephwd or critic. (Marx, 1845.)

‘I%is idea of the full-rounded personality extends also to the field of participation in politics. ‘lhus the affairs of the state are also the affairs of every individual. For Marx the ideal democracy involves universal participation which will be made more feasible through the transcendance of bureaucracy. As executive functions become more and more routinfaed they can be executed by non-specialists. Marx’s main expression of views on this topic are contained in his critique of Hegel’s pnuosOphy of Right and other earlier works. Marx is attacking Hegel’s view of the division between the state and civil society, the duties of man as dtixen and his rights as an individual. Marx sees the answer to this antithesis being the involvement of the community in making its own community decisions which involves ‘the essential demand that every mdd need, law etc be politically evolved and determined by the entire state in the social sense’ (Marx, 1843a). Marx therefore cets up an ideal that in many ways follows that of Rousseau. Men will be ruled by laws that they themselves have made throu& partidpation. Thus partidpation will be instrumental in produdng Sood government and educative in encouraging social respondbility. This provides the conditions in which a man can freely exercise his CapadtU

These similarities between Marx and Rousseau are confmed to the writings of Marx where

12 Ptvgtws in Planning

he is attacking the idea of a state separate from civil society and the alienation that this causes. In formulating an ideal situation to overcome the drawbacks that this creates Marx is positing a harmonious state in which the emphasis is on stability, However, when switching his attention to the mechanisms and conflicts of his contemporary society, Marx turns to an emphasis on change. His view of participation is also more complicated.

In the early ail of palpation ~~ above, Marx’s focus of attention is on individual alienation and only later does he develop the theme within his class analysis. A shift in focus occurs in which politics becomes a social activity in which at least two social classes, whose interests are mutually antagonistic, engage in a struggle for control of society. The theme of the state separated from and opposed to civil society, with its Roussean overtones, loses its central position to an analysis of the state as an ~~~~ used by the dominant class. There is a shift from the problem of the individual and his/her alienation to one of the position of a collective, namely a class, and its particular group interest. In fact, as we noted earlier, consciousness that participation by an individual forms part of class participation becomes an essential prerequisite of effectiveness. Consciousness increases through p~ci~tion itself which has therefore a role in heightening class consciousness in a situation of conilict in a similar way as it fostered communal spirit in Rousseau’s situation of social harmony (or Marx’s communist society). For this, certain necessary material conditions are required. These socioeconomic conditions occur through the development of capitalism and include communications between workers, growth of urban areas, con~ntration of workers in the workplace and a minimel level of education. With such developments Marx saw working class participation becoming majority participation. Through better communicstions and education he saw better organ&&ion of the suppressed class. He also believed that a class party was necessary to provide the organisation and theoretical perspective. For Marx such conditions were necessary for mass participation if this was to overcome the oppression of an elite who controlled people’s sources of livelihood and the means of preventing hostile participation.

What sort of narticipatory machinery does Marx envisage? Does he believe that everyone can take part in decision-making before the establishment of communism? Although never very definitive on such questions an indication of his views can be obtained from examining his attitude to the Paris commune of 1871.

The commune is not the so&l movement of the working class and therefore of a general regenerrtion of mankind, but the oqanised means of action . . . it affords the rational medium in which class struggle can run through its different phases in the most rational and humane way. (Marx, 1871.)

The commune was elected by universal suffrage and formed a body of delegates rather than representatives. The delegates together with the police, magistrates, and other administrators were revocable agents of the people.

Each deie8ate to be at any time revocable and bound by the “mandate impsraW (form& in6tNctions) of his constituents. (Marx, 1871.)

LOW salaries and strong communal control was meant to ensure that the delegates did not become a self-seeking elite. Although Marx’s views of the commune varied from time to time, the following general observations can be made. He praised the arrangement whereby the executive tasks do not become the province of a trained body of bu~aucra~. He also praised the decentralisation of tasks from central government to these local commune governments as a step towards ‘real self-government*.

The very existence of the commune involved, as a matter of course. local municipal liberty, but no longer as a check upon the, now supersed&, Sbxte Power . . . it supplied the Republic with the basis of really democratic institutions. (Marx, 1871.)

In conclusion two basic positions can be detected in Marx’s writing as they relate to our framework. As indicated at the begin&g of the section Marx was concerned with analysing social change. When viewing his conteniporfrry society he saw this change developing through the increasing ~tago~ of the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Given the appropriate material conditions and a theoretical understanding, the proletariat would increase its consciousness and become the agents of revolution. Such consciousness and education would occur ‘in praxis’ and so ‘participation’ is an essential element in the revolutionary strategy. In the political sphere the Paris commune provides the model for participation in the period of

Theorstkd lbfspativss on Planning nd Putkiption 13

tmldtito-. Ail workera would contribute to this institution throu& mandating &~~.~f~rltho\rgbhdrntdidnottMnkryrtemofdinctputidprtionindbddoa- making w88 ponible, the invohment of 8n worker8 (8 XIujodty of the popul8rion rt the time) inthedrrrtro)gb,ptClculuiyintbsworlrpla,iada~~ofmur~~~inthe pOliti4spherewerefntendedtom8xim&thiS.

We havC ah0 Seen th8t thiS View pl8CU p8rticipitiOn within 8 StruCtIlral COnteXt Of ClUS ~&u&e md rodrl ch8n#~ However, the e8rlier v&wr of Yux, particularly in the critique of He#S pkfbropky of R&M, ahow 8 different outlook. ‘II& time the focus L on the ahellition of the individual and the need for involvement in all aspecta of sockty including political W if this alienation i8 to be overcome. In contra8t to Hegel’s view, Marx net out hb utopian conununi8t alternative in which all could become involved. In doing this Marx is no longer concerned with nodal m but an i&J State and therefore thir participation i( men, a~ it wu by Rousseau, 8~ contributin# to c~nununal Solidarity md CO~S~MIL We h8ve therefore two locrtionr for Marx within our fnunework:- (1) high r&al change plur participation primarily on a man&ted prindple; and (2) harmony urd conren~u~ through full putidp8tiOIl of the individual in all spheres of life.

EXAMPLE 2 - ALMOND AND VERBA

Almond md Verba h8ve been chaen to repreSent the c~rueruu~ or +ucturrl functional school of thought outlined in the introduction. The re8~on beir~ thrt in their wellknown book 27~ CMc a4ltwv they give promhunce to the concept of liartidpation.

Aa noted earlier this School of thoughtdeacribe8 the ~od8l system a~ corutmcted of many interdependent nrbryttems each fuMllin8 certain ftmction~ for the ~y~tcm a~ a whole. A society dependa for itt continuation on the 8d8ptrtion of each rubqtem, and ultim8tely the tot8l system, in reaporue to inputs received from the interch8n~ between mrwmr. ThuS Rich armtern, although predomin8ntly rutonomaur, haS 8 function in m8intainfng over8h rodrl or&r. The interchanger between ~ub-ey~temS, and the ~uccemful functioning of erch, contribute to the fteneral c0heSion of the total sodetal System.

Almond and Verb8 concentrate in 7%e civic culhve on the particular aubqrtem that producer attitudes or ‘orientations’ of people towardt political inrtftutions. They locate their work exphdtly within the Structural functional fmmework of P8r~om outlined above. Their work b, therefore, firmly rooted witbin this view of soci8l order. AS 8 rem& they view the political sub-eystem a8 a fairly Selfcontained 8rea of act&Sty while 8t the Same time Str&ng its exw with other arbryrtsmt. ‘MS Surrounding ryrtaric environment provider the inputs that are required to allow for the development of ben&ial political attitudes and culture. Thus Almond and Verba’s opening Sentence reads,

~irrrtudyofthepditicrlculturtofdemoacymdthe~lrtructummdproarrer thlt NItrin it. @. 3.)

At the same time the coherion of the political Iubryrtern ir 8 nece#mry requirement for the stability of the sodetal ryrtem aa 8 whole, and contributes to the con~enaua of values among its memben. (It ir worth noting in pasdng th8t thin viewpoint take8 a narrower view of politic3 than that of Marx outlined above and, although it describes the interchanger between nrb-syrtems, it poSmner little in the way of c8us8l or explan8tory factors to illwtrate the direction or origin of

char&. AsareurltofthdrlMonian fmmework, Almond and Verbr’a work is imbued with particular

attitudes to stability and change in Society. The rpproach can be de&bed u one which 8ttempt.a to explain ~od8l phenomena in terms of the party they plry in the exirtence pnd muvival of a wider ~odety. Althou&r thtne party are never perfectly integrated, rodil ry~temr are seen as being in ‘dynamic quilibrhun’, i.e., adjustmentr in rerponre to external change tend to minim& the fInal amount of &an@ within the system itself. The dominant tendency k towarb stability and inertia as maintained through built-in mecha&na of adjustment and social control.

The foU_ puuss from Almond and Verba demonstmter one example of how ‘the political sub-system’ make, these rdjustmentr.

14 Prvgms in Phning

Iaardknuytlmtr,dtitsnrus~ti*sly~~iaw~t~~t~~do,uuiths knsr~~tbefnrsdomto~u~yrsafrt.Howe~,K~~bscamss~~~cftftanbrmrpdc onomdJlwmboaare.Uo~cmrerpondto~dermndr,thefmpartlnceofpo~wmfS agaInandpoIitiawIUreturntonormal.... WIthin each cycb the dtizenr percuptlon of his own hfiuena; brsinforced;rttherrme~thsyrtsmrctlwrtrto~dsmuul,md~byMdf~i~~~ And the system may become genailly more stable throu8h the loyalty enge&e& by p&icIpMion and effective lX3forrn8Me. (Almond and Verba, 1965, p. 484.)

Thug through a series of cyclical adjustments the system is maintained in a stable state and any sudden or revolutionary movement Is avoided. It would therefore become unnecessary for a class to band together for revolutionary action as propounded by Marx as the ‘system’ would adapt gradually to needs.

Intome involvement tends to “r8ise the stakes” of poIItks; to foster the sort of mass, me&nIc movements that lead to democratic instability . ..itisclaarthatintfnuecMlmIrmenttopartM8r partIe or 8roups an produce an unstabIIkbtg level of fmjpnentation in the system. (Almond and Varbr, 1965. p. 488.)

Almond and Verba’s dislike of intense involvement in politics and fragmentation in the system can therefore be seen as beady opposed to Marx’s view of increased class consciousness and (inherent) conflict in society.

Almond and Verba see social order (which for them seems to be synonymous with democratic stability) as being rn~~ed through the Parsonian means of v~ue~on~nsus.

If it is to remain stable in the long run, the system rquires a form of political commitment based upon more generaI attachment to the polIticaI system. (Almond and Verba. 1965, p. 488.)

The mrnrgemant of duvrgs Is ~CGomplIshed by subordInatIng 00ntYkts on the political level to some ll@er, ovemrching rttitudes of soIIdHy* whether the48 rttitudes be the norms associnted with the “rubs of the democratic game” or the belief that there exists wIthin the society a supraputy 10lidarIty based on non-par&an criteria. (Almond and Verba, 1965, p. 492.)

Interest in politics is therefore kept to a limited level and conflicts dealt with through adaptation. Personal interest in politics and any conflicts that arise are kept within the bounds set by the general attitudes. This general level ‘manages’ differences of opinion by creating cohesion through agreement on these ‘more important’ values. Political culture is used to describe that aspect of the general value consensus that refers to attitudes to the political system. Almond and Verba are seeking the ideal political culture to maintain democratic stability.

We shaU therefore consider the way in which poIiticaI culture affects democratic government; more spe+&calIy, we shall ask how far it goes towards creating and MtaInin8 stable and effect&

to answer this question we must look at the poIItIcaI culture In the two relatively stable $~~democrrcies, Great Britain and the United States. (Almond and Verb& 1965, p. 473.)

Although the authors never clearly defme what they mean by ‘stable democracy’, for whose prerequisites they seek, it is fairly obvious that their ideal is not far from the system that operates in this country.

At one extreme WC sekcted the United States and Great B&In, both representing reIatlveIy successful experiments in democratic government. (Almond and Verba, 1965, p. 39.)

They see the democratic systems of these countries as the model which they hope will spread throughout the developing world. They see it as necessary to foster a political culture that will lead to democratic stability in all countries and prevent the spread of communism or the reoccurrence of Fascism.

The development of Fascism and Communism after World War 1 raised B&OUI doubts about the inevit8bIlity of democracy in the West; and we stiU cannot be certain that the continental Europmn nations wflf discover a stable form of democratic process suitable to their psrdcubu CpftumI and so&I Institutions. (Almond and Verba, 1965, p. 3.1

Almond and Verba’s answer to such national inability is to change their political culture itself so that stable democratic processes can develop as a consequence. They therefore pinpoint the weaknesses, as they see them, in the attitudes of people in Italy and Germany and ask themselves: -

Con the open polity and the civic culture - - man’s discovery of a humane and conmrvative way to handle social &ange and pa&zip&on - spread as welIZ (Almond md Verba. 1965, p- 9.)

77mmticd &mpocdm on Piafmirrg md AmLfprtkn 15

Thnsfotetbsy#tbsputfcukrtttiat&to~,whichtbsyaIlthsdrlcajturs,thrtft obumbk in stabk democracks such 8s Britain, as ideal. This civic culture, 8s part of the

o*arwiqg*m in aockty, will contribute to the cont&ment of sudden social chrnge. AlwwldurdVerbi,tbeo,notoatyreeka~bywhi$lrodetycmbsmrfn~tnsrtrble, brtaasdrtr~butrLowrsBtitrtnukQg~ortkicllfathb~.Forthbcouatrythdlr rppradr t&r&ore hm a doubts tendency to emphaske tbcl status quo. l&air id68 of a jn!rfect ~ryrtemfroaathrtbrrnocuddsn~~radtnrvhkhrItelrmsnOubtaosrngybrknad. Britain b not far from mrw this perfect system md therefore itself requires vsry Bttk modlfkation to reach this Ideal state. It would therefore seem reuonsbk to pkca their tpproach towards tb6 ‘rtabaty’ extreme of our rtrbilitylchanp continuum.

We turn now to an tetioa of th& rttitude to participation. For them the ideal form of putlc@tioa relks not only on the provision of cerWn ~~~~0~ structures but also on peopk3 attitudes to then. Thus:-

LItbr~~~Oft&~twty~trLto~fo~luWM~ar,ftrQ~oh~ thurtbformd~donrocdrmwrcr-ontrarrlumyc,~pdttlalputy,thr~~nm, * . . . AQmwrtlcfonnofprrtlctp~pdttialryr(smnquharuwPrpdttialcoltPrreoarbbmt utth k @bled SBd Vu& 1965, p. 5.)

They propose thrt this poUtiaI culture b the ‘f&k culture’, ie. 8 compodte of ths foRowing three ekmants:

(8) puochlrl culture; a kck of rffltuda to the pditical system beauae of lack of knowkdge. Traditional rttitudes and behaviour predominate.

(b) subject culture; although knowkb about the political system exists there b no expectation of MC@ 8n active role. A deferent 8nd passive attitude.

(c) pddpant ailture; m expectation that ft is possible to play i part in poUtial activiths. It is this last ekmunt that interests us in this s&&s. How important do Almond and Verb8

rate partk@tion? The answer is that although they see it as important they also believe thrt it should be limited. It h only one ekment of the balanced mixture nquimd in the ‘civic culture’. This i&a of b&n& b central to tMr mqUmments and derives from thair attitude to stability demonstrated above. A brknct is needed between parochial, subject and pudcfpint cuhuru so that no sudden or extreme s&on an be undertaken either by elites or the general popuktion.

Th6arrdtOrrrht8iathL@ortOf~ktrwo pranmraupora=tv rsgoa3rrpau rrrcrluthrnodto~trbocba~tblt~ffomtbl,/~ w-- kSma~rad~rrls,khrrwlnrctMty~~~~~ty-bdplarPktatb,rrYta ~~~~p~of~r~~t#5rlththsd*Le~uc,ippoprktsfora bmocntlc powal SySmin. (AllnOzut rad verb& 1965, p. 476.)

Yotesuamafu&m-ara- by 8 bdmabd type of comBdtmant. wnond md varbt, 1965. p. 489.1

Ibe authors cod&r that it would be unhealthy for the system if too many people psrddp8ted. This might kad to maas movements or reduce the effectiveness of dedsionm8king. They see that non-puticfprtion, whether caused by kck of knowkde (puochkl) or deference (subject), h8s 8 ‘function’ to pky in maintaining @stem stability’.

Tbo IIOOPUtjEfpUlt, more ~~~~~~to~~~~s~~tto pOHtiurabtOarJuth@t ~tmikla.iDartbnabjut&puO&Marlmmtiom~ a~bpbrtbr~t~~trtbar(~udVak.I%~,p.32.)

Thus rprthy is needed in tbu dvlc a&tire and therefore in the requirementc of a stabk demouag. As we hrw, already noted, Almcmd and Verb8 use this rprthy nncuitirg fram a kck of interest in politics. This Is due to the mild nature of political issues. Mifdntt, in politics is not rfmptyarr#uftofst&kdemocracybutr necemry prerequisite. If the putidpatory culturs is to be ‘men@ enough peopk must be ap8thetic to p&Ma. This can onty occur if politial ti m coaddered unimportant by m8ny peopk.

T&pvochll~m~orlamtbor~tbrLn~oruwhdtrldorb~ht*olrawntud stMty.Ratkd~tytbatomJmrtoftbs- aaosnr,rad~~Ot8wfY~tpul 8t tm. wmd and vat& 1965, p. 4753

The ides that the popuktioa is d&i&d into different goups with different rtdtudes provolrss the qmtion: - who are thorn who puticipite? It could be suggastad that tfxty form 8 w unmp~ntathm #roup thereby distorting the poutid proce8s. Almond and Verb8 tittiwhenthey~ their data on those who feel competent to putldprte.

However, they do not see this as a problem because:-

What Almond and Verba seem to be saying here is that although certain types of people in society may participate more than others, this does not become a major problem because these people themselves are inconsistent. This inconsistency results from psychological attributes or particular interests which mean that the participant only becomes involved in certain issues. Thus those who participate in one issue may be passive over another issue. However, as Almond and Verba show, only a section of society feels competent to participate at all. To summa& their position: -

It is necessary for a limited number of people to hold an attitude to the political system that includes involvement. However only a certain type of person is likely to hold the attitude as a result of feeling competent to do so.

It now has to be asked whether the authors feel that it is necessary for these attitudes to be translated into behaviour. The answer is no. They only see it necessary for democracy to exist as a ‘myth’. People have to believe that they cot&i participate if they needed to, but not actually do so. Similarly those making decisions, in or&r to remain responsive to the views of people, have to believe in the ‘myth’ that people could partidpate if they disagme with the dedaions being made.

According to Almond and Verba, participation has to remain as a myth because of the impossibility of organising participation in reality. Thus it is only an uffirude that is needed for stable democracy, i.e. a belief in the myth. If it were attempted to change the myth for reality, then this would upset the system.

Even if thor who think they could influence governmantel decidonr were to attempt to do so - which ir unlikely - they would elmott cerminly not heve the sum tbet they believe they would heve. (Almond and Verba. 1965. p. 480.)

In view of this practical impossibility for extended partidpation, Almond and Verba see that decisions will always have to be made by a small elite even in their stable democracy.

The mainte,nence of elite power i, euentiel in l democrecy. (Ahnond end Vsrk, 1965, p. 490.) The comparative Infrequency of politkel pertic@tion, its relet& lack of knportmtce for tk iodkiduel

end the objective weeknes~ of the ordinary man ellow government elites to ect. The inecthdty of the ordfnrry~~dhbinrbnitytohrfloeacsQddonrhslppro*ideths~thrt govemmentrl dtaa need if thy are to nuke decisiona. (Almond end Verbe, 1965, p. 481.)

Thus we see that Almond and Verba have a very limited view of partidpation in decidon- m&g. They believe only a small elite can be involved in this process. However, they also believe that it is important that a section of society should hold an attitude to partidpation such that they and the elite believe they could participate if necessary. Thus elites are kept responsive to the needs of society. This attitude also has another function in contributing towards the value consensus in society. The participatory attitude, if limited to a minority of the population, the rest having subject or parochial attitudes, contributes to the stability of the social system.

Within our framework Almond and Verba tend towards that end of the participation continuum that sees involvement in decisionmaking limited to a small group of people.

lTmon&al psrriprcduw on Planning md Pmtkipadon 17

EXAMPLE 3 - DAHRENDORP

~~to~\Illfn~1Uff~~OfQOIIcmd~~~~rincaIndrutrlolSodcry before Dahmndorf provides the broader context within which his analy8b lies. In thb conclud@ section he contmsta Communirt countIies with those he calls ‘free rodetie to the detriment ofthefonnar.~rmldngthiscompuiionhedemoartn~hirIccsptm~of~~ifthirir productive to society and his an-o&m towar& attempts to obliterate it in the interests of ~1 artificial harmony. This latter approach he sees a~ the epitomy of totalitrriinirm. Nir lut 8entena reads:-

In~~~~,oonfllctmry~L#1muchoftt,inollllltymd~.butitbrtip~,~ttir ~torsly.F~thrdominrodrty~~9,thrt~~thefprtberad~~of di*aaty,dUf~Uld~nfkt-M. 1959. p. 318.)

Having demonstrated the ubiquitous nature of conflict and praised its existence he then Bow8 how it an be ‘mana@‘. He ir seek@ a means by which conflict can be effectively remted and he ws out three factora that are m for this:-

(1) both par& to a conflict have to rscognise the necessity and reality of the conflict dtuation and believe that there i( mnne justice in the opponent’s cawe;

(2) intereats must be organised into groups; (3) the parties must agree on certain ‘rules of the v’ to provide a framework for

repllrtion. He alao de&z&es three forms that thi, regulation could take:- (1) conciliation. This takes place within apecially created institutions such as parliament.

I%aceful d&uMm occur8 between the opposing parties; (2) mediation. Both partlea agne to consult an outsider who gives advice. Usually this advice

broadens the range of options and reduces irrationality. (3) arbitratim. The rules of the game will stipulate that either of the partier can call in an

arbitrator whose deddon will aometimea be final. For Dahreadorf it i( advisable that conflict regulation is effective and therefore that the

necemaxy preconditions and institutional forms exist in society. This is because he does not wish to see violent or intense conflict developing.

Here we see how Dahrendorf Ea trying to carve for himself a niche in the middle ground between the two approachen that we have already examined. In the above extract we see how his acceptance of the importance of conflict lea& him to a view of the world aa ‘continuously &an&‘. However this change has, at the SBme time, to be ‘evolutionary’ in nature. This is achieved through conflict regulation.

Dahrendorf sets himself the ta& of ahowing how modem society (postcrpitrllrt) diffen from that studied by Marx. These differences will be swnmariaed. Conflicta are now based on podtim of authority (e.g. managers) and not of ownership. As authority relations etit in all organiaations throughout society, conflict in diffbse and not polar&l around clam podtioru. Clanec themselves have become more fractured; differen- developing between skilk.d and unUled workers, a rise of a middle class and increased rodrl mobility. In addition conflicts in the ideological and political spheres are not necessarily superimposed upon there in the industrial sphere. All these trends lead Dahmndorf to question thi increased an~onimu of rocirl conflict and Wd he aces conflicts occwring in a great variety of dtuatim throughout society. This dtuation, which is similar to Co&r ‘crkcrosdng aIlian&, means that conflict


never build up to create dramatic changes and conilicts can be regulated in a gradual way. However this does not mean that Dahrendorf abandons the importance of social change.

It is without doubt important to develop categories to describs social changes. . . . Marx has explored one of the most interesthrg and perhaps the most significsnt relationship between social structure and social change by postulating conflict groups and thek cIashes as forces that nuke for change. (D&rend& 1959, p. 124.)

We would therefore place Dahrendorf between the previous two approaches on our continuum of stability/change.

The question of participation in decision-making will now be examined. It has already been seen how Dahrendorf s desire for conflict regulation has certain prerequisites. Interests have to be organised into cohesive units or groups and these have to occur throughout a wide variety of spheres in society. This is very similar fo the plurallst theory of democracy which assumes that interests are represented in groups which exert power on government and that this power is dispersed throughout a large number of centres. In refuting Marx’s concept of two antagonistic classes, Dahrendorf states:-

If the inevitable phualism of associations is accompanbd by a pbualism of fronts of conilict, none of these is likely to develop the intensity of chtss conflicts of the Marx&n type. There ls in this case, for every member of the subjected class of one assodatlon, the promhe of gratification In another association. Every psrticuk conflict remains confIned to the individual in one of his many roles and absorbs only that part of the individual’s personality that went into this role. (Dshrendorf, 1959, p. 215.)

Along with Almond and Verba, Dahrendorf admits the necessity for a government elite but also stresses that this elite contains representatives of certain group interests in society.

The ruling politlcsl class of post-capitalist society consists of the rdministmtive staff of the state, the governmental elites at its head, and those interested parties which are represented by the governmental elite. (Dahrendorf, 1959, p. 303.)

If . . . one party st8ys in power for seversl election perk&, it is likely that both the Intensity and the violence of political contlkt wlIl grow, because certain interests (snd veto groups) are continuously and systematically neglected. (Dshrendorf, 1959.)

Dahrendorf s position can be summarised as government decision-making by a smsll elite which is open and responsive to society. This is obtained by ensuring that interests are organ&d into groups which can influence this elite. At the same time the diffuse nature of such association prevents undue suddeness of change allowing for a gradual accommodation to new group pressure.

Auowiag the ruling group to st8y in power long enough to mahe its infhtence felt. (Dahmndorf, 1959. p. 309.)

In his recent book ‘The New Iiberty’ based on his Reith lecture, Dahrendorf is more explicit about participation. His ideas in this book retain the essential thesis of his early work.

The new liirty then is the politics of regulated confIlct. (Dahrendorf, 1975, p. 6.) Some people would prefer a revolution to gradual change. I am not one of those. (Dahrendorf, 1975,

p. 24.)

He therefore still believes in the merits of evolutionary change through the regulation of conflict but a shift in emphasis can be detected from his earlier pluralist position to one of greater confidence in elite decision-making.

Legitirnatc government can be nearly psralysed by a chaos of crisscrossing pressures by “autonomous groups”. (Dahrendorf, 1975, p. 28.)

A growing number of people are fed up with the new authorhuidsm of large and sometimes’not so large, but powerful, organlsations. These organimtions may have helped people to get where they sre today, but they have developed their own inertia, and imperlahsm, until they seem to defend the vested Interests of their ftuuXlonuies rather thsn the new liberty of their members, while at the ssme time producing that chaos of pressures which mahes effective democratic govermnent incmasbqly difficult. (Dahmndorf, 1975.)

As in his earlier work, he believes in the necessity of establishing a link between individuals and elite decision-makers. As noted above, conflict regulation institutions form part of this link and people are grouped into organisations to allow these to be effective. In his latest book a new link is proposed in the form of the media.

The mediation between individuals and decislln-mahers is more important than ever. . . . there is the immediate representation of the general public, by political organisstions possibly, by referenda or direct elections of office-holders perhaps, but above all by the medk. (Dahrendorf, 1975, p. 96.)

He~thrtitLa~forthemedirtotrke~tdlr,ofmadirtionk#wuethc~ between elected leaders and dtizens has become very tenuous. He blames bureaucracy for having created 8 ‘buffer zone’ between the two. Although at first suggest@ that dtizen participation in communi~ may be I way of overcoming this problem, he then des&bes in detdl its dmwba&s and condudes:-

whibuemaybsvetorecWUsr tlnpctkeof~trtiwEovQnmsnt... Iknowofsobettecmotllod to make aam cuUltrio# keep goillg -out goiq too fu utny. (fhhmhf, 1975, p. 47.1

His major critic&m is direct& against the idea of mandatory delegates (e.g. as recommended by Marx). For him such a policy leads to med&xrity md ~ob~~~

bfandstegoveMmell tfcsbaudfrrtbsoryuul~tsnfnliopncdar.Io~,tt~~ttba reprwentativa b unsbb t.0 make any move without the explidt spprovsl of hi, crbclon. Such 8pproml in hardtocomeby;ittaksctimeaadlong,almo8tin-,- llhe~tehthuBuuAbbto d*eabrdthrtfr,to&ttoducsmfnao*ltbn~~itcmbcacrsptsdby9,hehu~incsnttrs nor n#l posdbMy fez bein ahead of hb dctonte. -do& 1975, p. 46.)

Here we ia the importance that Dshrendorf attaches to the elite dedsionmaker. This elite must be self~nfldent of its own views and set in a lea&r&p capacity.

Thaperm8wntp&oipatiollofaninl3v@yMq... in in fact a defhhion of total immobility. ahhr6ndorf. 1975, p. 47.)

Thus Dahrendorf is openly hostile to the idea of participatory democracy and a believer in a representative system of go~~ent with regular elections to maintain responsiveness. Whereas in his early work this was to be supplemented by ‘interest’ groups in which people would putidpate and be Yinked into’ the decisionmaking process, he has recently become more worried shout this. ‘Ihe rise of large and powerful organisstions, particularly trade-unions and multi-national corporations, has directed his attention to the mediating role of the media. However ss he still places parsmount importance in gradual change through the reguMion of conflict, he admits the necessity to stimulate the group orbed which, ss we hsve seen, are a prerequisite of this system.

‘lb Dahrendorf would like to see participation but only if it occurs within a structure of organimtions. In this way conflict can be regulated and elites given the freedom of decidon- maktng required for progress.

LOCATION OF EXAMPLES WITHIN THE

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Itknowposdble tom the three positions we have established from the cantent analysis and to check the hypothetical So&ions within the framework that were proposed for Marx, Almond md Verbs, md Ibhrendorf in the earlier section of the v.

It has been noted that them are two bade positions taken by Marx. In his early writiugs he was conosrned with owucoming the alienstion of nun and proposed an alternative to the Hegehsn analysis in which harmony and participation were maxMsed.Inhislaterworkhewu concerned with sn analysis of the clsss struggle and emphasised the dynamic element of his contemporary society. During the period of transition from his own society to his ~0~0~ ideal h&rx advocated a system of political participation atong the lines of the Paris commune. For the purposes of this essay it is this later work of Marx which is of greater interest. ‘lhe key elements that are likely to be of greatest interest for the subasquent analyds UC- the unresolvable clash of interests in society that creates a need for structural dmngss, putkipatlon

20 Pmpms In Pknn@

as an inherent aspect of clan struggle which nirec cor&ousness and has an educational value, the need for the organisation of class interests, the vahre of communes with decentralised decision-making powers, the emphuis on mandated delegates rather than representatives and the performance of executive t&a by the elected delegates.

Returning, now, to the framawork it can be men that the hypothetical podtion of Marx has to be modified in two ways. Firstly, a poWon has to be plotted to correspond to the view of participation and stability expressed in Marx’s ideal communist society (a). This is free of alienation and the state/civil society dichotomy is absent. An argument could also be advocated for a slight mod&ation of h&x’s second position (b). He advocates the full participation of the proletariat in all aspects related to the clot, struggle as education through experience is the means of raising consciousness. However, in his analysis of the Paris commune he concedes that direct participation is an impossibiiity and supports the idea of mandated delegates as the next best solution. ln the framework it may be necessary therefore to shift Marx’s position slightly down the participation continuum. (See Fig. 2.1.)

High Marx l b

Dotnndaf b-a

Almond 8 Vrba . “92

Low

LOW Hiih

m of porticipaiion

Almond and Verba’s position is rather less complicated and does not require modification from the earlier hypothetical location in the framework. They emphaaias the maintenance of stability and preservation of the balanced system of British society. In order to safeguard this they advocate the fostering of the democratic ‘myth’ and mildness in the discussion of political issues. Some people need to be unintererted in politica, others should be interested but only a few actually actively involved. Decision-makfng should be left to an elite that is given freedom of discretion between elections.

JMrendorf emphasises the existence of conflict but also stresses the desire that society should evolve in a gradual way. He therefore thinks it important that conflicts in society are ‘managed’ and not allowed to develop into major crises. For him, participation is important inasmuch as it contributes to this management of conflict. This can occur through conciliation, mediation or arbitration and in each case interests have to be organ&d into identifiable groups. Ideally conflict should be diffused throughout society in a pluralism of such groups. Therefore he supports participation though of a limited nature and always within a structure of organisations. He believes that the bureaucracy has created a ‘buffer zone’ between people and decision-makers but does not see citizen participation as the answer to this problem. Ha suggests that the media could play a greater role in solving this problem. He rejects Marx’s solution of mandated delegates as he sacs this creating inertia and mediocre decisions. In his latest work a tendency is detected towards greater faith in elite dedaion-m&ing. This tendency would move his position in the low partidpation direction in the framework, i.e. from (a) to (b).

NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

b&aaxnnptiad’.~,1843b.) - -

CHAPTER 3

Democratic Theory Debate

INTRODUCTION

It has often been observed (e.g. Styles, 1971; Damer and Hague, 1971; Bailey, 1975) that the movement advocating a participatory democracy, that developed during the 1960s throughout the western world, was one of the factors contributing to the idea of greater participation in planning. As the purpose of this essay is to place the latter idea in a broader context, it would seem necessary to consider the theoretical &bate concerning participatory democracy. At the same time it is hoped that this will provide a useful link between the broader theoretical discussions that have been examined in the essay so far with the policies of central and local government that will be reviewed later. In order to strengthen the relationship between the theories of social order and those of democratic theory, these latter theories will also be discussed within the framework that has already been outlined.

In this way it is hoped that the debate concerning democracy can be compared with the views on stability and participation identified in the works of Marx, Almond and Verba, and Dahrendorf. This will then give more substance to the framework and the application of theoretical perspectives to participation in planning will be more comprehensive. In this chapter we will review the evolving debate over the nature of democracy that was instigated in 1943 by Schumpeter in his book Cbphlism, Socialism and Democmcy. He, and many others in the US in the 195Os, rejected the classical notion of democracy and formulated an alternative which he considered appropriate for modem society. These ‘theorists of modem democracy’, as they can be termed, were in their turn, in the 19608, subject to attack by proponents of participatory democracy. These more recent theorists sought to revitalise the aims of the classical writers. In this chapter, after a very brief outline of classical democracy, the view of the modem theorists and the participatory democracy school will be presented. The whole debate will then be placed within the theoretical framework devised in Chapter 1. This will facilitate an understanding of the relationship between the theories of social order presented in Chapter 2 and the democratic theory debate itself.

OUTLINE OF CLASSICAL THEORY

The ideas of Rousseau will be briefly described as typical (and perhaps most important) of the classical school to which modem theorists objected. This will only be done in outline as it is intended to emphasise the contemporary debate.’ The basic principle of classical democracy has been described in the following way.

A democratic sodety, whether conceived on the Greek model, aa by Rouawau, or on a national baais, as by John Stuart Mill, is wntiy a society marked by wide mn and consultation, sc that the whole people know the reasons for political decision8 through taking part directly or indirectly in their fomrulation. (Duncan and L&es, 1963.)

This wiU be sufficient for our purposes although it is noted that there exists a considerable debate on the definition of ‘classical’ democracy. (e.g. Dahl, 1956.).

The most important general principle advocated by Rousseau in ‘The Social Contract’ is that of popular sovereignty. This sovereignty resides in the total population of the commuhity as it meets in public assemblies to enact laws in the manner of the Greek city states. For Rousseau participation was a central and essential ingredient of democracy. He based his ideas on a view of

22

77womtic8l ibnpsctiw~~ on Planning 8nd pwticiption 23

human nature in which it i8 both poaible and beneflciil to develop each individual’r potential. The fact that he arrived at such a view in a prcmodexn, pre-industrial society doee not, in its&, detract from the poalbility that such a view an stitl be held today. He believed that through putidpotkn,thchndtPidurf~snonnoureQIcrtianrtbenefi~~dthrwghnrchm experience could gradually diWgui& between his own impulses and &sires and those that beneflt~ety;heorrhe~to~rpublicuwellurprIvotedtficn.Tbsd~nwlll eventually come to feel littb or no conflict between the demands of the public or private spheres. Rouameau ‘s concern wss -fore to relate the form of political and social Wtutions to the psychologkzsl impact they make on the aids. He therefore sees it as necunry that these institutions sre particfpstory ones which allow the Ml education and se&development of in~ti.

For Rousseau participation can be aaid to have three functi~:- the individual increase8 control over the course of his/her life and environment, it enables collective decisions to be more e&ly accepted by the individu&l, and thirdly it has an integrative function in increasing the ~~~du~~ feeling of belonging to a chubs.

It cm be seen, therefore, that Rous8eau can be located in the bottom right-hand comer of the fruMwork (me Fii. 1 .l), Le. he believes in the maximum partidpation of all citizens in creating popular sovereignty and that the development of the social contract creates a harmonious and integrated community.

Having very briefly set out this position, the reaction to it of contemporary writers will now be examS&. As this will be done within the fmmework of the last section, attitudes to stability and degrees of participation will form the focus of the discu&on.

THE ‘MODERN’ DEMOCRATIC REVISIONISM

Remnt theorista of &mocrmcy do not set out to formulate a normative theory. They wish to confront previous theories with the re&iea of contemporuy 8ociety, p8rtkuMy the uninterested apathetic nature of the electorate. Wmmpetet was the founding father of such an attempt. I5 much quoted reformulation ir that

*..theAnWa8tk~~~iStb8tim!itutionai ams#aWltrcrumky~tpeH~dscfdorrriawvhlch ~~wlufre8#po~todbddsbymarntof8oompaidlua~fottbc~~‘svote. (-fMqwr* 1943, p. 269.)

Hethengoesontoraythat

This Indeed is what utbwquent theorists set out to do, utilising new survey techntques and computer facilities to produce empirical evidence on a scale never previously attempted (e.g. RemRon et d, 1954; Cunpbell et& 1954). Then, armed with this evidence, them writers consolidated Schumpeter’r re&entation of d emocmtic theory. Rerehon arggertr th8t theor&ts

~tsxpbrstbenrhrvma,thcimpliatbnr,rab~~ofarchrmptrLJ.frrettu~~~ tnthir~Bsreltoncrol.,19s4)ud~rtedisrPofftledthsoryvfttsn~~~~topnctloshtr ths~~thrtitra~~ths~~fa~po~~~rsgyoaavr...ompirial ~~9h$od8rifY~NobF6~ cmmcttheemptricrt~ppositiom of native tbory.

. .

Attitudes to chalgc

Therefore the approach of these theorists is to try md explain how society can posWy ‘work’ in a situation where the gend public are uninterested in politics (M&on shows that less than one-third of the e&orate is interested in politia, p. 24). They conclude that this apathy b in f8ct necem8ry for the 8tabiWy of utdety, Hating

. . ..~~pgil.wbo~rethrsbrrarrriarrrOorrotLarta~mMb.~~o~puSvs* 18mbon,p.314;a~,bhrmrlr~mnwt33psrosatplltkmPbw~a~)

Their exphuution sssumes that, due to the complexities of society, a repreeentative system of ~~~irre~dmdthrtthoru~ofthfrtrtobe~d~dbythequrlftyofthe

24 Pmgms in Planning

deddons made. Democracy is therefore seen as the process that allown this system to operate in the best poesfble way. The role of the dtim becomes I very pasdve one and a sustained interest in politics is not required by the d&en. On the contrary, to some extent it should be discouraged, e.g. Schumpeter believes that people should not bother their representatives by writing letters to them.

Such vkws shift the emphasis of democracy away from the individual to the political system as a whole. Democracy, rather than aiming to improve the self-development of each dtizen, is a method of ensuring the continued stability and equilibrium of the prevailing society. As Rerelson and I&set, for example, make clear, it is w to do this in or&r to restrain change and encourage co1wensus (Be&on, 1954, Chapter 14). To this end, apathy at elections and between elections should not be admonished while elites should be left to sort out the complexities of political life. Thus

. . . lo~t~usxpsftrrsd~ntrtsanrb,dsufng~ok~,~ths~ ~~rubmit~hirrecounft~plilbdtohb~’,bvaof~-forpsrbdic review. @rvb, 1964.)

The concern of empirically based theorists is to examine the conditiona for a stable, non- totalitarian political system. Thus they fear a dangerous involvement of the masses in politics;

. ..thepolitialrylternisreen~~mexquid~~frUilern~~drllpotdblcdurlsntoL~bnlty ue)rrlourly gserded @nst. (Dunan end Luke+ 1963.)

As we have already noted, the existence of apathy is seen as useful and even necessary for this stability. However, if this stability itaelf, became of its need to restrain conflict and change, leada to an uninterested public, resulting from a lack of opportunity to influence desfred changes, then we have a neat circle - apathy producing stability, stability producing apathy. Such a situation would not be a problem if one believes, with Lipset, in the status quo:-

. . . the fltodunenti political problems of the industrial revolution have been solved; the workera have echbved induatrinl end poWcal citizemh@; the conaervetive~ have accepted the w&m et&; end the democratic life hu w tht en inueue in overrll state power arrbs with it more dangers to freedom than rdutiona to economic problem& (Lipmt, 1960. p. 406.)

At the same time, these theorists claim to be building value-free, empirically based theory. However, this has been-challenged (e.g. Walker, 1966; Rachroch, 1967; Duncan and Lukes, 1963; Rousseas and Farganis, 1963). The critique is based on the premise that statements such as those of Lipset quoted above illustrate the coexistence in these theories of actual description and a belief in the desirability of this description. Thus insofar as these theories reinforce the status quo they embody unstated normative assumptions.

As we have noted, a feature of the theories of the US political sociology school is their shift in emphasis from the realisation of the individual’s potential as contained in the classical model to the requirements of the system. This is most explicitly described by Rerelson:-

The system of demoarcy doer meet cart& requirementa of a go@ politial organiution. The individueb may not meet the standards, but the whole neverthelen survives and growa. l’hb w that where the cludal theory b defective b in ita conmntration on the individual ddzen. Whet am u&mlwd w certain collective properties thet reside in the electorate L( l whole end in the politial end W&I system in which it functions. CBerelaon, 1954, p. 322.)

He then continues by describing the various requirements of a balanced system, although in a rather vague way. Apathy, as has been noted, is one of these balancing requirements as it acts as a ‘cushion to absorb the intense action of highly motivated partisans’. Other requirements include a balance between consensus/cleavage, stability/flexibility, and interest/indifference, and the whole synthesis forms a picture of equilibrium.

Poteman summarises the claim that such modem democratic theory is normative, and in favour of stability, in the following way:

The contemporuy theory of democrecy doea not merely describe the operetion of art& political syrtemr, but implbs that thb L the kind of ayrtsm that we should vllus end includea e mt of stander& or aiterie by which a political qatem may be judged “democreW. It is not dWicult to SW that, for the theorirtrund~~~~~,theremadudruethocethrtusiahssentinthe~,~~ democratic system, end that with the dsvslopment of this system we alreuly have the iQtl democratic polity. (Petemen, 1970, p. 15.)

This attitude is seen by Walker as turning such theorists into ‘sophisticated apologists for the

Theomticrl hapectiwa on PhnnlnQ md Pwticiprtion 25

existing order’ (Walker, 1966). As the values propounded tend to be associated with the status quo, they give no guidance on how this may or should &any. Should restraint be used to preserve balance If pressures for participation increaas as they did in the late 1960s in the student mowment?

The above exposition of the modem theorists has emphaaised the conservatiw attitudes that underlie their theories of democracy. Their fear of totalitarfa&m caused them to accentuate the merits of the social order that existed in the US at the time that they wrote. Within our framework they would therefore be located at the stability end of the stability/changa continuum along with Rousseau, against whom they were reacting. However, although they maintain Rousseau’s concern for social harmony and stability, they advocate different means of achieving this. As these different means vary in their advocacy of participation, the eventual podtion in our framework differs from that of Rousseau. The classical theorists such as Rousseau saw social cohesion resulting from participation itself and the educational benefits it produced. Their objective was

. . . the eduation of en entire people to the point where their intellectuxl, emotionel, end moml aprcitks heve reached their full potential end they ere]oined, freely end actively, in a genuine community. (Davis. 1964.)

Attitudes to pwticipotion

One of the differences between classical and modem theorists concerns their attitude to education and resultant ability to become usefully involved in decision-making. For the classical theorists it is only through experience and practice that people will learn and improve their understanding.

We do not learn to reed or write, to ride or swim, by merely being told how to do it. but by doing it, so it is only by prectidng populu government, on I limited scale, thet people will ever leern how to exacbe it on 1 luger. (Mill+ 1963, p. 186.)

As we noted in the last section, this was a view taken up and developed by Marx. Whereas Rousseau saw the educational process leading to an understanding of other people’s views and reinforcement of social harmony, Marx saw it leading to a realisation of the subordinate position of the proletariat. Through praxis, consciousness of one’s position would develop into class consciousness and a realisation of the contradictions in society. This would lead to revolutionary social change. This will be returned to when commenting on the views of advocates of participatory democracy.

However, as we haw noted, the modem theorists do not take this view of the educational role of participation and instead see apathy having a function in preserving the balance of the system. Thus the consensus they desire. along with Rousseau. to create a stable social order has to be generated by other means.

It is necessary for the functioning of the kind of democracy advocated by the modem theorists that there exists an underlying value system to which everyone conforms. This value system defmes the ‘rules of the game’ and allows the ‘peaceful “play” of power’ (Iipset, 1960, p. 45). As many people are expected to be apathetic, this cannot arise through direct experience of beneficial involvement but has to arise from satisfaction with the output of the system. Such satisfaction will create an intemalised ‘belief and support for the methods adopted and the rules employed. However, reliance on political outputs alone can be a precarious existence and certainly not create the required stability. This is because some people will almost always be adversely affected by decisions and also because long-term goals often create short-term dis-benefits. Therefore support for the system has to be supplemented. This is the role of the sodalisation process which aims to instill the necessary values through such institutions as the family, schools, churches and the media. Thus the socialisation process becomes crucial in creating the political attitudes necessary for the preservation of ‘modern’ democracy and stability.

The location of the modem democrats in our framework coincides with that of Almond and Verba described in the last section and we can therefore draw upon their work to illustrate further the importance of values in creating stability. Rerelson has described how society needs to be cornpored of a mixture of active, passive and moderate elements. It then becomes the role

26 Pmgrus in Planning

of the socialisation process to ensure that this mixture is reflected in people’s attitudes. As we have seen, Almond and Verba describe this mixture of attitudes as ‘civic culture’ being a combination of parochial subject and participant cultures. In the first culture people are only dimly aware of central political control: in subject culture they are aware of it but passive towards it, while participant culture involves a relationship to both input and output aspects of politics. Socialiution plays a major role in creating the correct ‘mixture of cultures’. It has been noted that Almond and Verba see this being performed through the establishment of the democratic myth’ (Almond and Verba, 1965, p. 480). They describe how people have to be

socialised into believing in participation and an ability to influence decisions while at the same time ensuring that not too many people actually do so as this would create inefficient and mediocre decision-making.

Such inconsistencies between what people feel they ought to do and their actual behaviour does not create too much strain as political issues are not considered very important by them. However, a number of unanswered questions are raised by suggesting that socialisation underpins democracy. What happens if people start taking more interest in political issues? Does it matter if the participatory elements are derived from only a section of society? Once balanced civic culture is achieved, what are the mechanisms for maintaining this balance? Does this mean that it has to be ensured that an undue increase in participatory culture is prevented? It could be implied that schools, work situations and other socialisation environments have also to be ‘balanced’ to stimulate the mixsd culture required and that the media must play its part in maintaining a low profile on political issues to avoid straining the ‘myth’. This in turn would seem to imply considerable manipulation of society by the defenders of democracy. It could also be said that increased education and awareness of society will lead to less parochial culture and a better understanding of the political process and political issues. An increased interest could develop as a result, especially if certain needs are not being met; an increase in participatory culture could then occur. However, this then breaks out of the balanced system of the civic culture and Berelson’s mixture of passive, active and moderate citizens, i.e. it challenges the modem theory itself. This is the challenge that is taken up by the advocates of participatory democracy to whom we return later.

As the modem theorists see the establishment of a common value system as the means of creating consensus and stability in society, they do not have to advocate participatory involvement for this purpose. In fact they cannot do so. Their major platform of attack on the classical theorists is that such participation is impossible in a modern society. As Dahl says:-

It does not seem to me, nor I think to many other political scientists, that the questions raised in this century about ludtrship in democracks can be met satisfactorily by citing Aristotle, Machiwelli, Rousseau, Mill or indeed any other theorist deprived of the opportunity to enelyse the unfolding experience during the past half century or LO with popular government in large, industrial, urban&d nationrtetes. (Dehl, 1966.)

It has been shown how these ‘modern’ conditions led to a reformulation of democracy. This rejected the ideal of participation of everyone and substituted a representative system in which decision-making is allocated to a small elite. Participation is required to the extent that it makes this system work, i.e. through ensuring accountability of the elite. Thls is achieved through making the elite stand for reelection at regular intervals. The elite also must believe that some people have the ability and desire to participate if they think the results of decisions are not acceptable. Almond and Verba held a similar limited view of participation and this places the modern theorists, with these authors, towards the ‘low’ end of the participation spectrum in the framework. This position is indicated in Fig. 3.1 (p. 28). In opposing the classical theorists, the modern theorists have rejected the participatory ideal and have moved down the participation scale. However, at the same time, they have maintained Rousseau’s desire for a harmonious, stable society but achieve this stability by different means. The path that they have adopted in reformulating classical democratic theory is shown in the diagram.

A RETURN TO PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

A rather different path is taken by the advocates of participatory democracy. They attack the modern theorists for their support of the status quo and raise the problems associated with a

7heomticrl km tim on Planning and hrticiption 27

p0ritio.n that fosters limited participation. In this attack they return to certain ideals of clasdcal democracy. They, therefore, also develop certain i&as of Rousseau but in a different direction. They retain that aspect rejected by the modem theorists, namely, the ideal of partic@tion by the greatest numbers. On the other hand, they reject, to a varyin degree, the objective of social stability retained by the modem theorists. As noted above, in their attack on the modem theorists the advocates of participatory democracy demonstrrte how they reject the aim of maintaining the status quo. Rut how far do they go in rdvocaw revolutionary w? Can they be located at the top of the framework along with Marx?

The viewpoint of the contempomry theorists of participrtory democracy has not been elaborately developed. The contributions under discussion (Duncan and L&es, 1963; Rousseas and Farganis. 1963; Walker, 1966; Rachrach, 1967; Patemm, 1970) are in the form of articles or short monographs. Most of their efforts are devoted to an attack on the modem theorists rather than to the establishment of an alternative. Nevertheless they all agree on their attitudes to participation and would support Williams when he says:-

The preauue has been to define democracy as the “right to vote”. ” the right to free speech”, and so on in a pettern of feeling which is really that of the liberty of the subject within an established authority. The pressure now in a wide area of our social life should be towards a partidprtory democracy. in whkh the ways and means of invo~ people much more dosely in the process of self-government an be learned and extended. (Williams, 1961, p. 316.)

Increased participation provides the common focus to their respective critiques of the modem theorists and explains their common interest in the resurrection of classical ideals. However, as mentioned above, they vary in their attitudes to social change. It has already been shown how participation can contribute to the reinforcement of social harmony (Rousseau and early Marx) or alternatively as a means of raising consciousness and stimulrting revolutionary change (late Marx). It has been seen how these differences stem from alternative views concerning the nature of conflict. This can be analysed from the level of the individual and a realiution and understanding of inter-personal conflicts leads, as in Rousseau and Parsons, to a ‘social conscience’ and acceptance of the community benefit. Alternatively, it can be seen as an expression of opposing group interests that need to be institutionally limited or mediated in order to create gradual and orderly change. At the other extreme, it has been shown that conflicts can be viewed as a result of domination and subordination in society producing a social structure containing disadvantage throughout society. In this view, conflicts cannot be overcome without radically changing this structure. This is the position that has been identified with Marx’s analysis of capitalist society.

The participatory theorists being discussed are not explicit on where they stand in this spectrum. However, differing emphasis indicates that they do vary in this respect. Some give greatest attention to the participatory ideals of Rousseau and methods, such as participation in industrisl decision-makin& whereby this Meal can be updated to modern conditions. pateman could perhaps be identified with this position. She even suggests that participation could be used to maintain stability rather than create change.

Then is no special problem about the stability of a partic@tory system; it is seif+ustainb through the educative impact of the partk@tory process. Putkipation tielops 8nd fosters the very qu8lities necessary for it. the more individuals perticipete the better aMe they become to do so. Subsldiuy hypotheses about puticlprtion are that it has an integrative effect and that it aids the acceptance of cdkctlve decisions. (Pateman, 1970, p. 42.)

Other participatory theorists reacted to the upsurge of violent or unconstrained conflict that occurred during the 196Os, such as the US race riots. They see these phenomena as an indication of the need for social change and believe that a participatory democracy is more appropriate to the situation. Thus Walker opposes the m&m democratic theorists as being a reflection of the political system which suppresses and controls conflict. He believes that such repression may create stability but that this will be artificial. Unfulfhled desires will be transferred to *non- political’ arenas or erupt suddenly. He thinks

. . . we h8w ov4ooksd the importanca of broedly beud social movement& u&@ from tba publk at large. as powerful agents of innovation and change. (Walker. 1966.)

Quoting Dahrendorf, he continues:-

We must shift our emphasis from theories whkh antceke of the “sodd structure in terms of a functionally intmted system held in equiUbAum by autein plttrnd 8nd recurrent W” to

bgnw8 In Phnning

thaorba which place mter emphub on the rob of ceardon and comtrdat h the politkd ystam and which coacmtlrta on the infbncm withhmdatywhkhpro6uw’@th@fomstlmtlMintaialt&8n tlIm&tg procon of duz&. (waker, 1966.)

Whether he supports Dahrendorf or goes further and advocates the views of Marx is not clear but there is no doubt that he sees participatory democracy within a context of social change. As a result, he would be located high on the social change axis in the framework.

In summary, it can be said that all the advocatea of pueidpatory democracy react a@nst the normative implications of the modem democracy theorists that imply an advocacy of the status quo. However they are not very explicit on how far they would 80 in supporting radical changes and one can only obtain hints, such as those quoted above, to establish their views. Some may see status quo advocacy as detrimental simply because it does not allow the full development of the individual that can be obtained through partidpation. Others would suggest that a radical change in the social structure is needed to overcome evident social conflicts and as a prerequisite of meaningful participation.

LOCATION OF DEBATE WITHIN THE

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The establishment of a theoretical framework is now concluded and the results summarised in Fig. 3. The various positions of the theorists of social order are plotted together with the democratic theorists. It can be seen that the path of development of democratic theory taken by the modem theorists has led them from Rousseau to a position that becomes coincident with that of the structural functionalists Almond and Verba. The path taken by the participatory democrats keeps them in the high participation area of the framework. The general direction of their modifications of Rousseau takes them towards the position of Marx although they do not necessarily travel so far. Meanwhile the position of Dahrendorf lies between these two paths. He retains neither the social harmony nor maximum possible participation ideas of Rousseau but draws on modified elements of both. Conflicts have to be recognised but resolved to allow some degree of social integration and ensure that change is gradual. Similarly, the need for participation is recognised but contained within the formal structures of institutions.

I Partwpatwy thronrts

wumnan)

Dogm of Wrtlcipation

FIG. 3.1. Lacatioa d the domcmcy dobh

It is now proposed to utilise this framework in an analysis of participation in planning and the three shaded areas in the diagram have been chosen as alternative perspectives. Within the fint perspective falls the viewpoint of Almond and Verbs and the modem theorists. The second includes Marx and is the logical extension of some of the theorists of partidpatory democracy. The third includes the intermediate position of Dahrendorf.

Earlier it was noted that the development of participation in planning stemmed partly from the partidpatory democracy movement. It might be expected, therefore, that the only reasonable perspectives to take on this development are those on the right-hand side of the framework. However, as will be seen in the next section on the history of participation in planning other forces have also contributed to this development. These other forces, with

Theomticrl Wqxxtims on Planning md Pwtidpatkw W

conflicting objectives, have tended to distort the picture mnd the resultit pmctia of putidprtion annot be uid simply to fulfil the rim, of pertidprtory democncy. The conflicting objectives of partidpation in pluming will now be described through UI expodtion of its historical development. Then l&r this experiena will be subjected to an analysh from the three rltemMive penpectives.

NOTE TO CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4

The Development of Planning Participation

INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this chapter is to trace the history of planning participation in Britain from the 1960s to the present day. In the next chapter, these developments, and the resultant tec&niques of participation adopted by local authorities, will be explored within the theoretical framework that has been formulated. The object will be to demonstrate that a range of possible goals can be sought from a participation exercise and this will colour the historical exposition of this chapter and provide its particular emphasis. The focus will be upon the conflicts between efficiency and democracy and between representative and participatory aspects of that democracy. In reading the historical material it would therefore be useful to keep in mind some broader theoretical questions: Is participatory democracy directly opposed to efficiency? Can the view of Schumpeter and others, that a representative system of democracy is the only method of obtaining satisfactory results in a complex society, be sustained? Alternatively, is there a threat that a loss of faith in a representative system could lead to direct public action to influence decision-making? Is it a threat, and if so to whom? Could this threat be avoided with a little participatory democracy controlled, and at the right time? Would participatory democracy of this nature contribute to efficiency after all?

In the last chapter it was demonstrated that the answer to these questions depends upon a person’s value perspective and attitude towards social order.

The Planning Advisory Group Report is taken as the starting point of the historical analysis of participation in planning. Its influence on the 1968 Town and Country F%nning Act is then traced. Other major landmarks such as the Skeffmgton Report, DOE Circular 52/72 and the Neighbourhood Council idea form the basis of the discussion. The passive role of central government throughout the period is noted. During the committee stage of the 1968 Act the Minister specifically requested that the participation section should be kept vague so as not to prejudice the Skeffmgton Committee’s work. The Report of this committee in turn contained its own vagueness and contradictions and the subsequent 52/72 Circular tended to throw the ball back into the local authority court. Through its sponsorship of the Sheffield Linked Research Project, the DOE is now showing an interest in producing more specific advice on the techniques required to ‘elicit a constructive response from the public.’ It is the thesis of this essay that the purpose of the participation process, and the achievement desired from it, must be spelt out explicitly before the most suitable techniques can be evaluated.

PLANNING AND SOCIAL ORDER

Before discussing the development of participation in planning, a few words are devoted to the relationship between social order and planning as an activity in society. This will provide another link between the theories of social order discussed in Chapter 2 and the planning participation process discussed later in this chapter. An attempt is made to locate some of the historical influences on modem town planning within the theoretical framework of Chapter 1. The results, shown in Fig. 4.1 must be regarded as an initial exploration, setting up certain hypotheses for further examination. It is not possible within the confines of this essay to list the locations within the framework in any depth, instead, a few general remarks will be made to provide a context for the rest of the chapter.

30

Theoretical Perspectives on Planning and Partici~tion 31

Early rrformMs r lFwtwnalwnl

Houssmon 6ccml control)

- Eoaol harmmy RausuaJl

Dogras of pgrttcpatlon

It could be said that the form and purpose of participation in planning depends upon the view taken of the planning activity itself. For example, if planning is seen as one of the agencies through which society could be radically transformed, then a form of participation akin to that of the Paris Commune could be envisaged. However, if planning is viewed as an element of social control, then only a very restricted rok for participation would be desired. Although the impetus for participation in plamUng may have come from a number of different directions (e.g. grass-roots dissatisfaction, theoreUcal reappraisal of democracy or the American experience), its interpretation and implementation depends to some extent upon the attitudes to planning itself and its purpose in society. Unfortunately, the nature and strength of this relationship between participation in planning and the purpcee of planning itself can only be hinted at here. It is an area worthy of further research.

In his well-known article Foley has identified three general ideologies that underlie British

pl=m8- (1) ‘town planning’s main task is to reconcile competing claims for the use of limited land so

as to provide a con&tent, balaned and orderly arrangement of land uses’; (2) ‘town planning’s central function is to provide a good (or better) physical environment;

physical environment of such good quality is essential for the promotion of a healthy and civilimd life’;

(3) ‘town planning as part of a broader social programme, is responsible for providing the phyakal basis for better urban community life.

Foley then proceeds to illustrate the inconsistencies that arise from the coexistence of these three ideologies. Attempting to r&e these within the theoretical framework of this essay, it could be -ted that the first v&w matches that of Dahrendorf in seeking to arbitrate between conflicta; the second with its ‘promotion of civil&d life’ is reminiscent of a Parsonian view of sodal or&r, while the third, emphasidng ‘a social programme for a better community life’, has a Marxist concern for change. Although it may be stretching the imagination to make such direct comparisons, this illustrates the point that planning ideology contains within it different conceptions of social order and change. This tendency results in contradictions, confudon and vagueness in debates over planning’s role in society.

Viewing these problems in relation to Foley’s three ideologtes; to what extent is the desire to co&rib& to a new social programme compatible with maintaining a ‘balanced’ and orderly pattern of land uses? To what extent is the acceptance of the existence of competing interests in land development compatible with a view that it is poeaible to achieve a healthy and dvilbed We for everyone? In other words, to what extent is it possible to realistically combine different perspecUves on social or&r? Accepting the fact that planning does attempt to make this compromise, it is probable that certain perspecUves will dominate at particular points in time. In the next section a very selective sketch is made of some of the historical inflwncee on the present ideological mix followed by a discussion of the prevailing emphasis in the 1960s when the idea of planning parUdpaUon was crystallismg.

32 Rogrwss in Planning

Dowse and Hughes (1972, p. 133) have described town planning as one of the professions of ‘tension management’, detecting strain and controlling the environment. This would be the way in which oonscnsus theorists of social order might describe the role of the planner. In making adjustments and adaptations to the subaystcm of society under its control, planners could bring that sub-system back into balance, remove the strain, and restore equilibrium to the whole social system. In this way planning can be seen (Bailey, 1975, p. 142; Goodman, 1972, p. 53) as an agent of social control restraining individual behaviour within certain limits considered nsccssary for the overall survival of society. How these limits are derived is, of course, a moot point; in the consensus model they are dcfmcd within the commonly agreed norms of a particular society.

Probably the most fhiliar example of planning as social control is the Haussman plan for Paris. Rcncvolo has shown how the 1848 Revolution was followed by a period of entrenchment by the establishment, disturbed by the threat to its dominance, and that town planning was to play its part in this new conservatism.

Napoleon III in RUNXJ. the young Torisl led by Disraeli in England, and Bismark in Germany soon reali the importrnce thet cohereat policy of publk works could have on the political stability of their respective countries. (Benevolo, 1967, p. ! 10.1

Planning during this period could therefore be described as one of support for the status quo with a minimum of participation. It falls in the bottom left comer of the framework (see Fig. 4.1).

Over time it was rcalised that certain reforms would have to be made if the dangers of poverty were not to threaten social stability. The reformers, who advocated planning, housing reform and sanitary measures to solve urban problems, modified the physical structure of cities but in a way that maintained and strengthened the so& structure. Reforms did not alter social relations. In order to solve poverty, and by implication the threat of urban insurrection, it was only considered necessary to provide clean houses for the lower classes in healthy towns. Commenting on the 1909 Town Planning Act, Allison remarks

. . . the 1909 Act was some&ing new in that it was an 8ttempt on a netiohll 8cele to use the control of lend use for the solution of a major social problem. the condition of the tuben proWeriat . . . . an rttempt to set up physicel controls of Mute buildig so es to improve the conditions of the poor and the stability of the whole tity. GUlison 1975, p. 31.)

Thus these early reforms can be seen as directed towards certain rather limited changes in the living environment of the urban poor, but with the more general purpose of maintaining existing social relations and the stability of society at this broader level. It can bc seen as a small step towards an acrptance of social change from the attitudes prevailing in Haussman’s time. Gradually further steps were taken and other changes were incorporated into reforms, the ethic of social responsibility grew and culminated in the Welfare state. Throughout the whole of this reform period participation was not a major concern. Reforms were not instigated through popular movements but predominantly through intellectual or industrial paternalism.

The utopian tradition is often referred to as another origin of the modem planning profession. ‘Ibis usually means the influence of thinkers who devised alternatives to existing towns as ideological models. However, such thinkers vary considerably in the extent to which they explore the transitional arrangements needed to move from contemporary society to their models. One can therefore place them on a continuum from those who discussed their utopian situation in complete isolation from prevailing social forces to those who border on the gradualism and reformism mentioned above Ebenczcr Howard, whose book Garden cities of tomomw was originally titled Towwmw: a pew&l path to real reform, is usually referred to as a utopian. However, as the original title indicates he was at great pains to explain how his ideas could cvolvc from the prevailing social situation and he presented elaborate practical and financial details to base them on. In an interesting and undcrcxposcd section of his book he described how the garden city experiment could have contributed to a wider social change throughout the country. Land reform plays a major role in this change. In passages that arc reminiscent of the Community Land Act (1975) he dcscribcs how land in his conception is

. . . not in the hrndr of privete individuels; it is in the bends of the people: end is to be adminIstered, not in the supposed intcruts of the few, but &I the reel intawts cf the whole community. (Howard. 1966, p. 140.)

Theoretical Wqxctlws on Planning and Puticiprtion 33

Ha abo &&baa how the dd matropolltan areas, such u Lmdon, could be reconstructed and how ‘vastad lntarasts’ ln tin old social order could be overcome. By labelllng his work u utophn one tr implkltly saying that his programme for overcoming these vested i&ruts is impnctlcrbb.

In common with the Pabians, Howard placus emphads upon a strong local level of government and he also wished to foster a ~troq community spirit and wlfru!J’Icioncy. The lnsplratlon for this, md him ~tbdty renthunts, an be traced to tho muhint peter Kropotkin whose ideas, presented in his book &Ids, &to&s end worhhops, publlshod in 1898, were very influential at the time. As an anarchist, Kropotkin believed in a society without government in which freedom and humanlsation for the individual were maximiwd. He advocated the overthrow of capitalism and the state and the establishment of a decentralised organisation of industry and settlement based upon a federated network of autonomous communes. In his book he describes in great detail how this would have been economically viable in Britain at that time. However, his analysis was Iacking ln a programme of social change. He did not explain the process by which Britain would dumge from an industrial nation at the centre of an empire to his self-sufficient island of tunes. As it turned out Britain’s (and the world!) economy became even more central&d with even greater reliance on international trade. Kropotkin’s ideas envisaged a high degree of partidpation in society and required radical social changes in order that this might be poadble. In many wayr this perspective can be compared to that of Rousseau described in Chapter 3.

These chara&ristics are even more evident in the earlier utopian thinker, Robert Owen. In the *sodaI contract’ Rous+u describes an ideal state in which individuals could develop their personalities while at the same time living in social harmony. This can be compafed to New Lnark whore Owen built an ‘institution for the formation of character’ in which the population, both children and adults, was able to develop a full life through a wide range of social and leisure activities. Owen, Kropotkin and, to a lesser extent, Howard, can be described u viewing social order at two distinct levels. At the level of their utopian communities they emphasise social or&r and harmony while at the broader societal level they describe the radical social changes that are necessary to provide the context for their proposals. Unfortunately, the two levels are not integrated.

Several streama of thought that have influenced contemporary planning have been outlined above and, u Foley shows, current planning ideology contains many, often contradictory domenb of these. Before turning to the development of phuming participation the particular emphasis preva&g in the early 1960s will be discussed. In Britain this was a period of economic growth in which tho scale and speed of change incrested dramatically. Greater national and individual praaperlty produced pressures on the planning system that led to ib reformulation. In this growth euphoris comparisons were made between British and American life styles and therefore it was natural that ideas and attitudes from across the Atlantic should influence this reformulatioa. Economic factors were responsible for the pressures on urban areas that doveloped during this period. The new prosperity was reflected in the increased demand from developers for the redevelopment of city antres for offIce and commercial use, increased car ownership, congestion and longer work journeys. These developments resulted in two infhsentlal reports: the Ministry of Houslng and Local Government Bulletin, ‘Town Centres’ (1962) and the Buchanan Report, Traffic in Towns’ (1963). These reports stressed the need to plan town centres in an integrated and comprehensive way and the need to interrelate transport, environmental and land-use factors. Wer, of course, a completely new planning system was adopted that attempted to provide the necenary flexible framework for this.

tire wu, therefore, a disation of the need to plan comprehendveiy and acquire an understanding of the interrelationshlpr between different activities. At the Same time there was a desire to identify an area of expertise that gave the planner a rpecific role and identity. It wu also felt that planning needed some theoretical underpinning. A theory that could tackle these broad mprehendve interrelationships between activities would both help in meeting the practical pressures on planning and also provide this specific area of knowledge that planners needed to maintain their academic credibility. As mentioned above, comparisons with Ammian oxperknce were rife at the time and it is not surprising that American literature provided the inspiration for this new theoretical formulation. The Parsonian paradigm

34 Progmss in Planning

dominated the social sciences in America and thus the view of planning that was adopted in this country, the systems view, is similar to that of Parsons outlined in Chapter 1, and of Almond and Verba in Chapter 2. Planning was seen as the monitoring and control of complex systems i.e. the efficient management of the urban system. This led to the adoption of cybernetic principles. In the words of the author of the most influential book of this period,

We can picture the planner now as a helmsman steerins the city. His attention focuses on the plan - the charted course - the future states through which the city sboutd pass - and on the survey observations which indicate its actual state. (McLougblin, 1969, p. 86.)

The planner is guiding and steering the city system with its innumerable interactions between individuals. An understanding of this complexity was considered possible at the time because of the rapid growth in the application of computer techniques to social problems. This was the high noon of urban modellhig.

We know that the city is comprimd of a myriad relationshipru, but if we have the vision to identify and describe these in the right way they can be expressed in mathematical terms. The way changes occur through time can be built into the equations, and the computer, handling the instructions provided, can in a matter of minutes enable us to observe decades of growth in a large city. (McLaughlin, 1969, p. 82.)

In other words, the 1960s was a period in which the view of planning as a technical exercise dominated. This was expressed in the adoption of a systems approach, cybernetics and computer modelling. This was the broader context of planning thought within which the ideas on participation in planning developed. As a result, the early reports such as those of the Skeffington Committee and the Planning Advisory Group are often criticised for their political naivity, (e.g. Damer and Hague, 1971). Over time the political connotations of the participation issue have been increasingly recognised, (see McLaughlin and Thornley, 1972, p. 46.), but whether this is reflected in Ministry attitudes is still questionable. The next section traces the origin and growth of the planning participation idea and highlights some of the expressed attitudes to it.

THE PLANNING ADVISORY GROUP

The greatest landmark in plan-making legislation in this country is the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. This legislation remained in force, virtually unmodifled until the 1960s. By this time certain criticisms had developed. Two particular problems were seen as central:- the plans prepared were too detailed and the system too static. Changes in society were creating planning problems, such as traffic congestion, that required bold comprehensive solutions. Secondly, the pace of change itself was too fast for the cumbersome 1947 Act to control. These defects of the old system were later summarised as:-

First, it has become overloaded and subject to delays and cumbersome procedures. Second, there has been inadequate participation by the individual citixen in the planning process, and insufticient regard to his interests. Third, the system has been better as a negative control on undesirable deveiopment than as a positive stimulus to the creation of a good environment. (Introduction to 1967 Town and Country Planning Bill.)

In 1964 the government set up a team to examine alternative planning processes that would overcome these problems. This team was composed of eight central government officials, eleven local government officials and two planning consultants. The composition of this group has led some commentators (e.g. Darner and Hague, 1971) to take the view that the main objective of the committee was to improve administrative efficiency. To some extent the committee could be said to have emphasised the need to speed up the process at the expense of the other problems mentioned above. The major bottleneck in the old system identiiled by the group was the requirement that all plans had to obtain central government approval.

The attempt to process all thcsc detailed plans through a centraked procedure including provision for objections. . . and public local inquiry, has inevitably led to very serious delays which tend to undermine public contidcncc in the system. (planning Advisory Group, 1965.)

The group proposed a new planning system involving a two-tier approach to plan preparation. These ideas were subsequently the subject of a town and country planning bill and included in the new 1968 Town and Country Planning Act. The distinction between the two levels was that

Thaomticd Peryrrctims on Piaming md hrtbption 36

major frusr should be irxzluded in a structure plan wftik minor or detaikd issues should be inch&d in a loat plan that conforms to the overall framework provided by the structure plan. Having made this distinction, the important consequence is that, whereas the structure plan would continue to require central government approval within 8 public inquiry system, the locd plan would not. l’lw local l uthoritks wodd prepare local pians within the framework of the m atnrcture plan, Men to objections and auton~o~y judge the merits of thou.

At the time thfa led to some adverse comment: -

However, such views were in the minority within the profession at the time. Faith was placed in the local authority’s abWy and desire to ‘carry the public’ with it when preparing local plans. It therefon became vsry important if the local authority was to avoid arzusations of b&a that the public be invdved in preparhg the plans or at Iwt be informed about them. The Planning Advisory Group were not themselves very forthcoming on this issue and almat equated participation with publicity.

Thft ‘participation’ exercise was obviously not seen, at this stage, as transferring any of the power of de&on-making away from the local authority and the elected representatives. The p4an would be prepared by the hxal authority before seeking local community reaction.

~proc*dwblntsadadtorabttbsbgJpbnnlpl8utborltrhrsx~Lhdtpropotrl,totk pub&c atU to prod& an oppwunlty to conmlt pubUc opiukm and test pob4k raactin before the plan b !Wlhed md adopted. (Plum@ Ad*irory Group. l%S.)

The position taken in this report emphasises the composition of the committee. The proposals indicate a strong technM and rdministr8tiw emphasis with little or no consideration of the politkal implications. As mentioned above, prrticipatlon is not seen in connection with notions of democracy but as synonymous with publicity.

Tbbh~sx~tnpu~rsktlonrwh~~~~psrtdarlolanful~tudprrpurtion,md akill ia pramamtkm. t.I%na& Advbory Group, i%S.)

DEBATE PRECEDING THE 1966 TOWN AND COUNTRY ?LANNING ACT

These suggutiorts of the Phnlng Advisory Group were incorporated into the Town and Country plrnnlne Bill of 1967 and as would be expected, they provoked a debate that showed greater recognition of the political implkadons of the proposals. Some of the contradictions between effickncy and democracy, that also lie behind the debates on IocaJ government reform and elAte theory, were set out in the introduction to the Bill.

The probbm b that nfqtards bunt into tJm phnn@ prcaduse l mrmk&y sbw ft up. Rowdti ~*f~tbo~tbsrrre,cbWt&pqnrtardrdrhdoa,~t)tcrsL,g.owfnl~~rt pmmntdDh)n.lbc4obhyslusyhoUup dmbpmeat that mrttatl psrtfy to the paopb co0cmwd, UNI may be of economk tmporunce for the country as o whok. . . . thm are Owefore conflkt~ but brdcnquLemcaU(ok,mo~On~~had1&nbOw~formonaoavlmtknr~~ ~tkndthrpvWcri~b;ontkotha.t&nbt&bsdfocquldur~nrCTomurd cowmy phaatal Bal, 1967. p. 2.)

The clauses in the Bill referring to putfdpation contained the fdlowing ~qu~~u for focal authorftks with respect to both structure end loal plans. Adequate pubkity should be given to the report of survey and an opportunity provided for thoee likely to be affected to make mpmaentations. Copies of the plan should be made avaA&ble for inspection with a timetabk for objections. The local authority should submit to the minister a statement of

3s Rogfess in Phnning

(a) the rt@r which the authority have taken to mam the giviq of publicity to the report of their survey.. . and the matters they propow to Include in the plan; and (b) the authoritiu wuultatbnr with, and consideration of tho Vlsws of, other persons with respect to those matters. (Town and Country Plannfng Bffl 1967, p. 4.)

Ag suggested by the Planning Advisory Group, the Bill incorporates the distinction between structure and local plans with respect to rights of objection. In the case of the structure plan, a public inquiry would be held with an inspector who reports to the Mirtister. For the local plan the local authority would hold its own inquiry and usually appoint the person to adjudicate.

The standing committee &bate on these clauses of the Bffl concentrated on ensuring that participation occurred before the local l uthorfty Onally approved a plan and that a aufflciently wide cross-section of people were informed. Typical comments from members of the committee were:-

The private mctor, building, commercial and industrial interests, and, most essentiaBy, tho genarai public. not least the ratepayers, should be given every opportunity to be consulted beforo any firm de&ions are taken. (Mr. Murton, Standii Committee on Town and Country Planning Bill, 22 February. 1968.)

There are now local amenity so&Her, I am happy to say . . . . for example the Georgian Society, the Victorian Society, the Civic Trust . . . they equally must have a chance of knowing precisely what is going on. (Mr. Allason, 22 February, 1968.)

Although members of the committee raised these issues and discussed them, the debate was rather inconclusive. The reason for this was that the Government had just set up a special committee under the chairmanship of Arthur Skeffington M.P. with the brief

. . . to consider and report on the best methods, including publicity, of securing the participation of the public at the formative stage in the making of devolopment plans for their area. (Mr. A. Greenwood, Minister of Housing and Local Government, House of Commons, 2 1 December, 1967.)

For this reason, the Minister of State for Housing and Local Government, Mr. MacDermot, impressed upon the committee the need to keep the requirements of the Act as broad as possible so as not to jeopardise the work of this committee.

The other issue that produced much discussion in the Standing Committee related to the situation in which the local authority was the arbiter in assessing objections to its own plan. As the Minister himself commented: -

‘This is one of the most contentious and one of the most difficult issues arising from this Bill’ (Standing Committee, 5 March, 1968.)

The case for having some recourse to an outside arbitor in dealings with a local authority was put succinctly by one member of the committee:-

A community sometimes needs to be protected from its local authorities and there would be no scnsc of protection if the person holding an inquiry into local planning had been appointed by the very body proposing those plans. (Mr. Rowlands, Standing Committee, 7 March, 1968.)

However, the committee did not resolve this issue and the clause was left unaltered. Reliance was placed on the ability of local authorities to satisfy the public through its participation exercises. The Skeffmgton Committee was looked to for recommendations on how this participation could be successfully conducted. Meanwhile the clauses in the Bill relating to participation were, with certain additions concerning Ministerial sanctions over non-conforming local authorities, retained in the 1968 Act.

SKEFFINGTON REPORT AND REACTION TO IT

When the Skeffmgton Committee eventually reported in 1969, it made nine recommendations concerning public involvement in the planning process:-

(1) people should be kept informed; (2) information on the opportunities for participation should be made available; (3) participation should concentrate on the discussion of choices and, secondly, the local

authorities presentation of proposals; (4) community forums should be set up giving local organisations an opportunity to discuss; (5) proposals should be public&d in the areas affected;

Theoretical bspactiws on Planning and Mcipntion 37

(6) community development officers should be appointed ‘to secure the invd~ment of those people who do not join organisationa’;

(7) people should be told what they have achieved by participation; (8) dtlxern lhauld be encouraged to urbt with the planning procer, (e.g. by do@ surveyr) u

well 8a expmsdng views, (9) better education about pknning should be dewloped both in schoola and by the pubhc at

hge. It an be seen that most of these recommendation, are concerned wlth improvIng

communicatior~ between people and the local authority thrwgh better informatIon exchange. pbople nhould ha= more Information, more information on where to get information, particular information if they are really to be at&ted, more information in ~&o&s, and more information on results of responding to more information. In addition the public themselves can provide the local authority with more information on their viewa and dtuation through doing mrrveys etc.

The two more innovative propouls of the Committee were those concerning fonun, and community development 0fIlcen. These require the local authority to became more involved in the lnterert and pressure groups in a community and understand its social ttnmtum. Through the work of the community development officer a better understanding of the reasons for non-partidpMon would be obtained.

A wiety Of reuons have ban given for the upEurge Of iXtt.mSt in phtttth~ pUtidp8tiOtL It has been explained how it wrur considered necessary to ttmamhne the plan&g procem. The sqgestlon that the public onl y ha ve recourse to appeal to the Minister at the strategic level stimulated an interest in public partidpation as an alternative. Thus at the level of local plans close cooperation between people at the local authority would make up for the loea of the right to appeal against the local authority’s proposals. However there were other factors that accounted for the general popularity of the partidpation idea.

Firstly, the plamung profenion jumped on the ideas aa a means by which it could improve its tarnlshed public image. It was hoped that a closer relationship between the p-r and the planned would help the public understand the difficulties and complexities that the professional pl8nner h8d to resolve.

The Town Planning Institutes submission to SkefIington:-

~LunpopPhrwithmanylnaln~oftbapubHc . . ..This’hve”and%ey”8ttitl&‘~beJ~ tbr~b~rt~mercyof”~y”thepkDnsnI,rlltoo~~t,md~~~of~cn~tto wMebpPMicputieiprtbn&the~of~pnblic~~tin,ud~pityfor,phnnfnlb mt be&g acbiwd rt pmmt. &umul of rhr Town P~bylnrdrure, July/August, 1968.)

It hu been pointed out (e.g. Bailey, 1975; Davis, 1972), that this introducea the podbility that participation could be manipulated in order to educate the public into viewing their own problem8 through profemional or technocratic eyes.

~~hur~~oninthrt11lppsurtorelraowbdle~providefarputiciprtoiy danouwy whib in fact %duatlng” cibnts toward8 profe8donal view baaal on anm8mdM and phydcd rbattn. @aBay, 1975).

A second factor contributing to the popularity of the partidprtion idea is that the public 8l8o were taldng a greater interest in their environment. Greater involvement was being demanded by people in decisions that affected their living conditioru. It could be suggested that this was due to more widespread education but it ir dif&ult to understand why this Merest should have developed 10 suddenly. It hu been claimed (Damer and Hague, 1971; Allkm, 1975) that this was partly due to the increased sprtlal impact of planning prop&, e.g. larger oversplll estates were being built in suburban areas and urban motorway propoulr and ring roada were threatening previously ‘secure’ middle clrtr areas. Ilr a result of thir spread of planning from inner city problems out into the fringes of townr, larger numbers of uticulate, sodal groups wem being affected and, therefore, protest@.

The Interest being shown by both the public at large and the profession meant that the role of partldpation in contributing towards increasing the speed and efficiency of the plan&g process was accepted willingly, even enthusiastically at the time. As Damer and Hague low, developments in America during the 1950s and the academic resurrection of claukal theories of democracy reinforced this position. In the US the phenomenon that later &ame known u

38 Pm in Planning

the ‘advocacy planning’ movement was developing as a response to the lack of representation of the urban poor in the planning process. The planning profession was under heavy fire (e.g. Goodman, 1972; Jacobs, 1961) and citizen participation became the central focus of discu&m within the American profession throughout the decade. This coincided with the interest, outlined earlier, in replacing representative democracy theory with a participatory democracy. Roth the American advocacy planning movement and the participatory democracy movement are essentially political in content, being concerned with how decisions are made and who iniluences them.

These political implications are absent from the Skeffington Report in this country and many of the subsequent problems of participation can be said to stem from this lack of awareness. The Report includes a little of everything and as a result is full of contradictions and vagueness. There is an attempt to fuse together the da&A notion of education through participation, improved efiiciency of decision-making, preservation of representative democracy and involvement of the apathetic. However the relationships between these objectives are not spelt out. It is assumed that all can coexist quite harmoniously. This was (and often still is!) a prevailing view within the profession as the following quote from a recent dtizen’s guide to plem.ling ilhlstrates:-

It il only propel that the public whose well-b&8 ir the ultimate object of planniq. should have its views and wishes taken into account, and that those who feel their interests are threatenal by plans ind development proposala should have the opportunity of object& to them. By the ume token, it ls essential in the public in- that plam&8 should not be made impotent by prolon8ed delays in the partl@atlon and objection ata8es. (T.C.P.A., 1974.)

The Skeffington Report includes many of the arguments of the participatory school in stressing the need for involvement outside elections and emphasising the educative role of partidpation.

There is a growing demand by many groupr for more opportunity to contribute and for more say in the workin out of m which affect people not merely at election time, but continuously as propomls are being hammered out,

and

. . . participation also offers the opportunity of serv@ the community and thereby becomin8 involved in it8 life, contiutiag to its well-be@ and enriol@ its relatlonshipr

It would also seem to oppose the view of the representative school, (e.g. Dahl) in seeing the complexity of society as requiring more, not less, participation.

Life is becoming mom and more complex, and one cannot leave a8 the problems to one’s repreaentative~ They need some help in reach@ the right decision, and opportunity should be provided for di8mudona with an thoBe invohWd.

However, the use of participation as a means of improving the efilciency of the planning process also had its impact on the Skeffmgton Committee. It has been shown how one of the major concerns of central government was to reduce the elaborate and long-winded procedures of the planning system that existed before 1968. One of the major objectives of the new system was therefore to speed up this process and so a thorough, continuous and detailed procedure of consultation and participation with the public would be counter-productive. From this viewpoint, participation could be seen as useful insofar as it resolved conflicts before a plan was produced, thereby reducing opposition at a later stage when considerable investment in time and effort could be wasted. This was the view expressed earlier in the Standing Committee by the Minister of State for Housing and Local Government; he said:-

There is no doubt that our buistence on public pertic@tion will introduoe some delay, rome additional timqatmeulyrtrps.ItirmybslisfthotifitLdoneproperly,it~bctime~rpsatuldit~rm time later. It may even save the need for a public inquiry later. (MacDermot, 27 F’ebruary, 1968.)

These views were also to influence the Skeffington Report. However, it can be seen that care would have to be taken to maintain a balance between early resolution of conflict and the encouragement of involvement in issues that are difficult to resolve, as this could prolong the procedure. The generation of plans is a gradual process, and, as Levin has illustrated, if partidpation is to have any effect it must be able to influence the gradual development of commitment to a particular course of action. Levin lists a number of ways that commitment is

l?morWicnl Pets+ves on Pbnniq wd Pwtkipatiwt 39

created md the piwbruty elcbrr for tschnidrm who wish for 8 speedy and trouble4ree oxorciae to adopt these &ateg&a to countemct the possibility of public h&vement. Commi~nt can inclucie invaatntent of time, staff and resources, approval from influential offkiala end pcditidans before telling the public, an investi&ption of w a dr@e dt@rMive, limitin# the term8 of reference, imposing a deadline, con&g the implications of decision8 end impcdng legal and W binds. As Levin point8 out:-

ApthUO~~br*rCiW~inC0mmOn:thOtfOffOCt1,tO~te -ttorpYtfand eoPnrdU%iOn-tOCM#tr~OIlrltyfOIIWttdl@tO~ Jtemrthe-mdt0doDDbdOrethepUbtk come to rpprschte its axbtex~. (L&II, 1972.)

Such~couldberdoptedtorpeeduptheprocesrofplinning~theMinirtry desires end would therefore cons&& par&ipation to certain welldefined limits.

‘T%ia atea problenu from Skeffington’r other dm of promoting dtizen invoMment and encounging the partic@tion of the Ipathetic. lf the scope for influencing deddonn t 8null then intemst b Iikdy also to be small. The report placea considerable emphasis cm the ‘rprthetie’, trying,

. ..weanumertlmtthcnukiqoftIKJ dem&mnntpluldl~kmappartrrnity forthasewhodonot llomanyt8kapatiaoommualtyrihintodoDo.

In or&r to achieve this, they propore that a community development officer should be appointed to work in the area to provide a catalyst for local opinion.

Ths~svortaitbpeaplrraJdhrrs~Mfn~o;to~M~~torroivemdtrvvmft rsrctbor,udtobe8tinLwithexLtlql~~~topromotenswloaloasr~wouldaanttuny 8tmdonth&faetmilnl8pdntbobtr,forputicfpltbn.

Such a view ma the mlutkm to apathy in terma of organisation and information, assum@ that if this were created then interest and involvement would automaticnlly follow.

GOVERNMENT ACTION SINCE SPEPPINGTON

The report produced little action and the issue remained in limbo for about 3 years. This was pertly due to its inherent contndictiona that failed to relate the propoe& to the existing 8y8tem of reprecentati government. Thu8, although the public and profe&mals may have been enthudutle,thethtrdprrtyfn~~-thecoundnon-fatthnrtenedrctbsyrrwtbdr role dhninWng (see Hampton, 1970; Whams, 1972). These problema were stiIl unms&ed when central gwemment eventualiy published ita views on the report in 1972 in the form of a circular (DoE 52/72).

Thir circular takes a much more restrictive view of participation and drops the idea of community development officers. The generel result of the drcul8r is to #ve great flexibility to local authoritiee on how they interpret the requirements of the Act. They place greater hope on the exis&g institutiona and representatives than on new innovations.

L0alau~Wanmtva umboabbtrJaxtd&wllatmaboQ,~pnMLdty,8re~lrto tbmtO~lhU8hdbdilltbOhpOItUHaDa)otaac” tohMattlmadvaiutbo~tbn ofpkn,aiiobrrsMrdyto~thsmottbrrrsrfarhichtbryliw.M~cooldwsiPnybe~ byollmr@t&tbalcoundnof8aakaptfblty~o_d.... -IhshxotuboofstaterrsbowevaXof theopiaQnthrttherppointm~olCommunfty~~ent~irImMt~tok~lo~ in the spedfk context of development plans. (DoE, 1972.)

The -ml tone of the circular is far lu enthudutic about participation than the SkeffIngton Report. This no doubt results from a realintion of tho political complexities involved and the cunt3mdng central gotranment desire for speedy plen production. lIu18 on the question of information provldon, the drcular state8:-

The chular envIsage cmtain probbms arising from publicity of alternative coumes of action. It could ause v anxiety for thoee affected by propceals that are eventually rejected and waste ttme because of the lare number of objections. However, the department reinforces

40 Propss in Plmnlng

the idea that some contlict~ of interest between individuals and local authorities may be better dealt with at an early informal stage to reduce them later.

pUb~~na:tbe~wlwn~cholcorwr~~...mryhclpreducethermountof mp~tat.ions at the 8tatutory pa&i&ion &age. (DoE, 1972.)

This use of the term ‘stage’ suggests a static model of planning and seems to contradict the view expressed earlier in the circular that ‘public participation is a structural part of the statutory planning process’. The problematic relationship between planning as a process of policymaking and the concrete products required from that process forms one of the major themes in the recent CES reaearch project into rtructure planning (Drake, et al., 1975). The authors detect a tension between the need for continuous participation and the timeconstrdning schedules of plan production. They conch& that it is wry ditBcult to integrate the public response, which has its own momentum, into the tlxed timeapans of the statutory process and, that, as a result, it is important to differentiate between public participation in the planning process and public participation in plan-production. The suitability of techniques may vary accordingly.

In addition to this toning down of participation by the DOE, other developments affecting the role of partidpation have occurred since the 1968 Act. In March 1973 the DoE published a new code of practice for a revised inquiry procedure for the structure plan level of plan preparation. Under the old system everyone had a right of appeal to the Minister over the contents of a development plan and these were heard by an inspector at a public inquiry. However, now, instead of the inspector hearing all the objections to a structure plan, a panel of experts appointed by the Secretary of State would examine only those matters selected by the Secretary of State as affecting his consideration of the plan. The Secretary of State’s duty to consider all objections remains but not all objectors will be given the opportunity of appearing at the ‘examination’ (the new form of public inquiry). This reduced right of hearing is justified on the grounds that the public now have the opportunity to participate in structure plans as set out in the 1968 Act. As a result, the participation process is increased in importance in establishing a relationship between the local authority and the public. The resulting system is that at the top tier of plan-making for the city-wide area (structure plans), the local authority will prepare a plan and a programme of participation. Objectors have recourse to the Minister but he can use his/her discretion on whether to listen to these. Community plans (local plans) are intended to fit within the framework of these top-tier plans and therefore require less dLuussion. in this case there is no recourse at all to the Minister and the local authority is both propagator of plans and judge of objections. However, a participation exercise wfll occur at this level also.

Thus the participation programme has a very critical role as it is the safeguard for local authorities at the local level and central government at the strategic level against accusations of ignoring public attitudes and objections.

However, this situation has been further complicated by the reorganisation of local government. Under the 1972 Local Government Act the responsibilities for structure and local plans were divided between the new county and district councils. Thus counties (metropolitan or shire) prepare the structure plans while the district authorities prepare local plans. This means that the complex relationship between participation exercises and elected representatives, with its theoretic connotations discussed in the hut section, are even more atrained. The neat slotting of local plans into structure plans is less likely to happen as each level will be the responsibility of different political bodies.

This leaves the citizen with fewer rights of objection to plans produced by new district councils. These councils produce the local plans and the only check on these is through the system of elected representatives, i.e. there are no public rights to objection and there is even the likelihood that local plans will not fall within the framework of structure plans which contain the right, though curtailed, of objection to an outside arbiter in the form of the Minister. Reliance in this case is now placed on the participation exercise.

Such a reliance on participation to safeguard the individual rights is even more problematic as response to partidpation exercises so far has proved negligible. Local authorities are at present preoccupied with the technicalities of the procedures in an attempt to improve this situation.

Thsodd Pbtspuc tives on Phnnirjq md &hWpation 4 1

Ith’trcanoftbDpabaicwttm&gilltama iBphiuh#hnbutdprRcea& =4==-~-~-.

,-=61, Jum 1975, p. 2372. Practka Rmbw - Rkbud Mordey.)

PLANNING PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE

The methods adopted by local authorities have followed dmilar patterns (Juud of the Royul Town Phhg Institute, June 1975. They have involved a combination of some or all of the following techniques:- distribution of information brochures often with a return questionnaire, sampk surveys in depth, public meetings, exhibitions, and contact with organisations. The programme undertaken by Cheshire is typical (J. Noble and 1. Gilfoyle, 1975). They set up a travelling exhibition in a caravan that they toured round the county and held public meetings in each town. They supplemented this with three types of publication:- a technical statistical report, a 20 pw popular summary of alternatives, and a newsheet or ‘comic’.

The major problems that these progmmmes face is lack of msponse and the unrepresentative nature of the small respmre that is obtained. For exampk, South Essex distributed quertionnrimrcputofrtpedrldftplryinlocrl~~ipentomorethrnlSOP00h~but obtained 300 completed questionnaires (B. JWdns and G. Barnes, 1975). These w mat@ from manaprid and professional clrrcer. A similar problem exists with public meetings as pohtted out by the DOE Besearch Project into public Participation:-

The eonmtWbn from uta audbnce 8t I llWettng is unlikely to be rqWenWlve even of the alukmcc, much brr of the m public. (P. Stringer and S. Ewans, 1974.)

Typically audiences were ‘male, middle-d, middle class, and well educated’ and if a better croasrtction is desired, then ‘special efforts should be made to draw in female, young and/or working& d&ens. (A similar response to that obtained by Almond and Verba.)

Belknce on contact and discussion with existing organisations has the same problem, as these do not cover all interest or attitudes in a community.

Thus a position has developed in which local authorities are required by statute to provide the facilities for participation, and need to so as to counteract attacks on them as destroyers of individual rights. However, the government hns not given its blessing to community development of&ers or been particularly enthusiastic about community forums. So the local authorities are restricted in their means of overcoming public apathy to their attempta at encouraging partidpotion in planning.

Meanwhile people have been participating spontaneously from within usually apathetic sectors of the community when directly threatened. Community Action groups have sprung up to oppoee decisions at the stage of imminent development, e.g. housing redevelopment schemes or urban motorway propos@s. It has been seen that participation early in the planning process was proposed to try and prevent this late conflict. However, the public has shown very little interest in this. It is now being proposed that permanent institutional structures in the form of neighbourhood councils (a type of urban parish council) should be set up rather than rely on the local authority participation exercises. These councils are not a new idea but were given greater impetus by local government reform which increased the size of each local urban constituency. The case for local urban councils was unsuccessfully argued during the debate on local government reform and in 1970 the Association for Neighbourhood Councils was set up and initiated a number of voluntary schemes. These councils, as representative of very local areas, h8ve often been seen as a useful channel for partidpation programmer (e.g. the GLC used the Colbome Neighbourhood Council in Swinbrook). The idea has now been given central government support.

In a speech in Newcastle in February 1973, the Prime Minister said,

42 Ptvgmss in Planning

As a result, in 1974 the government circulated a discusGon paper to local authorities for comment. In this they indicated how the government is ‘favourably inclined to legislation’ to give neighbourhood councils statutory recognition. There would then be regular elections to these councils, which would be entitled to certain information from, and representation to, the local authority council. It is seen by the government that through ‘co-operation with other bodies’ these councils would provide the focus of community views and hence liaison between the public and local authority. In the paper the government suggest that the main aims of a neighbourhood council are : -

(1) to organ& or stimulate self-help within the local community to improve the quality of life for the residents as a whole (for instance by clearing dumped material from derelict sites);

(2) to help those in the community in need of special facilities (for instance by providing

play-groups); (3) to represent to operational organisations (central and local government, fums with

factories in the area, etc.) the needs and wishes of the local community; (4) in doing all these things, to foster a sense of community responsibility in the residents,

particularly for children and adolescents whose potential for idealism it may help to harness. (DoE, 1974.)

As a result of experiments at Swinbrook, Sparkbrook and elsewhere, it is thought by some (e.g. Paris, 1975) that the negotiation between local authority representatives and local community representatives occurring through the forum of neighbourhood councils will at last allow participation to develop in a way that combines the benefits of both participatory and representative democracy.

CHAPTER 5

Synthesis - Altemativr, kspectivw on Planning Participation

?ERSPECTIVE 1 - CONSENSUS AND STABILITY

44 Ptvgress in Plmning

intimate contact that citizens have of their local environment, a better and more sensitive input i6 obtained for managing the environment. Or in the language of this perspective,

. . . the participation can contribute to the learning ability of the decision-making system by contributing to the reorientation of system-wide goals and norms.

Information then flow6 the other way a6 the local authority publishes it6 view. Public reaction can then lead to modification6 before the plan ir f-d. Thus the plan &pts to public attitude6 but is not formed by them. This emphasis on flow of information is expressed in recommendation6 1,2,3,5,7, and 8 of the Skeffmgton Report.

Vohrc cohesion

It ha6 been 6aid that the cohe.sion of the 6ocial cyrtem within this perspective occur6 through the e6tablbhment of a valueconrennu at the general overriding level. Within the sub+tem of planning tbI6 overriding value occur6 in the notion of ‘the public Interest’. Planner would tee themrelves a6 guardian6 of thi6 public interest and their work would be evahrated on the brrir of being ‘to the benefit of the population a6 a whole.’ Until recently the profetsion accepted this a6 the achievable goal of 6ll their proporPlr. Such a viewpoint coincide6 with the per6pective under discussion. It provide6 planning with a focus of concern around which to resolve differences of opinion and maintain subsyttem stability. Thu6 information received from participation exercises would be used to modify and adapt the composition of ‘the public interest’. The more Information obtained, the greater the legitimacy given to the concept and plan6 justified on the ba6i6 of it. It provide6 the criteria to which individual6 would be expected to subordinate their personal interests.

This provide6 the required loyalty to the planning ry6tem and the more people expretr their view6, the more acceptable the formulation of the public interest will appear. Thus, a6 Almond and Verba 6ay, ‘loyalty i6 engendered by participation’ and rhowr that ‘there exist6 withIn the 6ociety a supra-party solMar@ ba6ed on non-part&an criteria.’ The view6 of the Town Planning Institute regarding the value of participation, quoted earlier, also conform to this penpective. They believe that through participation the relation6 between the public and the professional will improve a6 people reali6e the complex nature of producing objective plan6 that conform to this ‘public interest’.

A6 we 6aw earlier the Pprsonian 6ocial6y6tem ir a system compo6ed of the interaction of individual6 mediated by moral rtandards and norm6. Regulation of behavlour re6ulb from Individual6 having a similar interpretation of a 6ituation leading to stability of the system. Participatior contribute6 toward8 thi6 by helping to fo6ter thi6 6imilar interpretation. Thu6 it is 6een a6 an exe&e at the level of the individual, 6odaMrg people into full integration within society. People are not expected to have different interertr or views bared upon political or economic 6Ituations. At leort the6e difforoncer are rubordinate to certain overriding prindples of integration. A6 a re6ult method6 of participation are to be preferred that are oriented toward6 the Individual rather than method6 that might fo6ter group solidarity again6t 6y6temwide norms. ThI6 latter tendency would rai6e the 6takes in the di6cu66ion of political i66uea and as noted earlier, stmin the ‘myth’ of democracy. Information exchange oriented toward6 individual6 would be preferred to the 6timulation of interert-group involvement. Method6 used at present that conform to thi6 requirement include pre-paid reply questionnaires in local newspapers nnd comment6 made at vMt6 to exhibitions. Rscent techniques are being tued in public meeting6 to prevent the audience being swayed by convincing orators or public tpokermen of particular intererta. The meeting I6 divided into 6maIl di6cuuion groups and each penon in the group given the opportunity to exprerr hir/her attitude6. After a debate the group ha6 to come to 6ome form of con6en6us and this it presented at a 6ub6equent plenary 6es6ion. In this way a ‘common’ view is more likely to result which can be identified with the public interest. This technique helps to promote more sucatrful partidpation a6 seen from this particular per6pective in the framework.

It has been noted that Be&on and Almond and Verba 6tre66 the mixed attitudes to participation needed within the community if stability i6 to be maintained. As a result

lheoretical Rrspectives on lbnning and &tic@t& 15

tmhdquu that are likely to fater a considerable degree of puticipition are to be avoided. Thb~tuprst~~oedmixture.Eitherthershutobe~~thrtthe~cmbe kept mild, in which cam even with stimulation some people will remain apathetic, or rtimuWm has to stop before too many people are involved. It would seem that many plan&g frrusr hve aueed c~&demble public reaction and therefore the second alternati~ seems to be m. From thb penpectfve therefore, community fonrmr and pWkuMy community dsvslopnsnt of&en could not be supported. To encourage previously apathetic people to become involved in highly contentious planning issuea does not forter stability. Hmer certain value8 c8n be seen in neighbourhood councils, which, whfle not podtlvely 8timulating involvement, could be uud to manage any spontaneous action and integrate thim within the rtructum of the overall sy8tem. Therefore, certain of the benefits attributed to neighbourhood cumdls by the government in their discusdon paper would contribute to the stability-forming f&tion of putidpation propounded by this particular perspectivs, e.g.

. ..rtimoktiry~~atthinthsbal~mmunftytofmp~theqprlttyof~afor~~~ur whob;for(m$lr~otcommunityrerpondbgityin~rerlden~,,puticllhrlyfoPcbiMrsnud ado&cmawhoapotenfhlforidsrlirmitfMyhelptohmsa.

It ban been noted how both the theorists of modem democracy and Almond and Verba place great importance on allowing an elite the freedom to m&e dedaiona. As Dahl hu &essed, there L no alternative in a complex modem society if efficient and innovative reaultr are to be obtained. This perspecd~ would lay greater emphasis on the effidency side of the efIldency/ participation dichotomy presented in the introduction to the 1967 Town and Country Planning Bill. An underlying theme throughout the debate ~11 the government’s dedre for improved effldency within the planning system. From the viewpadnt of thir perspective, Thor can only be achkved through allowing an elite to make the deddons, ensuring their accountability, and improving the quality of information on which these decisiona are baaed. Partidpation ir useful inasmuch aa it contributed towarda the latter two objectives without endan@ng the first. It ia seen as a meana of improving communication, coordination and understanding. In thin way people are integrated into an acceptance of the ‘rules of the game’ and the system ir provided with the feedback neasaary for adaptation and maintenance of equilibrium. Conflicta only result from personal miamder8tanding. Thae an be mrcome through partidp8tion that integmtes people into the mainBtmun of sodal vtlhler.

PERSPECTIVE 2 - CONFLICT AND INCREASED CONSCIOUSNESS

‘IMa ir the high change, high partidpation area of the framework. A high degree of change is conddered neceuary and partidpation ir men aa a de&able meana of a&eving this. The problem8 of society are not seen in term8 of the num of individual problema but U a malady in thesy8temorWucture of mociety itself. ‘IW fault in the rtmcture ia so basic that it cannot be ed through adaptation. The problem of the lack of respond to a planning part&at&m exerdw in Coventry has been deac&ed from thim perspe&ve in the following way:-

Thrfal~~dnwffomgthtrfrtht~pr~of~nin $ovenmmtirllotpfbMrny rprobbloftheJattttPberofkh*iom ofmotiomofthapllblkwhodonot~to~te,bntof theltxuam8,~uld~0fthe Gowrmnmt 8ystoau. malu4toa aul adto% 1972.)

Ithlr~~~bannotedthrtthLtrthepodtionWranbyMux,whoceerthertnrctunl problem U that of differential ownership patterns. It is alno the logical conclusion of some of the theorW of p8rtidpatory democmcy who 8ee thic new 8y8tem of democmcy 88 contributing

46 Ptvgms in Planning

to the solution of the basic conflicts evident in society. Participation within the status quo is seen as always being a participation between unequal partners. If power-g and participation in decision-making are to be achieved then these inequalitier have to be eradicated. Thus criticism has been levdled against the local authorities in partidpation exercises for being better informed and able through better argument and expert knowledge to counteract any oppositian. However, the inequality is said to be more basic than this. In commenting on the ability of every person to develop his/her human capadties through participation, Mncpherson claims:-

Such a view therefore sees it as necessary for progress towards the developmental benefit of participation that power in society be distributed on an equal basis. Such a view would not of course surprise Rousseau, who also argued that certain conditions of equality would be necessary for a participatory system. Roth Rousseau and Marx saw the basis of this power in ownership. They saw that differences in ownership would lead to political differences and that this should not be allowed to exist. For Rousseau it was therefore vital that everyone should own some property as this was the basis of the security and independence that would create political equality.

The essence of this perspective is therefore that equality is required in order to create a system of partidpation that is meaningful in both instrumental and developmental terms. For this to happen the power relations in society must be changed. These are radical, structural demands. What means can be used to achieve them and what role can partidpation in planning play? To answer this it is necessary to turn to questions of organisation and consciousness.

Increased conwhwess

The individual has to be made aware of this need for structural changes and this can only be achieved through the increased consciousness that develops from direct experience. This consciousness can be seen to develop through a number of stages (Mann, 1973). First, the individual would come to realise that his/her problem was not an isolated phenomenon but one held by many other people. Then it would be realised that the solution to these common problems was against the interests of other groups in society. The third stage would arise through an awareness that such class opposition pervaded all aspects of the individual’s social situation. The last stage occurs when one conceives of an alternative social structure which one aims at achieving in a struggle against the opponent. How far does planning participation contribute towards this programme of social change? Obviously, improved information would increase the individual’s awareness of the situation. However, even at this level there are problems. Is the information presented in a form which will help the individual understand the broader structural implications from which the necessary conclusions, in the terms of this perspective, could be drawn? The answer, in general, is no. In the London dockland a group of planners have been appointed as advocates for the community while the authorities prepare a plan for the area. One of the jobs that this team has to undertake is to translate the ideas and reports of the professional planners and politicians into a language that can be understood by the people living in the area. This is a vital Arst stage if participation is to raise consciousness.

A further problem of participation as seen from this perspective concerns the type of people who are likely to participate. It was shown earlier how these are likely to be well-educated and middle class. It would be seen as necessary that the poorer sections of society also become involved. From this point of view the community development officer idea of Skeffington would have been welcomed. This officer would be given the brief to try and set up organisations within these sections of the community. In these, people could discuss their problems and ultimately participate in the local authority programmes. Such organisations

Theoretical Perspectives on Planning and Par&i&don 47

would help raise ccnsd- as people became aware of their commul problems. They would provide the focus for further development in demonstrating the nature of oppaing du, forces. However, a delicate balance would have to be achieved to avoid didllurionment and retreat into apathy. Small& projects that do not endanger the stnMumlstatusquohavea gooddunceofsuccesL Thus one sees that the most prevalent result of partic@tion exercises are providars such as chlldren’s play areas on wasteland, old people’s sitting areas or repainting of community halls.

However, according to this perspective, if participation is to ftdfil its full potential in raising consciousness and creating radical change, larger battles have to be fought. Only in this way can the existence of the opposing forces and their widespread nature be malised. It cannot be said that my of the propoeals discuned in the last section concerning partidpation in planning would help in achieving this objective. Advocates of this perspective in planning participation have sought other means to fulfIl these en&. They have attempted to forge links between local community groups and trade councils, trade unions and political parties. In this way they hope that the wider implications and interpenetrating nature of the class struggle will be appreciated.

Some of these advocates believe that the idea of a neighbourhood council could be utilised within the above strategy. It is hoped that these will provide the forum through which previously apathetic and unorganised people could begin to appreciate their situation. It would be expected that the coundlsdemonstrate the confIicting nature of class interests as they come into opposition with the local authority. However, they would have to be transformed before they could play a more pcaitive role. They could be viewed as local&d communes. In this ms the authority would have to be prepared to delegate considerable authority to them. At the moment this is not the case and the amount of Rnance proposed will hardly be sufficient for a local newsheet. In addition, in order to meet the objectives of this perspective, the representatives on the neighbourhood council would be mandated by the local community at public meeting, and would also carry out local executive functions. This last proposal would counteract the general trend towards greater profesaionalisation within local government and create considerable oppceition within the planning profession. No longer would it be neceesary to develop techniques of partidpation to forge links between the ideas and plans produced by prof&onal planners and the public. Partidpation exercises of the kind that formed the subject of the long debate outlined in the last section would cease to exist. At the local level partidpation techniques would become a question of the quality of the mandate.

PERSPECTIVE 3 - CONTAINMENT AND BARGAINING

It has been demonstrated earlier that a major element of this penpective, as elaborately developed by Dahrendorf (1959), is the existence of conflict in society. This perspective would therefore see as erroneous the opinions expressed in the Planning Advisory Group that appeared to ignore such a possibility. Similarly, disagreement would be found with the SkeffIngton Committee when they said,

Mamgement of amj?kt

More recently social problems bars been viewed as creating con&t situations. It was seen earlier when discwdng the views of Walker (1966) that in America the race riots and student unrest brought home to the public a reallsation of the existence of conflict in society. In the UK, the more obvious example is that of Northern Ireland. A common response to this conflict, which falls wlthln this third perspective, is to see it u a result of lack of balance within the democratic system. The sohrtion ls seen as ensuring the involvement of minority or under-representative groups in the poll&al system. In other words, more violent ccnflict ls seen as the lack of representation of certain interest groupr in the peaceful conflict of pa&s in a pluralist system. Thus conflict of interest in a local community should be openly

48 w in Planning

recog&ed and Ynstitutionalised’ to aafeguard society from ita extrapolation into major issues. Don&on follows Dahrendorf in advocating such a conflict management strategy. In a recent paper he ducribes hia propo& for greater cooperation between community development and the existing political and burerucratic rtructursr and continuer, @ng:-

NorunIrPgsrttqlthrt(my~~)woulde~terodrloonflhmdtbe~tofutbrn~ rpufue:ontbroontnry.tbsfrrimbtopromots~prod~oonNet~provlbepr~for ncce&ve, temporary arbitrationr and agreements. when peopb conflict over houhu, play spur. job*, warue~mdotbsrthtDpwhtcbanirrtimekrxten~,rubdividedmd mdhrnnlted almort ~,rmchuMtntionLf~beana~onscmpfnro~homit.Thortheduc oo~commantn~~~ty~fntheloqprrpn~~~~@onnLon,1972.)

How frr such a strategy can be maintained in a period of economic recession is an open question. If &vere limits are imposed upon the ability of government to ‘extend, subdivide and redistribute resourcec almost indefinitely’ then it could be argued that benign, productive conflict would be difkult to achieve. Whether thir creates cooperation baaed upon the con)en8us of a common national crisis or exposes more fundamental conflicts is, of course, a moot political issue.

It is now necessary to relate these ideas to participate in planning. It has been seen how Dahrendorf placer great emphasis on the need to establish mean8 by which conflicts can be remlved, e.g. through conciliation, mediation or arbitratiqn. He would see aa necea8ary the setting up of formal means by which objection8 to planning proposals could be dealt with. Appea!s to the Minister and public inquiries would be seen as a form of institutionalised arbitration. With the withdrawal of this particular form of arbitration it would be considered necessary to replace it with another. Participation would be seen in this light.

It was also seen that necessary conditions for effective conflict regulation are that both parties accept legitimacy of the conflict rituation and that interetts are organiaed into groups. Although many people participating in the planning exercises would condder themselves in conflict with the local authority and other interests, this position ia not no&y accepted by the local authority. Aa long as local government offi&& regard criticism as troublesome and irrespondble, the necus8ary preconditions for ‘constructive conflict’ will be absent. In order to establish the second precondition, that of organised groups, this perspective would welcome the Skeffington idea of a community forum and a community development officer. This would provide a focus for existing interest groups and stimulate the formation of new ones where interests are under-represented. As indicated above, this would be seen as leading to the elimination of many social problems. In this context the idea of neighbourhood councils could also be useful, as Donnison says, to

. . . provi&e more efktive mean1 for arbitration between ~vunment and the governed to make these oonflicts more productive. @on&on, 1972.)

Dahrendorf (1975) has expressed the need for a body which

. . . brings organintiona into a rtructure of general respom+ibUity and m&es it therefore impossible to ignore them and unnwuuy to ftght them.

At the community level, neighbourhood councils would seem to be ideal for this purpose and some of the aims mentioned in the government discussion paper would seem to confirm this, e.g. ‘to foster a sense of community responsibility in the residents’. These councils would present the necerury organisation structure within which conflicts can be contained and would detract from the possibility of more spontaneous, radical and aggressive opposition. This is necessary if the goal of this perspective for peaceful, gradual change is to be real&d.

In addition many of the actual techniques of participation that are in use could be seen as contributing to this aim of gradual reform. Information oriented towards providing under-represented and under-privileged people with better means of entering the arena of organised bargaining would be welcome. ‘l%is would generally have to occur within existing legislation and policy as the acceptance of the ‘rules of the bargaining game’ by both parties is another precondition for effective participation within this perspective.

T.mkal f%t’4uacti~ on Plrnniw md ~c~p~on

COYYENTS AND FURTHER QUESTIONS

'Ibis essay has dircwed nome of the theoretical issues surrounding plan&~ participation and hu augpted a theomtial framework within which these could be developed fbther. It ir not dalmed that this i( a comprehenalve treatment but that the major dlmendona have been corutructed as a context within which to examine further queatlons. It ia hoped that aa a raault putidprliontechaiquecwmkreviewedinamoncri~~wry.Thf,lrrtrectiondnwrrom threada to@her and posu some questions for further thought.

h mentioned in the introduction, 8 yean have elapsed dnce the rtatutory requimment for encourag& partidpation appeared in the 1968 Act. Many rtructure plana have been produced and a body of experience is building up concern@ the way in which these statutory requlremenb should be met. Racentty the DoE sponsomd the Unked Research Reject into public participation in structure plannine to monitor this experience. ‘Ihe aim of thi8 project ia to ‘gather and d&&rate information about the effectiveneaa of various techniqm of publldty and public partMpation when employed in different circurmtmcer.’ However, uyet,~hu~nnodircutdonaboutthecriteriotobewedto~thic ‘effectlveneas’ and the reports produced so far have stressed that they are confined to description. Neverthe& one of the reports hints that it ls necessary to go beyond a descripth account.

Themodtoam&&whatr&frexpecMofparUc&m&nfntbu stmctunplmaeontextbpalupa themccl0dbnootokhordfiomtbecbeahaaexu&a . . ..if@uuulramda8rutotlurobof publkp8rtMp8tbDllill8uucuua phnnial-beitfnfannrtiondripI,M~ueoooIlrctlw.intaretbn orreomblnrtbnofantbrw-rad8raeonrdop, oftbuporiMstmIt&MbluwMchfoabr~lmtaa ~thrtrdsinrPUttEllhrrry,~thsr~~tok~~to~rlthpblie pddpatioa wbea it - (Liked Ramarch Project, InteAm Remarch Papa 8.1975.)

Thlr mts that plannen need a preconception of the role of partidpatlon if they are to act effectively. It haa been the thesis of this article that thl~ role or purpose of partidpation will have to be ma& clear before any assessment of its success can be made. A range of pcedble attitudes that can be adopted re@inB the purpose of participation haa been outlined (of a much broader nature than the alternatives in the above parup). There are lndicatlont that central government will requect local authoritiec to state the objectlver of their participation progmmmes and even ask them to formulate ‘achievement criteria’. If thi, occurs it will become even more important that local authorities have a clear purpore ln mind. It is suwted that the lack of d&ussion and @lance from the h&Wry about the purpose of partidpation will result in the adoption, by default, of a particular penpective. The alternatives need to be debated.

This article has shown that there are a number of alternative theoretical penpectivsr and that al2 approaches and views on planning partidpation can be related to this range of theories. Whether or not these theoretical aspects are made explicit is immaterial; they exist. A lack of theoriting and/or a belief in the political neutrality of planning and partldpation does not provide exemption from a value position. The approach to partidpation as a tech&al exercise free of them ideological connotations is no more than conservative support for existing social relations. Maybe these existing relations are considered dealrable but it has to be realised that there are other equally valid positions. There is nothing particularly superior, in itself, about a value position that supports the status quo.

It is many years now since Inner and Hague (1971) wrote their article criticis@ the offlclal view of participation as an attempt to improve the admin&rative effldency of the planning process. Ministry statements since then appear to reinforce this view and emphaaiae information exchange rather than participation in decidon-mak&l. Gff&l attitudes do not cebm to ti changed much dnce PAG days with plann@ rtm conaldered a~ a technical prooarr and pditlcs only introduced through the formal level of the council chamber. From thi# perspective partidpation can be divided into technical participation in the planning proas - thus a matter of information exchanp and better undmatan&8, and political partidpation through elections. ‘lhus it ir not surpridng that the Ministry wiahw to strengthen mpreaentative dsmocrocy and a form of partidpation that does not interfere with thi8 deddon-mak@ model. For example, it has been shown earlier that they do not


view Neighbourhood Councils as decision-making bodies but as institutions which function

. . . to repent to operational oraanisatiom (central aad local govermnant, f-s with factories in the area, etc. . . ) the needs and mea of the local community. (DoE, 1974.)

In other words, the decssions based upon these needs and wishes will be made outside the local community. Similarly in their brief to the Sheffiod Linked Research Project they ask for information which will help local authorities

Note the words ‘publicising’ and ‘constructive response’; how far have offMal attitudes moved since PAG?

Participation is sometimes viewed as a means of improving and strengthening representative democracy. The argument is that if better information can flow between the public and councillors then the latter wilJ become more responaive and better decisions will be made. As a result people will be less concerned about their own involvement. This view makes two assumptions. Firstly, that it is only lack of information that prevents ‘good’ (i.e. community oriented) decisions. Maybe there are other factors, such as vested interests, that influence the actions of councillors which never become a ‘vlsiie’ issue at election time. No amount of additional information from the constituents could change this. Secondly, this view rejects the value of the developmental aspects of participation, i.e. a better education, understanding and personal development for all those who take part. This view that participation should be used to support and strengthen representative processes leads to an emphasis on information exchange similar to that propoaed in Ministry statements.

Ministry attitudes to participation conform to a particular perspective. This contains implicit views on the purpose of participation based upon the attitudes d&ussed above, viz. the reinforcement of representative democracy, efficiency, information exchange and the promotion of better understanding between the public and local authority. This places the Ministry view in the stability, low participation, area of the framework as shown in Fig. 5.1.

High

B Lee

Raising carac~au~ness NC’s to bs transformed into mandated camnunes with delegated pavers. Need to eaualise pow~ posrtions and locate problems within structure of society. CDO’S to translate language and

Containment explain this broader structure

NC’s to provide a - no prafessions

bargaming framework to manage conflict CD& and ccmmunity forums to cqanise interests into groups.

Integration Information to improve

NC’s as channel of groups bargaining power

saculuatian- infarmatlon over reform issues.

achange- cammuncation, public exhibitions, NC = Neigh&Mood council questlannoircs.sacioI survey& support views

CM) *~~$~liWeloP-

of RAG and circular 52/72

Low High Degree of particrpahon

FIG 5.1. Summary of altematlve affltudes to participation

From such a perspective the purpose of particiption is seen as improving the integration of people into society and preserving social stability. The criteria of successful participation would therefore stem from its contribution to this stability, the development of responsible public attitudes ( c.f. civic culture), and the degree of communication between the system (the local authority) and its environment (the public), From this integration perspective the evaluation would include the following questions:-

(1) To what extent does participation contribute to stability in the community, good relations between public and local authority and a responsible attitude to decision-making?

l?mmtical PsrywK: tives on Planning md Aflici~th 51

(2) To this end, doea the participation exe&e premrve the ‘myth’ of democracy and keep repmaentaker on t&ir toes? ice. doea it foster the development of a b&nced Uvic culture’? (See Chapter 2 on Almond and Verba.)

(3) Does tlw w of information allow for the adjustment of poli&s, if this in m, to prevent public outcry arid a threat to the stability of the system?

ItcaJdberridthrtpt~towudrBchievtnsthecerimrhprbecnquitegood.~e Ministry advIce in Cimular 52/72 provides the n&%sary mean6 to achieve them aims without introduc@ the ‘unbdandng’ influences of a community development ofRcer or community forum. ‘Ilm teclmiqw being implemented by local authorities deacdbed sarller and fully doammted by tk Unked Rscearch Project, could be said to be compatible with this pempedive. This prsrrging approach, based upon a technical vahre-free 8tance, is only one poaible attitude to p8rtidpation. If viewed from alternative perspective8 alternative view¶ of the role and purpooe of putidpation result.

A mcond perspective can be identified that seeks the fullest possible par&ipation and a high degree of sodal ch8npe. The purpome underlying participation in this case ia to raise the level of B throujjhout rociety (see Fig. 5.1). The equahmtion of power relations Ic comhlered m before effective participation can be acUeved. *while, participation is a lw~lu of progem@ towards this required equality. Thus, some of the questiona to ask of the putidpation procem from this perspective are:-

(1) To what extent does the participation exe&e contribute to the equalisation of power throu@ut aod!ety?

(2) To this end, does the exer& involve the lena educated, less powerful and the ‘nCtlt jdIWS’?

(3) To what extent da partidpation in planning help to educate people into an understand of the M of inequality and conflict throughout rociety?

There L little evidence of progrers toward8 these eim, within the plan&3 participntion movement itself. Power ir still atrongly retained in particular sections of society. Although the idea of kdghbourhood Councils could be developed in a way that would allow for power-, there in no indication that this is intended as the lack of delegated msponsibility and limited finance preclude this. Also, the lack of official interest in the community development officer idea can be aen as a lost opportunity to involve the less powerful in sodety. Perhaps limited progress to meet the aims of this perspective can be detected in the CDP’r and the work of the London dockland team; in these restricted exampku increased corudousrten of sodal conflicta by the deprived communities could de*alop.

The third penpectfve, e.p. as propounded by Dahrendorf and Dorm&on, would examine the 8&evement of the puticiprtion exerdse in terms of its success in manrgine conflict. The kin& of question &ed would include:-

(1) Has a Mructure been dev&d to allow different Were&s to demon&ate their confhctin~ vbrvr and reach a compromi8e?

(2) To thb end, ha8 the participation exercise stimulated the formation of groupa to repreeent 8ll interests?

(3) Have the ‘rule8 of the game’ and the mediation or arbitration process met with general approval and therefore allowed for the institutionabsation of conflict?

It would be hoped that certain latently explosive conflicts in society could be prevented from machin3 a confrontation duration. Community development off&n could be benefIdal in bm certain interests into the ‘game’, and community forums could provide 8 weful context in which oppodng views could be for@ out. However, as neither of then idea8 brve been generally accepted, Neighbourhood Councils could be viewed as a possible 8ltem8tive to provide the nv organi8ational structure.

Attemativs criteria for ev&ating participation have been prsrented. These criteria have explored beyond a simple count of the number of people respond@ to different techmquea and aked queWioa8 about the quality of the rwponse and the benefIta @ed from it, either for the individual or w u a whole. ‘Ihe arpument of thh paper hu been that different theoretic8l perspectives present ultemutiue evaluation aitmh. It might be uprrd, in zas zvy then criteria can be regarded I mplementary mtber than

. ~~willbema6onthitinordertodemonrtnteromeofthe

52 f+vpms in Pbnning

problems that would arise if alternative perspectives were combined. A participation exercise would achieve a high ‘score’ from perspective 2, seeking to raise

consciousness, if everyone were involved and, through their involvement, were able to identify the structunl contradictions in society. ‘l%is same exercise, however, would fare badly according to the criteria of perspective 1 seeking to integrate everyone into the commonly agreed ‘value system’. This type of partidpation would be seen to be detrimental to good community relations and responsible attitudes, and would strain the democratic myth. Meanwhile the third pempective would advocate participation through mup involvement, in or&r to thrash out differences of opinion; conilicting views would be recognised but not allowed to reach the level of criticidng the structural conditions within society as a whole. Therefore this third view differs from the second in seeking the resolutin of conflict at an early stage. This is directly opposed to the view that s&s to extrapolate from this more local conilict situation to an understanding of the way these conflicts are linked to more broader social conflicts.

In summary, therefore, perspective 1 does not ncognise conflicts in society, other than those based on personal non~nformity; perspective 3 recognises conflicts of interest but advocates their early resolution; perspective 2 not only recognises conilicts but advocates that these should be better understood and linked to broader more basic conflicts throughout the structure of society. Such differences in outlook cannot be combined in a single list of evahration criteria.

It has also been shown that these different perspectives embody different attitudes to representative democracy. In other words, conflicting views of democracy result from varying views of social change. The consensus view relies on the representative system to make efficient decisions, the conflict view often sees the representative systems as a mediating agent in the process of class confhct and therefore requiring basic overhaul; while the intermediate, containment view seeks to open up the representative ayatem to wider and more equitable pressures. Similarly, different attitudes to participatory democracy result. This form of democracy can be viewed as a means of raising consciousness and thereby instigating social change, or as rather turn- as the existing, well-proven, system should not be unduly disturbed.

This essay has been concerned with partidpation in the planning process but there have also been suggestions (e.g. Plowden, Seebohm and Maud Reports) that there should be more participation in other areas of local government. It has been frequently pointed out that the planning department often takes on the burden of other departments with respect to participation. This occurs because the general public has few channels of access to other departments and in any case do not distinguish between departmental responsibilities. It is difficult to argue logically for the continuation of this restricted approach to local authority partidpation. Partidpation must develop in other policy areas involving all departments, ideally, as the CES Structure Plan Research team advocate, in a coordinated fashion. Participation in the council affairs as a whole, involving the allocation of finance, would bring involvement nearer to the centre of power in local government. If this were to occur it would become even more nv to ask the questions that have been raised in this essay. The conflicts between representative and participatory democracy would be exposed to an even greater extent. If participation were not to develop in this direction, it could be argued that participatory democracy would remain an ilhrsion. Partidpation confined to planning, with weak powers of implementation and control of fhrance, would not strain Almond and Verba’s democratic ‘myth’.

Another issue raised by this artide but not fully explored is that of power relations. The conflict view believes that unless power is delegated then participation will always be meaningless as those with the monopoly of power can always choose to ignore the results of the exercise. It is considered essential that society is restructured to create equalisation of resources, and hence power, thus providing everyone with the potential to employ sanctions in a participation relationship. Those of Dahrendorf’s persuasion would aim at the equalisation of power between all groups, representing all interests in society, but allowing none to dominate. More power and equal access to the bargaining arena would be encouraged for disadvantaged groups. On the other hand, according to the consensus view, power ia an

Theoraticai l%~ttk on Plrnni~ and Putici~tion 53

attribute that ac4xlm to certain pa&i0M of authority in society as a result of the commonly ~~danttrlnhreryrtem.Thw~irr~~uredbytbebgitimLedlsrdenhipto make decisions In the general Interest of the whok community. EqUlisatlon of powot is neitherlMBsarynorpoulbk.

Ihe dtscusdon of power has certain implications for the role of the pl8nner. The planners’ influsncsradbeitimrcytnthsdecidonnuldngpr~Lbrredu~hfJherclrimt0 superior knowledge backed up by professional status. This raisea a question about the planners’ relatio&Ip to public participation. Will some of the planmn’ power be eroded by the greater dkmitutial of knowledge through p8&ipation? Should 8 loweling of professional claims be encouraged? The answer to these issues again depends upon tho p8rtMar tbeorotic8l perspective chosen. The powor relatioruhip between the professional and the client is very interestingly dkussed by Johnson (1972), and his typology an be related to the theoretical perspectives used in this essay.

The mncus view of sod8l or&r allocates a partkuhu function to the professions which matches the ‘kolleg&tc’ approach described by Johnson. In this approach the professional takes the lead in determining the needs and requirements of the community and thewryinwhich~ueratitfled.Pmo~MdthoreofthestNctunlfirnctionrlrchool~ the professionals taking a key role in the formation and diikdon of the ‘central vahre system’. They would agree with Durkheim that professional organisations are a nocusary precondition of consensus in society and a major force in maintaining the moral order in modem rociety. (The contemporary replacement for tho medieval church?) Thus 8ccording to this view,

. . . onrpsofoabnalinrtltutbB88m . ..anbnport8ut~f~&lour~rocbtyd fhloplfi~fntllrnrtbarlurochtbn,tbeyprcrrid4~~~tchrnrrslof~~~~nrritb ths~~bdsnofotbercountrisc,~~to~~worldo~.(K.LyM~~by Johmolll1972, p. 14.).

According to the perspective that views partidpation as a means of raising consdo-, profowionals should larply disappear as executive functions are taken over by mandated delegates. The educational beneAts of partidpation would create a cyckl process of ever increadng understanding of plamring issues. In this way there would be a shifting of power, based on expertise, from a small group of profesdonals to the public. This was the method adopted in the Paris Commune and advocated by Marx. It relates to the ‘patronage’ version of professionalism, outllnod by Johnson, in which the community would determine needs and control the action of planners.

The third perspective, i.e. gradual change through the institutionalisation of conflict, would view the professionals as key personnel in fulfilhng the mediation or arbitration function. They would help in resolving conflicts and reaching compromises. As in tho first perspective this resolution would be based upon a notion of the overall public good or interest. However; the planner would explore the competing views expressed in the bargaining process in order to formulate this public interest rather than taking a loading role. Johnson describes this third view of the professions as that of ‘mediation’ epitomised by the personal and social welfare functions of local government which act to guarantee 8 mrtain minlmum level of service for everyone. Within such an approach, professionals will attempt to ensure that suffldent participation occurs throughout society to allow them to carry out their mediating function equitably and effrdontly.

Thus the role given to the professional in society varies according to the particular theory of sodal or&r chosen. The major element of variation is the power balance between client and professional, community and phumer. lhe purpose and dogra of participation that planners consider appropriate will depend upon their interpretation of their professional role which, in turn, depends upon the theoretical penpcctive they select. If the majority of planners see their role as a leading or mediating one, as guardians of the public interest, then this will limit their perception of participation. This raises the question of who should be asked to determine the purpcse of partidpation and evahrate the results. Clearly if planners do this their view will be dependent on whether, for example, they accept the Durkheim or Dahrendorfview of their own position. In their research the CES Structure Plan Research team discovered that most planning officers see partidpation as a means of improving the flow of information between public and officers or, alternatively, as a waste of time because the public will never

54 Progms in Planning

be able to understand the complications involved (Drake et al., 1975, p. 112). Neither of these two views envisages a shift of power between the planner and the public or between groups within the public. The team also detected what they describe as a ‘small but growing number’ of planners who identify with under privileged sections of their communities. These planners wish to take up the cause of these groups ‘to make sure that their interests are equally well or better represented in the plamring process’. This matches the mediating role of the planner in a pluralist, bargaining, society as described by Dahrendorf.

It could be suggested that the confIict view of society, which believes in participation as an agent of social change and in a need for drastic delegation of power from professional elites to the community, will never gain much support from professional planners. However, many groups in society might regard these as legitimate aims and it is therefore necessary to ash whether they should also have a say in dete rmining the purpose of participation. In an interesting report (Community Advancement Project, Public Participation in Structure Planning; the Teesside experience, CES, 1976), the community representatives participating in the Teesside structure plan present their views on the exercise. It seems appropriate to end with a quote from their report.

. . . the contiuuing examination and debating of how public participation may be made effective is itself an important part of public participation. (p. 76.)

In other words, the evaluation of planning participation should not be left to the Ministry or the planning profession but should be broadened to include all groups in society. Thig is necessary because there are many alternative approaches to the issue based upon differing views of social or&r and change. These- different views need to be made explicit, and debated. There is the danger that this will not happen and that the evaluation of plamring participation will occur within an implicit consensus view of society. The purpose of participation and the criteria for judging its success cannot be determined in a technical value-free way. These are political and ideological issues.

A view cannot be formulated on them without also involving an attitude on the need for, and nature of, change in the present social structure.

Reikwms and Bibtiograph y

ALL&ON, L (1975) Environmenmt Ptanntng. Mm & Unwin, London. ALMOND, G. end VERBA, S. (1965) The civic CLlfure. Little & Brown, Boston. BACHRACH, P. (1967) 7Be llreory of Lkmocra~lc Elitism. Little a Brown, Boston. BACHRACH, P. end BARATZ (1962) ‘&!o feces of power. Am Pottrfcd Set Rev., December. BAILEY, J. (1975) So&t Theory for Pining. Rokddge & Kegen Peul, London. BARRY, B. (1970) Sociotogirts, Economirrs and Dcmocrocy. Collier Ildrcmillen, London. BENEVOLO, L (1967) nrc Or&ins of Modem Town FMntng. Routkd8e & Kqw Peul, London. BERELSON, B., LAWRSFELD, P. end MCPHEE, W. (1954) Voring. Unlveraity of Qllcrto Preea, Chkeso. BERRINGTON. J. d SKELTON, P. (1972) Pub& partkipetion ln decislobmrkiry by governmenti

Institute of Mu&i@ Trasurers end Accountlntr aeminu, Aupst. BERRY, D. (1970) me sbcrorog, o/Gram Root Pdkkx Manitlm. bx~Ioh BOWLBY. V. (1946) PIychoM end democrecv. M&M Quurrertx BUTLER,~ D. &d Sm. D.T1%9) PotMeat -&me tn Bkatn. l&dlhn, London. CAMPBBLL., A. (1962) ‘Ihe Pa&e Citken. Acra Socfo&gica, 6. CAMPBELL. A.. GURIN. G. and MILLER, W. (1954) The VorerDecides. Row, Illinois. m 1. (1967) R&sure Groups and Pot&id Cbtfure. Routledge & Kegen Paul, London COHEN. P. (19681 Modem So& 7Mx~. Heinemum. London. COSE~~L (19Sa> me Functtons of So&l Conpict. I&e Press, New York. Community Advenceme nt Project (1976) PubIic p&ciprtbn in rtnrcture plenniq: the Tewide e~peri~~e,

CES RPl4. DAHL, R. A. (1956) A Reface to Democradc l%rrory. Unlveraity of Chkego Preu, -ego. DAHL, R A. (1966) Further reflections on the ‘elitist theory of democracy’. Am Potfticat Set. Rev. DAHRENDORF, R. (1959) Class and C&s Confltcr in an Indurtriat &x&y. Routledge a Kqpn Paul, London DAHRENDORF, R. (1975) me New Liberty. Routledge & Kw Paul, London. DAMER. S. end HAGUE, C. (1971) Public p&cipetbn in plenning. Town Ptanntng Rev&w, 42, July. DAVIES, J. G. (1972) The Evangetistic Bureaucrat. T&stock, London. DAVIS, L. (1964) The cost of nxllsm; contemporary restatementa of democracy. Wnlem PoHdcd

lkpart!%?ke hvironmant (1972a) Circular 52/72 DOE - Town end Country Pluming Act 1971, P8rt II, Development plen prcpti, publkity end public participation.

Depertment of the Environment (1972b) Lo& Government Act. Deputment of the Environment (1973) Structure plens. the Exuninrtion in Public. CIrculer 36/73 Deputment of the Environment~l974) Neighbourhood councila In En&d. D&cwaion pepcz. Dep~;gtoti~;tudu?s, Shemeld Univexsity. Linked Reecuch Project Into Pub& Puticiprtion

STRINGER, P. end PLUMRIDGE, G. (19748) Publicity end communkrtiona medk in structure plrmiaq. (Interim Reaeuch Pepa 1.)

STRINGER, P. and EWENS, S. (1974) PutMpation throufi publk meetings: the cue in NE Lence&u (Interim Renerch Rpea 2.1

STRINGER, P. end PLUMRIDGE, G. (1974b) Consultrtion with or8enMion1 on the NE m edviaory plul. (Interim R8nerch Paper 3.1

HAMP’ION, W. end WALKER, R. (19750) The role of a work@ party in cons&ring the public rerponee to e dr& structure plen; e aae study from Tee&e. (Interim Remerch Peper 4.)

HAMPlON, W. end WALKER, R. (1975b) The role of consultmta In the public pertkiprtion procur: the Teeskle -ct. (Interim Reeeuch Paper 5.1

BOADEN, N. end tXLLINS, N. (1975) Consult&m with orgenintbna in the Meneydde Mxture plen. (Interhn Reaeerch Paper 6.)

S’IRINGER, P. mul PLUMRIDGE, G. (1975) PublMty guidelines. (Interim Relurch Peper 7.) GOLDSMITH, M. end SAUNDERS, P. (1975) The tele of Lewis the cat. Publk putkipetion end

settlement policy la cheahira (Interim Rweerch Peper 8.) GOLD-, M. end SAUNDERS, P. (1976) P&cipttion through public matings: the cut in

m (Interim Reseu& PIper 9.) DONNISON, D. (1972) Mkxogolitics of the city. Conference pepa, Centre for Environmental SW DOWSE, R. end HUGHES, J. (1972) pbltzfcat Socfot~. Wiley, London. DRAJCE, MCLOUGHLIN, THOMPSON end THORNLEY (1975) Aspects of Strucfure P&m&g in Bdain,

CES Iwo. DUNCAN, G. end LUKES, S. (1963) The new dernocrecy. Potiricat Sntdies. FOLEY, D. (1960) British town plans&g: onu ideology or three? Br. /. Sociology. 11. GOODMAN, R. (1972) After the Jhnets. hngufn, London.

56

56 proonssS in Plenning

HAGUE, C. and MCCOURT, A. (1974) Comprehensive planning, public participation and the public interest. Urban Studies.

HAMPTON, W. (1970) Democracy und Community. O.U.P. London. HAMPTON, W. (1971) Little men in big socictics. Royal Town Plonnhg Institute Journal, April. HARVEY, D. (1973) Social Justfce and the CYty. E. Arnold, London. HORTON, J. (1966) Order and conflict theorks of so&l problems as competing ideologies. Am. J.

Sociology. HOWARD, E. (1966) Canfen Cities of Tomorrow. Faber, London. JACOBS, J. (1961) me Depth und Life of Greut An&can Cities. Random, New York. JOHNSON, T. J. (1972) Profcssionsand Power. Macmlllm, London. KORNHAUSER, W. (1960) The Fblltlcs of Mass Society. Routledge 6i Kegan Paul, Londoa KROPOTKIN, P. (1975) Ffefds. Fucrorfes und Workshops, C. Ward (ad.). Allen & Unwin, London. LANE, R. (1959) Pofi&uf Life. Free Press, New York. LEMN, P. (1972) Prom for participation in pm. Fabian Society. LIPSET, S. hf. (1960) Poffricaf hfun. Heinemnn, London. LOCKWOOD, D. (1956) Some remarks on me Sodal System’. Br. 1. Sociology. LUKE& S. (1967) Alienation and anomie in philomphy, pdltlcs crnd Sociery, HL MANN, hi. (1973) Consciousness mad Act&n umong the Western Working C&us. Nrcmlllm, London. MARRIS, P. and REIN, N. (1967) Demmas of Social Reform Routledge & Kw Paul, London. MARX, K. (18438) Cntfque of Hegel’s phffoso~y of Rf@. Reprinted 1963, T. Bottomore, Karl Marx -

Eurfy lt+itfngs, Watts, London. MARX, K. (1843b) On the Jew&h Quertion. Reprinted 1963, T. Bottomore, Karl Marx - Eurfy WrfHngs,

Watts, London. MARX, K. (1845) me German ideofo~, (with En@, F.). Reprinted 1964, Lawrenca & Wu London. MARX, K. (1847) 7?re hverry of plmooophy. Reprintal 1956, hwrcnca & Wbhut, London. MARX, K. (1848) 7%e Communisr Munlfesto, (with E&s, F.). Reprinted 1973, Pelican Marx Library,

Pen&n, London MARX, K. (1849) Wage-hbowund Copitaf. Reprinted 1969, Progrus Publi&en, Noacow. MARX, K. (1852) 7%e Efghreenrh Bnmafre of Louis Bonapurte. Reprintad 1973, Polkan Marx Ihary,

Penguin, London MARX, K. (1859) Reface to a Ckitique of Poflrlcrrl Economy. Reprinted 1971, hwrenca & Wishart, London. MARX, K. (1871) me &U War In hnce. Reprinted 1973, Pa&an Marx Library, Pcquin, Lodon. MCCLOSKY, M. (1964) Consensus and ideolqy in amezhn politlch Am Ibfiffcaf Sci Rev. MCLEISH, J. (1969) me 77reoory of So&l &we. Routlad8a & Kagan Paul, London. MCLOUGHLIN, J. B. (1969) Urban and Regional Plonnfng. Faber, London. MCLOUGHLIN, J. B. and THORNL.EY, J. (1972) Some problems in Structure PIann&: a Utcratum

r&ew, CEsIF27. MACPHERSON, C. B. (1966) l7re Real World of Denwctucy. O.U.P., New York. MACPHERSON, C. B. (1973)Democmtfc meory. O.U.P., London. MILLBRATH, L.. (1965) Politlal Participation. Rand Ncnally, Chica80. MILL, J. S. (1910) Represenrarfve Covemmmt. Every- London. MILL, J. S. (1963) Essuys on &Ii&s und Cl&we. In: Himmalfard, C. (ad.), Smith, New York. Mhistry of Housin8 and Local Government (1967) Town and Country Plannisp Bill, atandirq committee -

3rd. 4th. 5th. 6th and 7th rittin8s on 22 February, 27 February, 5 March and 7 March. Ministry of Housiry and Local Government (1968) Town and Country PIann& Act. (consolidated later in

the 1971 Town and Country Phnning Act.) Ministry of Houw and Loat Government (1969) People and planniq (&-ton Report). MORDEY, R. (1975) Practice review. The Pbnner, June. MORRIS JONES, W. (1954) In defense of apathy. Pofftlcof Studfas. Natiotul Community Development Project (1974) Inter-project Report. NEWTON, K. ( 1969) A critique of the plumlist modal. AC& Sociologica. NOBLE, J. and GILFOYLE, I. (1975) Participation in structure plann@. 7he hnner. March. PARIS, C. (1975) plrticfpatory urban renewal. flit Planner, Mu&. PARRY, G. (ed.) (1972) Purtfcfputkm fn Politics. wer University Rear, %nchester. PARSONS, T. (1960) Stmctum and Process in Modem &x&r&s. Free Press, New York. PARSONS, T. and SHILS (ala.) (195 1) Tow&u General Theov of Acfion. Huvud University Press,

Cambrkigc, Mauachhctts. PATEMAN, C. (1970) hticipution and Democrutic Theory. Cambridge Univmdty Press, London. PERKINS, B. and BARNES, G. (1975) A plum& choice. nrc Plunner, Much. PLyylinp Advbosy Group (1965) Ihe Future of Development Plans. HMSO. PROTHRO and GRIGG (1960) Fundamaatal principbs of democracy. 1. &k&s, XXII, Nay. REX, J. (1961) Key tibfems of Socfofogfcuf 7%eory. Routl*e & Kelpn Paul, London. REISMAN, D. md GLAZER, N. (1950) QiterL for po&kal apathy. Shldlcr in Leadership. A. Gouldner

(cd.). Rurdl, New York. ROKKAN, S. (1962) Approaches to the study of political partkiprtion. Acru Sociologica ROSENBERG, M. (1954) Some bsterminanta of political apathy. FUbfic Opbdon Quarterly. ROUSSEAS, S. and FARGANIS, J. (1963) American politics and the end of ldaology. Br. 1. Sociofow ROUSSEAU, J. S. (1968) me So&f Contrucr. Pes@n, London. SCHUMPETER, J. (1943) Ckpfruftsm. Socfalism and Damocmcy.‘ABen dt Unwin, London. SHARPE, T. (1966) m pknning. J. Town PlcrnnfngInrrffute. 52. NMMIE, J. (1974) Cltlrens in Conflict. Hainemarm, London. SMlTH, R W. (1973) A theoretical basis for participatory Plan&g. Policy Sciences. STRE’ITON. H. (1969) llre Pc&icd Scfences. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London STYLES, B. (1971) Public pudcfprtion - A reconsideration. Royuf Town FYanning Instiru~e Journal.

April.

lhwtvtkai Perywrc tim on Planning and Par&&a tion 57

TAYLOR, I., WALTON, P. and YOUNG, J. (1973) 791e New CMninoZogy. Routledge L Kqm Paul, London. TAYLOR, I, WALTON, P. end YOUNG, J. (edr) (1975) ch’tlcrrl CVimfnology. Rout&& & Kegan Paul,

LOXldOlL Town end Countxy Pluming Aaeocietion (1974) The new citizen’s guide to town end country pleoning. WALKER, J. (1%6) A CMt4ue of the Elitist Theory of Democmcy. Am. politferrl Sci. Rsv. WILLIAblS, G. (1972) Puticiprtion et the neighbourhood level in Britain. Communlry Lkvebpmcnt

Journal, October. WLLIAMS, R. (1961) 7k Long Revolution. Chatto, London.

theoretical perspectives on planning participation

Documents