"The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation" - Healey (1996)

The following is a review/summary of Healey's text "The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation"

This paper explores "the potential of new ideas about public argumentation and communicative policy practice developing in planning theory addressing the task of strategic spatial strategy-making". With urban regions becoming more diverse and less inter-related there is an increasing need for spatial strategy, also as urban areas are almost set in compeition against each other - "people and companies seek locations with the institutional capacity to resolve conflicts, decrease tension and deliver a healthy local environment".

Public policy making as communicative argumentation
There have been two paradigm shifts in 20th Century planning:

1. Strategic planning based on modelling dynamics of urban systems and managing them with strategies developed through rational planning approach - brought vocabulary on instrumental rationality and regional economics aligned to management science.
2. Understanding of power relations of urban region economics came through analysis of the structuring dynamics of economic and political relations. 

These shifts focused on material conditions - construction, power struggles, economy and environment. They place little focus on 'fine-grain' economics and social relations, valuing places and rising environmental concerns. Therefore, they have failed to recognise cultural diversity

A new paradigm looks to recognise diversity, complex economic and social relations and development of normative approaches to judge discussions with the public. All these aims can be achieved with communicative practices. But to firstly enhance public communication an inclusionary approach must be adopted.  

A communicative approach to spatial strategy formation 

In order for communities to initiate strategic planning the following questions should be asked:

1. Where is the discussion to take place?
2. In what style will the discussion be?
3. How will issues which arise in discussion be addressed?
4. How can a strategy be created and managed?
5. How can a community agree and critique a strategy?

Arenas for Argumentation

• Should be a neutral location which can house legitimacy - may be an existing organisational arrangement (e.g. government building), however here the discussion may be discredited
• Arenas typically change throughout the policy innovation cycle - as the cycle progresses it goes from 'opening out' to consolidation around a particular idea.

Style of Discourse

• This is typically what gets discussed and how - not just identifying who and what, but explores what the strategy means to other people
• An inclusionary approach should be taken when choosing the style of discourse - "actively discussing and choosing a style of discussion and recognition that everyone won't be comfortable with in the beginning" 
• Communication and language techniques used during discourse should address diversity - certain cultures may miss metaphors, irony, particular economic/scientific terminology.
• The inclusionary approach should also consider the non-present parties at the discussion because more often than not the non-present outnumber the present 

Sorting Through Arguments

• In an inclusive arena and with an inclusionary style the response from the public will be large. This 'jumble' is then organised into 'analytical and non-analytical work' of spatial planning
• A more inclusive process which encourages public questions and further discussion will increase their knowledge and then spread out the 'jumble' - this also meets public morals and values

Creating New Discourse

• The inclusionary approach seeks to challenge, acknowledge and use, when pursued by the powerful, persuasive power of discourse embedded in existing planning practices
• A challenge against the inclusionary approach to spatial planning is used to experiment and test strategic ideas in tentative ways to evaluate potential of better alternatives 

Agreement and Critique

Upon evaluation some improvement to the strategic planing process may be needed. To discuss these and semi-judicial court may be necessary.

Strategic debate between stakeholders in the matter can mean reasons for misinterpretation/conflict to be minimised

Discourse must be "subjected to continual reflective critique" - this doesn't mean constantly changing the process but the discourse should have regular attention