This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Booher, D. E. Articles by Innes, J. E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Network Power in Collaborative Planning

California Center for Public Dispute Resolution, California State University, Sacramento

Judith E. Innes

Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the University of California, Berkeley

This article makes a case that collaborative planning is becoming more important because it can result in network power. Collaborative policy processes are increasingly in use as ways of achieving results in an era distinguished by rapid change, social and political fragmentation, rapid high volume information flow, global interdependence, and conflicting values. Network power can be thought of as a flow of power in which participants all share. It comes into being most effectively when three conditions govern the relationship of agents in a collaborative network: diversity, interdependence, and authentic dialogue (DIAD). Like a complex adaptive system, the DIAD network as a whole is more capable of learning and adaptation in the face of fragmentation and rapid change than a set of disconnected agents. Planners have many roles in such networks, and planning education needs to incorporate new subject matter to better prepare planners for these roles.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, 221-236 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X0202100301


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				A. R. Olsson Relational Rewards and Communicative Planning: Understanding Actor Motivation Planning Theory, August 1, 2009; 8(3): 263 - 281. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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]

				L. Horelli Network Evaluation from the Everyday Life Perspective: A Tool for Capacity-Building and Voice Evaluation, April 1, 2009; 15(2): 205 - 223. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. A. Sabatier and L. K. Shaw Are collaborative watershed management groups democratic? An analysis of California and Washington partnerships Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, March 1, 2009; 64(2): 61A - 64A. [PDF]

				C. Ansell and A. Gash Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., October 1, 2008; 18(4): 543 - 571. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. A. Schweitzer, E. J. Howard, and I. Doran Planners Learning and Creating Power: A Community of Practice Approach Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 2008; 28(1): 50 - 60. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. H. Baxamusa Empowering Communities through Deliberation The Model of Community Benefits Agreements Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2008; 27(3): 261 - 276. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Schilling and S. D. Keyes The Promise of Wisconsin's 1999 Comprehensive Planning Law: Land-Use Policy Reforms to Support Active Living Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 2008; 33(3): 455 - 496. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Hou and I. Kinoshita Bridging Community Differences through Informal Processes: Reexamining Participatory Planning in Seattle and Matsudo Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2007; 26(3): 301 - 314. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. J. Maginn Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: the potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography Qualitative Research, February 1, 2007; 7(1): 25 - 43. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Chettiparamb Bottom-Up Planning and the Future of Planning Education in India Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 2006; 26(2): 185 - 194. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Sager The Logic of Critical Communicative Planning: Transaction Cost Alteration Planning Theory, November 1, 2006; 5(3): 223 - 254. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. H. Morrison Pursuing Rural Sustainability at the Regional Level: Key Lessons from the Literature on Institutions, Integration, and the Environment Journal of Planning Literature, November 1, 2006; 21(2): 143 - 152. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Hillier Straddling the Post-Structuralist Abyss: Between Transcendence and Immanence? Planning Theory, November 1, 2005; 4(3): 271 - 299. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Verma and H. Shin Communicative Action and the Network Society: A Pragmatic Marriage? Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 2004; 24(2): 131 - 140. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Wolsink Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure Urban Stud, December 1, 2004; 41(13): 2669 - 2690. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. E. Innes Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics Planning Theory, March 1, 2004; 3(1): 5 - 20. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. H. Ali Environmental Planning and Cooperative Behavior: Catalyzing Sustainable Consensus Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 2003; 23(2): 165 - 176. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Hillier and M. Gunder Planning Fantasies? An Exploration of a Potential Lacanian Framework for Understanding Development Assessment Planning Planning Theory, November 1, 2003; 2(3): 225 - 248. [Abstract] [PDF]