Five fallacies to avoid for future spatial development practice

Philip Cooke

European Planning Studies, 2025, vol. 33, issue 8, 1392-1402

Abstract: In this brief essay, we introduce several fallacies that are seldom confronted in spatial planning studies and practice. The presentation is set within the context of the now-emergent ‘polycrisis’ and its aftermath as evolutionary change works its way through large-scale processes that have been confronting humanity in unpredictable ways and unexpected locations. We offer reflections on five fallacies that challenge interventionist thinking, which is nowadays clearly inadequate to the scale of prevailing conditions. The first of these is the ‘fallacy of intentionality’, which highlights the common contemporary policy failure of confusing the announcement of an intention to do something with actual investment in a workable output or, more importantly, outcome. The second is the ‘fallacy of inadequacy’, which, in effect, announces a measure that is neither adequately costed nor properly planned, taking it for granted that the policy’s failure will ultimately be borne by those affected (the Valencian floods serve as a case in point). Third is the ‘fallacy of learning’, which posits that solutions can be copied from apparently successful efforts that fall into the ‘one size fits all’ category and are largely irrelevant to the specific change trajectory of interest. The fourth policy input is the ‘fallacy of composition’, a common critique of ‘sample of one’ thinking. This assumes that a description of a place and its problems are universally applicable and that generic measures will work equally universally. Finally, the ‘fallacy of agentic evolution’ is shown to have minimal application in the real world, where issues can only be addressed through institutional interaction on a grand scale, cascading differences down to the granular policy level to protect populations confronted with disruptive market and climatic processes and events.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09654313.2025.2535463 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:taf:eurpls:v:33:y:2025:i:8:p:1392-1402

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CEPS20

DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2025.2535463

Access Statistics for this article

European Planning Studies is currently edited by Philip Cooke and Louis Albrechts

More articles in European Planning Studies from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().