The bridge to reality is missing

The bad news for planning theorists is that this journal costs £254 for three slim issues each year. This is not to say that it does not deliver value for money. Its scope is wide, taking in planning methods, planning and equity, planners' knowledge and expertise, aesthetics, the evaluation of planning and the boundaries of planning theory. There is a commitment to provide "a vital discussion forum for such questions as: what are the forms, limits and uses of theorising; how are theories and practice related; in what sense can theorising improve practice; is there a distinctive set of theories associated with cities and regions or are compelling theories associated with planning in every setting?"

The content, however, does not live up to the promise. First there seems to be an unwillingness to come to terms with the nature of planning itself. Much planning in the UK is a tedious form of bureaucratic control over property owners. Meanwhile the size and shape of cities, the development of airports, the spread of out-of-town shopping centres, traffic growth - all the large-scale forces that shape society - are driven by forces outside the domain of planners. Developers, house and road builders, and the advocates of nuclear power have a far greater impact on society. Under these circumstances, planning theory runs the risk of focusing attention on an increasingly small and irrelevant part of life.

An essay by Luigi Mazza gets near to identifying this problem. Mazza defines planning as "an action aimed at modifying class and power relations and building solidarity and a co-operative city within the anarchical perspective proposed by Kropotkin and Reclus". Exciting stuff, but a million miles from reality, where a director of regeneration meets with planners and a development agency and plans a large new bridge across the Thames in east London on the unsubstantiated assertion that big bridges and big roads help poor people. Mazza goes on to talk about the role of planning in improving the quality of life. In most UK cities, planning has brought new roads, which generate traffic and pollution and make walking and cycling unpleasant and dangerous. Planning has failed to deliver affordable housing or to create cohesive, sustainable communities.

In an essay by Bishwapriya Sanyal, there is a tacit acceptance that planning is driven by immutable global forces. The author discusses globalisation and makes a (tortuous) plea for "ethical compromise". But what kind of compromise can be made between native Amazonians and global corporations that destroy rainforests or between local families worried about leukaemia and a government determined to build nuclear power facilities in their area? Sanyal has nothing to say about these enormous power imbalances and seems unaware of the role of social justice principles in planning.

These difficulties are symptomatic of the tensions at the heart of planning. It is meant to be about improving things, but this socially progressive orientation is frequently dashed on the rocks of economic, political and globalised reality. These issues come to the fore most clearly in Alan March and Nicholas Low's discussion of planning in Australia. They conclude that planners and structures have to change "to create a fair and equal process that will lead to fair and equal outcomes". There is rich territory to be explored here.

The journal is well written, but it does not convince about the existence of a well-defined body of "planning theory" expertise. Most of the articles could have appeared in a geography or politics journal. Theory stands a better chance of infecting practice if barriers are broken down, but this journal neatly ring-fences and isolates the theorists.

John Whitelegg is professor of sustainable development, Stockholm Environment Institute, York University.