This session addresses another “planning classic” —Paul Davidoff’s argument for advocacy planning. The case poses a fundamental question to help wrap up this part of the course: Can planning be an effective tool if the parties “at the table” subscribe to very different notions of what good planning and “the good plan” are?
The social context for Davidoff’s (1965) essay, like that of Arnstein’s on the “ladder of citizen participation,” was the turbulent late 1960s. Davidoff is discontented with the rational planning model, a common theme across our discussion of “planning as politics” and “planning as collaboration”. However, the argument heads in a new direction - Davidoff urges planners to be advocates for client interest groups (as attorneys are), not just technicians, and to engage in the “contentious work” of developing policy. He proposes that there be multiple plans, including “community” plans, rather than a single public plan. Forty years later, Innes and Gruber examine a clash of styles in transportation planning by considering the range of players involved and how they act to influence plans and outcomes, and what they assume. Note that Innes and Gruber treat Davidoff as part of the “social movement” style and specifically as part of “oppositional” politics.
Your discussion question:
Do you think that advocacy, as an orientation, can help remedy the limits of the rational planning model? In light of Innes and Gruber’s “Clash of Styles”, do you think advocacy planning enhances, or diminishes, the role of planning in society?
Comments