Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Planning Education and Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sager, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Deliberative Planning and Decision Making

An Impossibility Result

Tore Sager

Department of Transport Engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, tore.sager{at}bygg.ntnu.no

Much communicative planning is consensus oriented and rests on ideas of deliberative democracy. Planning recommendations made by dialogue are based on the intellectual force of arguments giving reasoned rankings of the planning alternatives. Dialogue encompasses the amalgamation of arguments in accordance with democratic criteria ensuring the communicative rationality of the process and the legitimacy of the recommendation. The balancing and weighing of arguments should avoid decision cycles that would make the recommendation of a plan arbitrary. By an analogy with Arrow’s theorem on the general impossibility of consistent and fair social choice, it is demonstrated that dialogue cannot ensure consistent recommendations and simultaneously prepare for political decision making in a democratic manner. The result is valid for debates over planning alternatives when differences in quality are not comparable across all the important arguments (concerning noise, safety, visual standard, social impact, etc.), which is the most common situation.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, 367-378 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X0202100402


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
K. Umemoto and H. Igarashi
Deliberative Planning in a Multicultural Milieu
Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 2009; 29(1): 39 - 53.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Planning TheoryHome page
C. Irazabal
Realizing Planning's Emancipatory Promise: Learning From Regime Theory To Strengthen Communicative Action
Planning Theory, May 1, 2009; 8(2): 115 - 139.
[Abstract] [PDF]