The Lure of Planning

In this thesis I intended to deal with the problem: “what is plan­ning?” I especially planned to analyze the obvious, but in planning theory never the less foreseen fact that things (plans, projects) never become what they were intended to be. But, and in accordance with this, I found myself paying much more attention to another problem: “how to catch the effects of plans and reforms?” In my analysis of planning theory and planning thought I have tried to demonstrate 1. the aprioristic/rationalistic basis for this mode of thinking; 2. that it deals with problems central to the human fate; and 3. that it is unavoidable in a world modernized in a western way. The search for a point outside this mode of thinking led me to scrutinize the possibilities of answering the empirical question: “what difference does planning make?” Two prob­lems are identified: 1. separating the effects of a certain plan­ning activity from the influ­ences of all other circum­stances; and 2. avoiding destruction of the knowledge-producing process by interested parts. The distinction between causality and correlation is crucial for the first problem. Methods such as experiment, quasi-experiment and ”natural” experi­ment are found to be of limited capacity in this respect and the regularity theory of causality does not solve the problem. The counter factual approach to causality is shown to be dependent on that of regularity. A program called transcendental realism (Bhaskar) I found much more promising in evaluation tasks, but many problems remain. Still more problematic is the second question which I don’t even attempt to answer. Scientific thinking belongs to the same rationalistic tradition as planning thought. I therefore doubt if there can be any such thing as scientific liberation of planning idiosyncrasies. But I discern, nevertheless, some emancipating potential in the quest for truth.QC 20140708