The interpenetration of politics and planning
Abstract This paper argues that judgement on the wider claims of systems planning should be suspended until a fuller evaluation has been completed. As part of this evaluation, it is argued that the relation between the activities of politics and of planning will remain ambivalent so long as the two concepts retain their elastic definitions. In this context this paper examines the British literature on systems planning and concludes that conflicts generated in the formulation of goals cannot be imploded, from the political arena into planning and resolved there through the application of deductive logic. It is argued that goal formulation needs to be reconceived as an activity where the deductive logic of systems planning and the interactive logic of politics interpenetrate and permeate each other. It is argued that neither is it desirable that deductive logic should dominate political activity, nor is it feasible that the interactive logic of politics should dominate the activity of planning. Interpenetration may be seen in the activity of representation, where although the represented are capable of acting, their representatives act for them (not instead of them) in other arenas. It is argued that ultimately, though politics is a logically prior activity and though planning is instrumental, they need to be conceived as interdependent but semi-autonomous activities, linked by the process of formulating desirable goals which are also feasible.
The Failure of the 1917 Geddes Master Plan and 1959 Minoprio, Spencely, Macfarlane Master Plans: Some Reflections
Urban planning is inherently a political process addressing social justice and social coherence concerns. However, planners are fixated with the physical and superficial social aspects of planning, overlooking its deeper interrelationships. This paper discusses two master plans for the city of Dhaka. The first is the 1917 plan by Patrick Geddes, and the second is the 1959 Minoprio, Spencely and Mcfarlane Plan. Both plans were developed after a phase of social upheaval and unrest orchestrated to suppress the desires and wishes of the people of Dhaka. In both instances, the cross cultural planners lack cultural awareness, failing to perceive the then current issues fronting Dhaka. In essence, they work in isolation as planners. These initiatives can be argued as representing ‘planning for planning’s sake’. In this setting, this paper articulates that the failure of the two master plans were due to a lack of awareness of the social and political realities by these ‘foreign’ planners.
Problems and Policies
Perhaps at no time more than the present have British archaeological studies had such need of a stocktaking'. An occasional stocktaking of knowledge and techniques is essential to the successful advancement of any study, and the Council for British Archaeology has undoubtedly stimulated archaeological studies by the publication of the first part of the Survey and Policy of Field Research. Under the joint-editorship of Professor Hawkes and Professor Piggott many of Britain's archaeologists have co-operated to review the present position and the future development of British archaeological studies. The volume is divided into two chapters; the first surveys our archaeological knowledge, and the second indicates how the major problems may best be tackled. Its span in time appals the mere historian. It ranges from the Palaeolithic Age to the 7th century of the Christian Era, from the so-called ' eoliths ' to the so-called ' Kentish jewelry '. No single scholar would have been competent to discuss all the problems raised, and no single scholar is competent to criticize the work of this team of specialists.