PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

140
analyses and prescriptions suffer a credibility gap. The analytical work focuses only
on certain parts of planning activity – principally communicative exchanges – and the
normative work relies on a leap of faith … which goes beyond the experience and
convictions of many practicing planners.
The discursive framework of communicative rationality also distinguishes itself
through its assumption that people do not have fixed interests (see especially Healey
1997) and that overarching power structures do not predetermine outcomes. 32 This is a
recurring and ongoing point of contention that we will revisit especially when we discuss
the importance of storylines in constituting and influencing policy processes.
In terms of the key activist proponents, those elements of the communicative
rationality discourse that point to increased participation and equal access to decisionmaking
are frequently championed by environmental NGOs.
Contrary to the
communicative ideal, however, these are typically groups with inadequate access to
dominant power structures. Their obvious claim is that they defend the interest of civil
society and the environment against capitalist market interests and biased financial
institutions and governments. Regardless of the necessity of such work and the validity
of their claim, this certainly precludes any non-existence of fixed interests on the part of
the NGOs. Environmental and civic NGOs are not as much interested in being
moderators as monitors of planning and policy processes. A good example is the CEE
Bankwatch Network, which has done several detailed case studies on EU transport
32 Also note that different proponents of communicative action-inspired methodologies subscribe to this
view only to a certain degree. Willson (2001:13), for example develops a model for a “transformed”
planning process which is still clearly “influenced by societal values, public opinion, stakeholders and
institutions, but [where] the process in turn may change societal values, public opinion, stakeholders and
institutions.” In the end, instead of debating over “fixed” interests, it might indeed be preferable to say that
interests are context-driven. If a group’s key interest/context is profit, its alliances are likely to vary, since
money can be made both by exploiting and by protecting the environment. Other structural positions are
less subject to opportunistic change, however.