On the nature and foundations of planning theory

Abstract

This paper clarifies the nature and scope of planning theory and proposes a way to bring order to a fragmented field by developing an integrated framework for understanding both planning theory and planning theories. It begins with a critical genealogy of debates since the 1940s and identifies a persistent fault line: Planning construed either as an independent methodological discipline centered on decision-making processes, or as a substantive practice embedded within political–economic contexts— a distinction that can be translated into a tension between procedural universality and contextual particularity. This division has led to confusions in the literature. The findings show that many past disputes conflate the subject, principles, and questions or problematic areas at stake. To address this, the study adopts an Avicennian schema, introducing a new order to the field and—without siding with any pole or rejecting them—situating each aspect of planning theory in its proper place. It then advances a four-level typology of planning theories organized by nature, function, central questions, and fundamental problems. In a further step, it proposes a framework that makes explicit the foundational philosophical presuppositions underlying planning theories. The typology positions deontic, evaluative, descriptive, explanatory, critical, and justificatory theories within a single map, while the philosophical framework exposes the value-laden assumptions that shape theorizing. The paper’s contribution is threefold: (i) it identifies the place of each aspect of planning theory and the various types of planning theories; (ii) it offers criteria for comparing them; and (iii) it provides a usable scaffold for research, pedagogy, and practice.