Planning as Argumentation

H A Goldstein
Additional contact information
H A Goldstein: Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA

Environment and Planning B, 1984, vol. 11, issue 3, 297-312

Abstract: The planning process is interpreted as a process of rational argumentation. The structure of and standards for rational arguments in any discipline are discussed and subsequently applied to the field of public planning. The principal threats to rational argumentation in planning are seen to be associated with the lack of a shared discourse structure, and with planning's borrowing much of its conceptual repertoire from other disciplines. Planning arguments, unlike arguments in most fields, must supply both empirical and normative premises for their claims. At least three types of reasoning—utilitarian, systems, and procedural—characterize the variation in form among planning arguments. The standards of rational argumentation can allow one to judge the ‘better argument’ among those based on the same type of reasoning. There are no rational means, however, for judging among competing claims of arguments based upon different types of reasoning in lieu of a public discourse on what constitutes a ‘good society’.

Date: 1984
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b110297 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:envirb:v:11:y:1984:i:3:p:297-312

DOI: 10.1068/b110297

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Environment and Planning B
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().