The Limits of Planning: Niklas Luhmann's Systems Theory and the Analysis of Planning and Planning Ambitions

Abstract

In this article, we argue that Niklas Luhmann has a lot to offer present-day planning theory. Until now, planning theory has been engaged with Luhmann's work only minimally. Convinced of its potential, we want to show how Luhmann's systems theory offers fresh insight into both limits and possibilities of planning in contemporary society. We argue that Luhmann's understanding of society as functionally differentiated into self-referentially closed subsystems (politics, economy, law, science, etc.) creates space for a complex and subtle analysis of planning practice. In particular, we look at the role of planning within an autopoietic account of society, and its ability to steer other social subsystems. Planning is seen as the form of steering aiming to coordinate processes of spatial organization, therefore an activity dealing with steering problems. We illustrate key concepts of the systems theory in brief analyses of planning situations and interpret these situations using the systems theoretical framework. The analyses center around the questions of planning's steering capacity and the role of the planner, thus creating linkages with mainstream discussions in planning theory.

Changing Frames: Citizen and Expert Participation in Georgian Planning

“…Theoretically, we will frame our analysis by drawing on post-modern planning theory; in particular, approaches focusing on knowledge, power and narrative (Throgmorton, 1996;Soja, 1997;Flyvbjerg, 1998;Allmendinger, 2002;Hillier, 2002), and on sociological differentiation theory in the line of Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory (Luhmann, 1995). The application of social systems theory leads to a reappraisal of path dependencies and windows of opportunity to coordinate various function-systems in planning and to increase citizen participation (Teubner, 1993;Dunsire, 1996;Van Assche & Verschraegen, 2008). In addition, we will borrow key concepts from new institutional economics (North, 1990(North, , 2005Greiff, 2007) that can be easily integrated into Luhmann's evolutionary perspective on society.…”

Performing failure in conservation policy: The implementation of European Union directives in the Netherlands

“…Ledoux et al, 2000). Planning is a political activity, linked in many ways to the legal system, but in essence it is political (i.e., a deliberation of interests leading to collectively binding decisions) (Fidelis and Sumares, 2008;Van Assche and Verschraegen, 2008).…”

Spatial planning as policy integration: The need for an evolutionary perspective. Lessons from Uzbekistan

“…Residential development also used to be planned at the kolkhoz level, but now neighborhoods and individuals lobby directly at the district level for expansion, producing a pattern of development that does not fit a shared vision for the community. The separation of political and economic power at the local level could have led to a more productive confrontation of perspectives and more inclusive planning at that level (Van Assche and Verschraegen, 2008;Van Assche et al, 2010, 2011c, but in fact this has not (yet) happened. The reason, we argue is the inconsistent institutional design described, but also the widening gap between formal and informal institutions, between formal and informal coordination mechanisms.…”

“…Planning, as forced integration of a set of organizations that are assumed to work towards a common goal, is an unlikely endeavor in this perspective. Spatial planning is possible, but as context-guidance, as management of couplings between organizations and as encouraging the sharing of semantics (introducing similarities in the internal universe of different organizations) (Nilsson, 2005;Van Assche and Verschraegen, 2008).…”