Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Calculate, Communicate and Innovate?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation in Public Planning

  • 299 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents the calculate and communicate perspectives in the field of planning theory, including the efforts to include innovate in the communicate approach. We explore the relationship between Friedmann’s understanding of innovative planning in the 1960s and contemporary innovation theories and explain why innovation has started to become important in the planning theory literature. We argue that innovative thinking, planning and acting are about to become dominant in planning, equivalent to the status of calculate and communicate therein. Therefore, we propose that planning needs three (not two) interacting approaches: communicate, calculate and innovate, and we present some key issues/themes/factors for the innovate position in planning theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acoff, R. (1970). A concept of corporate planning. Long Range Planning, 3(1), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(70)90031-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agger, A., & Sørensen, E. (2018). Managing collaborative innovation in public bureaucracies. Planning Theory, 17(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216672500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrechts, L. (2013). Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Planning Theory, 12(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212452722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrechts, L., Balducci, A., & Hillier, J. (2017). Situated practices of strategic planning: An international perspective (Vol. 18). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzmann, K. R. (2003). Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. APA Journal, 69(2), 113–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, E. R. (1994). The non-Euclidean mode of planning what is it to be? Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(3), 372–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369408975594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amdam, J., & Veggeland, N. (2011). Teorier om samfunnsstyring og planlegging. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amdam, R. (2002). Sectoral versus territorial regional planning and development in Norway. European Planning Studies, 10(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120099281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amdam, R. (2014). An integrated planning, learning and innovation system in the decentralized public sector: A Norwegian perspective. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 19(3), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bafarasat Ziafati, A. (2015). Reflections on the three schools of thought on strategic spatial planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412214562428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, S. (1996). Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benveniste, G. (1989). Mastering the politics of planning: Crafting credible plans and policies that make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S. (2011). Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Moving beyond the agonistic—Communicative divide. Planning Theory, 10(2), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210383081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cars, G., Healey, P., Madanipour, A., & De Magalhaes, C. (2002). Urban governance, institutional capacity and social milieux. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, B. C., ‘t Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017). Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damurski, Ł., & Oleksy, M. (2018). Communicative and participatory paradigm in the European territorial policies. A discourse analysis. European Planning Studies, 26(7), 1471–1492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1462302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, P. (2016; 1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. In S. S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in planning theory. Chichester: Wiley.; [Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 331–338.]

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning: A “third” approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review, 27(5), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.2307/973394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1986). Mixed scanning revisited. Public Administration Review, 46(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/975437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, J. (2003). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In (Vol. 20031012): Centre for technology, innovation and culture, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fainstein, S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falleth, E. I., Sandkjaer Hanssen, G., & Saglie, I. L. (2011). Challenges to democracy in market- oriented urban planning in Norway. European Planning Studies, 18(5), 737–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faludi, A. (1973). A Reader in planning theory (Vol. 5). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (1991). Rationalitet og magt: 1: Det konkretes videnskab (Vol. 1). København: Akademisk Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212448750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1966). Planning as innovation: The Chilean case. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32(4), 194–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1967/2017). A conceptual model for the analysis of planning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1994). The utility of non-Euclidean planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(4), 482–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, T. D. (1992). Threatened schools, imperiled practice: A case for collaboration. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(2), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuijen, K., Moore, M., Cederquist, A., Rønning, R., & van Twist, M. (2017). Creating public value in global wicked problems. Public Management Review, 19(5), 621–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabow, S., & Heskin, A. (1973). Foundations for a radical concept of planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39(2), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367308977664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/202051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grankvist, K., & Mäntysalo, R. (2020). Strategic Turn in Planning and the Role of Institutional Innovation. In A. Hagen, & U. Higdem, Innovation in Public Planning. Calculate, Communicate and Innovate. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunn, S., & Hillier, J. (2012). Processes of innovation: Reformation of the English strategic spatial planning system. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(3), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.706630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, A., & Higdem, U. (2019). Calculate, communicate and innovate—Do we need Innovate as a third position? Journal of Planning Literature, 34, 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412219851876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanssen Sandkjær, G., Nergaard, E., Pierre, J., & Skaalholdt, A. (2011). Multi-level governance of regional economic development in Norway and Sweden: Too much or too little top-down control? Urban Research & Practise, 4(1), 38–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, T. L., & Stein, S. M. (2012). Dialogical planning in a fragmented society: Critically liberal, pragmatic, incremental (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00447.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2008). The innovation landscape for public service organizations. In J. Hartley (Ed.), Managing to improve public services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review., 73(6), 821–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate. The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, 63(21), 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1996). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. In S. Campell & S. Fainstain (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (pp. 234–257). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning, 30(9), 1531–1546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2006a). Network complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning. In L. Albrechts & S. J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), The network society. A new context for planning? (pp. 146–160). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2006b). Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 14(4), 525–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2011). Planning theory—By Philip Allmendinger. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(5), 1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P., Birch, G., Campbell, H., & Upton, R. (2000). Editorial. Planning Theory & Practice, 1(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350050135167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellspong, L. (1995). Retorik och praktisk logik (Vol. 4). Stockholm: Nordplan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higdem, U. (2014). The co-creation of regional futures: Facilitating action research in regional foresight. Futures, 57, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higdem, U. (2015). Assessing the impact on political partnerships on coordinated meta-governance of regional government. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 19(4), 89–109. Retrieved from http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/sjpa/article/view/3302/2817

    Google Scholar 

  • Higdem, U. (2017). Dimensions of collaborative strategies and policy innovation. Current Politics and Economics of Europe, 28(1), 7–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, J. (2008). Plan(e) speaking: A multiplanar theory of spatial planning. Planning Theory, 7(1), 24–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207085664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, C. (1994). What planners do: Power, politics, and persuasion. Chicago, IL: Planners Press: American Planning Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstad, H., & Torfing, J. (2015). Collaborative innovation as a tool for environmental, economic and social sustainability in regional governance. School of Public Administration, University of Gothenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, R. (1973a). Planning and the innovation process. Progress in Planning, 1, 233–312. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305900673900044?via%3Dihub

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, R. (1973b). Planning and the innovation process (Vol. 1). Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1999). Managing complex networks. Strategies for the public sector (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjær, A. M. (2004). Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulinski, A. R. (1970). Regional development, regional policies and regional planning. Problems and issues. Regional Studies, 4(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09595237000185291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, T. (2002). Creativity is not enough. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.2307/976178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency and power. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbaum, S. (1986). ETHICS (Vol. 5, p. 830). New York: Wiley Periodicals Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysalo, R. (2002). Dilemmas in critical planning theory. The Town Planning Review, 73(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.73.4.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701763161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambiar, K. V. (1976). Framework for multi-level planning. [Decentralisation of planning in India, V. K. Nataraj]. Social Scientist, 4(8), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/3516382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nylund, K. (1995). Det förändrade planeringstänkandet (Vol. 19). Stockholm: Nordplan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (2010). The new public governance?: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2003). Partnerships, networks, joined-up governance, the information age (and all that). In C. Pollitt (Ed.), The essential public manager (pp. 52–82). Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 56–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez, J. L. (1995a). Skapande mening: 13:1: Bidrag till en humanvetenskaplig handlings- och planeringsteori: presentation av ett avhandlingsarbete 1984–1994 (Vol. 13:1). Stockholm: Nordplan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez, J. L. (1995b). Skapande mening: 13:2: En begreppsgenealogisk undersökning om rationalitet, vetenskap och planering (Vol. 13:2). Stockholm: Nordplan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance. Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringholm, T. (2017). Ambiguous accountability in municipal innovation. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal , 22(3), article 2, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Integrating Knowledge and Practice to Advance Human Dignity, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Røyseland, A., & Vabo, S. I. (2012). Styring og samstyring—governance på norsk. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sager, T. (1990). Communicate or calculate: Planning theory and social science concepts in a contingency perspective (Vol. 11). Stockholm: Nordplan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savini, F., Majoor, S., & Salet, W. (2015). Dilemmas of planning: Intervention, regulation, and investment. Planning Theory, 14(3), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214531430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(98), 98–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2017). Political innovations: Innovations in political institutions, processes and outputs. Public Management Review, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1200661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Houndmills: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711418768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2018a). The democratizing of governance networks: From pluralization, via democratic anchorage, to interactive political leadership. Public Administration, 96, 302–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2018b). Designing institutional platforms and arenas for interactive political leadership. Public Management Review, 21, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1559342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Waldorff, S. B. (2014). Collaborative policy innovation: Problems and potential. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 19(3 article 2). Retrieved from http://www.innovation.cc/scholarly-style/19_3_2_sorensen-waldorff_collaborate-policy494f11nov.pdf.

  • Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2012). Creativity and Innovation: Divergence and convergence in pragmatic dialogical planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11417829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1998). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies, P. Healey (Ed.), 338 pp. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-49573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throgmorton, J. A. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical construction of Chicago's electric future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throgmorton, J. A. (2003). Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale web of relationships. Planning Theory, 2(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030022003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J. (2016). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2016). Enhancing public innovation by transforming public governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veggeland, N. (2003). Det nye demokratiet- et politisk laboratorium for partnerskap. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, V. (2006). Deep difference: Diversity, planning and ethics. Planning Theory, 5(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095206061020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellmer, A. (1991). The persistence of modernity: Essays on aesthetics, ethics, and postmodernism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2017). Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1754–1788.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway

    Aksel Hagen & Ulla Higdem

Authors
  1. Aksel Hagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulla Higdem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulla Higdem .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway

    Aksel Hagen

  2. Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway

    Ulla Higdem

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hagen, A., Higdem, U. (2020). Calculate, Communicate and Innovate?. In: Hagen, A., Higdem, U. (eds) Innovation in Public Planning. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46136-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation