001 a general theory of planning

8/17/2019 001 a General Theory of Planning

1/12

jel JOU RNAL RxNvAIL No.OF E2COJNOM119C821SSUES

A General Theory of Planning: The Evolution of

Planning and the Planning of Evolution

Roger M. Troub

Planning is a ubiquitous human activity. It inheres in economic pro-

cesses and crucially determines their nature and consequences. Any form

of social organization requires correlation of potential differential be-

haviors and coordination of ongoing activities. The same technological

development that permits and drives economic development requires that

behavioral structures become more complex. Planning processes evolve

toward greater complexity.

As the number of different organizations and activities undertaen

through them increases! the importance of interdependencies cumulates!and the significance! number! and complexity of planning processes grow.

At some threshold! new planning processes become possible! and at an-

other they become required for further developmental progress.

The "nited #tates economy is now commonly referred to as a service

economy. It is increasingly common to refer to it also as an information

economy. $uch of the service activity involves decision maing for others

by hired agents! or counsel about prospective decisions! or transfers and

generation of information. This portion of the service economy is part of

the information economy. Information for what purposes%the con&unct

purposes of design! planning! and decision maing.'ontemporary policy perspectives are drawn largely from thought

about the simpler societies of the past. (otions of maret and central plan-

ning processes as sufficient or exhaustive have become very costly! if not

The author is ro!essor o! E"o#o$i"s% Texas Te"h U#iversi t& % Lu''o"(. Thisarti")e *as +rese#te, at the A##ua) Meeti#- o! the Asso"iatio# !or Evo)utio#ar&

E"o#o$i"s% ashi#-to#% /.C. % 280 /e"e$'er 1981.

)*+

i


2/12

382 Roger M. Troub

dangerous. (ew! more accurate comprehensions of social planning pro-cesses are needed.

espite the enormous! growing importance of planning! and the vastliterature devoted to it! no truly general theory of planning has emerged.

This article will setch a general theory of planning! and use it to ex -amine the evolution of planning! to draw some implications for contempo-rary perspectives on policy! and to raise the question of whether self-

conscious societal evolution! evolution in a new mode! can be planned.

A General Theory of Planning

The requirements for a general theory of planning include /+0 speci-

fication of what planning is! motivation for it! what planning processes do!

the context in which they arise! and the actors in them1 /20 identificationof the general characteristics of the modes! levels! and types of planning

in societal processes1 and /)0 delineation of the domain of interactionsamong different planning units and processes and of the ma&or structural

contours of those interactions. 3ach of these will be dealt with tersely and

in quintessential terms. 4rom the general theory! the author will draw athesis about the evolution of planning.

)a##i#- a#, Its So"ia) S&ste$s Setti#-

In the most general terms! human planning is a set of negotiations todetermine prospective activities in pursuit of future circumstances cur-

rently preferred by actors with capacities to influence the outcomes. Thesubstance of planning encompasses all human choosing in which future

conditions are taen into account. It may be undertaen consciously or unconsciously and social planning processes include as well as transcend

those of individuals.

The actors are humans in three decision roles personal! agential! andcollective. In the first role individuals mae decisions for self /with ex-

pected effects on others deemed relevant to the individual taen into ac-

count0! in the second individuals mae decisions for others for whom theyare agents /as employees! professional counsels or vicegerents! trustees!

representatives! and so on0! and in the third individuals participate indecision maing by organizations in which they hold membership /ac-

tively if accorded some sort of franchise! reactively or passively if not0 .

The choices made by individuals in all three roles involve the ma&or de-terminants of the nature and activities of the various organizations of the

society! which! in turn! are ma&or determinants of the opportunity setsand criteria sets perceived by individuals as relevant to themselves.


3/12

Evo)utio# o! )a##i#- )*)

6umans are purposive creatures. The general motivation for planning

is simply the pursuit of human purposes. Individuals have motives. 7r-ganizations do not. Individuals! in response to their motivations! act in

and through and on organizations and urge organizational purposes con-

sistent with their own.+ Individuals are creative tension drawn and driven.They see harmonious integration of mostly unconscious but importantly

felt perceptions of incongruity and incompleteness.

Planning is a set of negotiations in the sense that! in its most generalform! negotiation is a process of determining what future circumstances

will be sought to be created given present circumstance perceptions and

expectations about alternative prospective circumstances. As a social pro-cess! planning incorporates the use of power by the actors involved to

deal with conflicts of belief and interest.

The Co#text% /o$ai#% a#, Ma3or Co#tours

o! )a##i#- U#it I#tera"tio#s

It is useful to thin of the set of social planning processes as involving

a variety of i#tera"ti#- positive sum! zero-sum! and negative-sum gamesintrapersonal games! interpersonal games! person-nature games! person-

social organization games! intraorganizational games! interorganizational

games! and organization-nature games.2 This is the systemic context inwhich planning arises%interactions of cooperation and contention within

societal subsystems and among physical! biological! and social processes.This context defines the domain of planning process interactions. 8hat

planning processes do in that context is negotiate individual and organiza-

tional behaviors.

The ma&or contours of planning unit interactions are defined by pro-

cesses of contracting and recontracting about activities within rules of

existing games! about the rules of the games! and about creation of newgames. 9oth implicit and explicit contracts are formed through processes

of negotiation which generate conscious or unconscious mutual accep-

tance of expected behaviors in social organizational roles. The more spe-cific nature of planning unit interactions depends upon the nature of the

social organization. Those of a complex! dynamic society differ greatlyfrom those of a simple! static one. They are directly associated with the

modes! levels! and types of planning undertaen.

Mo,es% Leve)s% a#, T&+es o! )a##i#-

MOE! O" P#A$$%$G. The essential modes can be divided into threegroups. The first contains methods of conscious deliberation! the cognitive

I


4/12

38& Roger M. Troub

mode. Planning activities of which the participants are unaware is a sec-

ond group! the nescient mode. 'ognitation is only a portion of the human

struggle with incongruity and incompleteness. The third group contains

hybridizations of cognitive and nescient modes. $aret planning systems

are hybridized modes.

P#A$$%$G '$%T #E(E#! A$ %$TERA)T%O$!.6uman societies are sets

of institutions /correlated individual structures of belief about so-called

facts and values0 which engender sets of formal and informal organiza-

tions /correlated behavioral roles and patterns0 . These organizations and

their individual members are planning units in a society! along with for-

mal or informal superordinate organizations for coordination of subso-

cietal actors: plans and activities.

The extreme paradigms of societal planning processes are those of

maret and master! of completely decentralized or centralized decisionmaing. In the former! the superordinate organization for the suppression

of conflict and the harmonization of individual and subsocietal organiza-

tional behaviors is an informal! implicit one%the overall worings of

interacting maret processes.) Planning processes are from bottom to

top. In the latter! the superordinate organization is a centralized decision-

taing process that specifies expected performance roles to subordinate

organizations which! in turn! specify them for their members. The plan-

ning process is from top to bottom.

The simplistic and mythical forms of the maret and master models

involve a fallacy of the excluded middle. It is in the middle where the

;real action; is. Interposed between individuals and superordinate or-

ganizational forms is a host of informal and formal intra- and interorgan-

izational dynamics that go largely unrecognized and unaccounted for.

T*PE! O" P#A$$%$G. The essential types of planning are differentiated

in terms of the planning unit:s capacity to control the systems that com-

prise it and with which it interacts! a matter highly dependent upon nowl-

edge. The various types may operate in nescient! cognitive! or hybridized

modes through activities by units ranging from the individual to the super-

ordinate organizational level.At least four types of planning can be identified some extant! some

emergent! but none extinct. I refer to them in awward but descriptive

terms preadaptation /Type I0 ! innovational adaptation /Type II0 ! complex

anticipatory design /Type III0 ! and creative design of a chosen future /Type

I


5/12

Evo)utio# o! )a##i#- )*=

plex! a,,itio#a) types are introduced! and the proportions of the types in

the mix changes. I have summarized the four types in the following terms

rea,a+tive +)a##i#- 4T&+e 15 can be undertaen on the basis of in-

formation about future events over which the planner has no control. Theinformation can come from either prophecy or technological predictions

/if ;A;! then ;9; propositions0 . > 4or example! either a prophecy or a

technological prediction may provide information that no rain is to be

expected for several days! and planning associated with that information

may lead to a variety of preadaptations! such as . . . ?conservation of

water@. #ince the planner has no control over the expected future event/absence of rainfall0! the adequacy of planning depends upon the ade-

quacy of the preadaptation identified as appropriate ?and feasible@.

I##ovatio#a) a,a+tatio# 4T&+e II5 involves the ability to use nowledge

from technological predictions to fashion devices /hardware! software!

conceptual ones! and combinations of them0 which permit a measure of control over future events. This requires creation of control systems for

application to one or more existing systems. . . . ?3xamples include such

things as automatic sprinler systems to provide ;artificial rain; and na-

tional income accounting to aid counter-cyclical economic policy.@

Co$+)ex a#ti"i+ator& ,esi-# 4T&+e III +)a##i#-5 is based upon infor-

mation about interacting systems in the future! information different from

that of ?simple@ pro&ections of behavior of individual existing systems.

This information is obtained through consideration of the dynamic inter-

action of processes and systems. Technological prediction of the behavior

of i#,ivi,ua) +ro"esses . . . is necessary but insufficient. A higher level of

;prediction; drawn from the dynamic i#te-ratio# of technological pre-dictions is required.= Planning involves the design of significant control

over some of the ?pertinent@ systems . . . in a manner which directs the

complex of interacting systems through time toward outcomes preferable

to those which otherwise would have resulted. Type III planning signifi-

cantly changes important aspects of the actor:s prospective milieu ?%and

the actor is aware of some of them and taes them into account in the

planning process . 'ontemporar y examples include effor ts at planning

new cities and at planning new energy sources and mixes.@.

T&+e I6 +)a##i#- 4"reative ,esi-# o! a "hose# ,a$i" !uture5 requires

nowledge and ability to control determining aspects of the ?systems@

relevant to the actor in a fashion which permits conscious creation of

novel dynamic futures. . . . It involves creation of dominant systems and

processes! as opposed to the crea tion of adaptive control systems /Type

6 planning0 or creation of control systems to guide and alter the out-

comes associated with anticipated interaction of existing dominant sys-

tems and processes /Type III planning0 .

The value referent of the decision unit is another important dimension

of planning. It is the set of beliefs about what should and should not be!


6/12

38+ Roger M. Troub

structured according to perceptions of hierarchical associations among

them. It is a basic determinant of what is sought! how! by whom! for

whom! and who decides. It becomes progressively more complex! with

more potential for inconsistency! with movement from planning Type I

to II! II to III! and I suspect from III to I


7/12

Evo)utio# o! )a##i#- )*C

ion! predominate. $ore Type II planning is added with transformation to

and through early industrial society! the importance of intraorganiza-

tional planning increases! and more cognitive planning is done within in-

dustrial organizations. 3volution to post-industrial society produces need

for complex anticipatory designs! even greater use of cognitive modes!and greater importance of interorganizational coordination. $ovement

through post-industrial society generates perceptions of exigency and in-

cipient! fragmentary capacities for Type I< planning in contexts of sub-

stantial scope.

As the technological and institutional structures evolve! the optimal

planning structure changes. 7ver the past several decades the locus of

decision maing paths in the "nited #tates has moved! the number of

non-trivial decisions grown! and the relative importance of decision roles

shifted. 3conomic development has simultaneously expanded the effective

choice sets of individuals! increased importance of choices made by andfor formal governmental agencies! and increased the responsibility of

individuals in agency decision maing roles. Bureaucratic structures have

grown in both public and ;private; sectors. Degions of individuals are em-

ployed in them as managers or in a wide variety of other agential roles.

The number of hired professional decision-maers-for-others / consul-

tants! stocbroers! attorneys! physicians! and so on0 has multiplied! and

the number of collective decisions with important externalities and inter-

dependencies at local! state! national! and international levels has ex-

panded rapidly.

So$e I$+)i"atio#s !or Co#te$+orar& Cir"u$sta#"es

ecisions made through all roles and at all levels interact to determine

the opportunity sets and criteria sets of individuals! society! and sub-

societal organizations. The myth of bottom-up! that is! of the predomi-

nance of individual choices in personal and collective decision roles voting

with dollars and ballots as all-determining! wears thin. #imple-minded

policies to reduce the significance of formal governmental activities and

shift decision maing to the personal level! while ignoring the importanceof agency and participatory processes! is foolhardy at best. A more appro-

priate endeavor is identification of the optimum structure of decision maing

processes for contemporary circumstances.

As nowledge accumulates! +ote#tia)s grow for greater control over

interacting systems of importance. Transformation of potentials into ac-

tualities requires use of more complex and comprehensive planning pro-

cesses! but does not necessitate centrally designed and executed pacages.

That route would be very costly. It omits or suppresses much of what is


8/12

)** Eoger $. Troub

required for planning processes efficacious in pursuit of enhanced well-

being. (evertheless! Type III planning! large in scale and scope! suggests

a need for fruitful processes to simultaneously plan technological and or-

ganizational change. This implication is not yet widely recognized. 'on-

temporary belief structures obscure its existence and importance.#upplantation of maret processes is not indicated either. Increased

utility from them! however! is. #ignificant changes in their perception!

design! and use are required. $aret processes do many things well and!

if appropriately designed! can do more than many recognize.

The notion of design of maret processes may strie adherents to class-

ical maret theology as preposterous! but marets are always designed%by

nescient processes if not cognitive ones. 8hat is required is cognitive

design and location within the overall set of planning processes. The po-

tential for this is being generated rapidly. 7ne of the important and un-

noticed areas of technological advance in recent years has been that of maret process technology%nowledge of how to design and use marets

as tools for particular purposes in particular settings. $uch has been

learned! and much more needs to be. $ovement from maret theology to

ongoing! operational use of effective maret technology! as opposed to

&ust ;leaving it to the maret!; holds significant promise.

The Planning of Evolution

So"ieta) /a$i"s a#, the E$er-i#- Evo)utio#ar& ara,i-$

/i#a$i(a $as&ara(at ,a# (e$u#"u)a# evo)usi +e$i(ira#

The essence of societal dynamics is a set of ongoing! changing processes

involving institutions /belief structures as to ;fact and value; that en-

gender continuously recreated or transformed organized behaviors0 and

the associated organizational structures /in which individuals play the

three decision roles to one extent or another0! in negotiational interactions

/games0 that encompass various modes! planning unit interaction net-

wors! and types of planning. Although many processes are incorporated

within the general context! the transcendent and suffusive processes are

evolutionary.

Inti dari dinamia masyaraat adalah seperangat proses perubahan yang

melibatan lembaga dan strutur organisasi terait yang dimana individu

berperan memainan

Fenneth 9oulding:s profound insights that evolution itself evolves and

that what evolves in all evolutionary processes is now-how are highly

suggestive! especially in combination. 9oulding identifies additive! coex-

istent types of evolution.G 4irst came processes of physical evolution! then

of biological evolution! and then the special case of human social evolu-


9/12


10/12

Evo)utio# o! )a##i#- )*H

A Fourth Mo,e o! Evo)utio#7

This suggests a larger holistic process. It also suggests that a fourth

mode of evolution may be developing! one characterized by conscious

selection from and control over the number and nature of a variety of complex! creative ;experiments;--a self-conscious mode through which

Type I< planning could operate more widely.; This is all highly con&ec-

tural! of course. After all! we are in the midst of post-industrial society

and can:t even agree that we now enough about it to name it anything

other than that-which-comes-after-industrial. (evertheless! there is more

than ample evidence to support a mere con&ectural pro&ection. $oreover!

we are in times in which special importance obtains for con&ecture about

the future! and are badly in need of attractive images of possible alternate

futures. iven what is occurring! perhaps the con&ecture should be moved

to hypothesis.

The third evolutionary mode! social evolution! has been underway at a

rapid rate for several centuries now. 6umans became proficient at plan-

ning the evolution of domesticated plants and animals long ago. $ore

recently humans have consciously evolved a host of chemical compounds

and new physical elements not yet found in nature. 6umans are evolving

a host of non-living beings1 artifacts are cascading forth in a fantastic pro-

fusion of type and number! ranging from crude homemade bombs to in-

terplanetary space vehicles. 'omputers carry on conversations of sorts!

and artificial intelligence seems to be on its way. $ore recently humanshave created pseudolife! and they are evolving entirely new biological

organisms. These organisms are patentable! produced by both public and

private enterprise! and contracted for and sold in marets. #erious nego -

tiations are in progress about whether to limit endeavors which may lead

to humans evolving thmselves biologically. In this setting! growing potential

for a fourth mode of evolution! self-conscious evolution involving

introduction of Type I< planning efforts! does not appear too surprising.

Perhaps the hypothesis should be moved to thesis and entered into the

maretplace for ideas.

Concluding Remarks

7ne thing seems clear. 'ontinued human progress requires /+0 more

accurate comprehension of what is happening to us! /20 of what can happen

to us! /) 0 of what should happen to us! and />0 the creation and use of

the required conceptual and organizational technology%the primary tools

of envisioning! formulating! evaluating! learning! and fashioning the human

role structures needed for pursuit of the better.


11/12

)H5 Eoger $. Troub

Notes

+. There are at least three ma&or dimensions of social sicness. 7ne is organizational

dynamics inimical to the productivity! creativity! and wellbeing of people. Another

is individual preference structures which harbor malevolence or omit benevolent

concern for the welfare of others! and a third is insufficient use of nowable

information.

2. The ideal society can be conceived of as one which promotes positive sum!

creative games in all individual and organizational interactions.

). In maret mythology little attention is given to the inherent incapacity of maret

processes for the prior generation of the institutional structures.

>. 3dgar unn! Jr.! in his E"o#o$i" a#, So"ia) /eve)o+$e#t A ro"ess o! So"ia)

Lear#i#- /9altimore The Johns 6opins Press! +HC+0! cites Farl Popper on

prophecy and technological predictions and then discusses their relationships

with planning in ;conventional science.; 6is discussion of the ;modes of

planning; includes the first type of planning discussed here and some aspects of the second.

=. A discussion of planning matters very similar to Type III is provided by 6asan

7zbehan! ;The 3merging $ethodology of Planning!; Fie ),s *ithi# Fie),s +5

/8inter! +HC)-C>0 2-*5.

. Eoger $. Troub! ;A 'hanging 8orld emands a 'hanging 3conomics!; or),

Future So"iet& u))et i# 11 /$ay-June +HCC0 *-H.

C. John 4riedman! a student of Eexford . Tugwell! 3dward '. 9anfield! and

6arvey #. Perloff! sees contemporary crises of valuing and nowing 4Retra"(i#-

A$eri"a ?arden 'ity! (.K. Anchor PressLoubleday! +HC)@ 0. 6e proposes

introduction of what he calls transactive planning. A central notion is dialogue

between those affected and the experts involved in planning processes so thatnowledge employed for planning implicitly incorporates value concerns.

*. (ew visions of evolutionary processes are being introduced as candidates for a

prime integrating paradigm for the sciences. #ee Fenneth 9oulding! E"o,a$i"s A

Ne* Theor& o! So"ieta) Evo)utio# /9everly 6ills! 'alifornia #age Publications!

+HC*01 3rich Jantsch! ed.! The Evo)utio#ar& 6isio# To*ar, a U#i!&i#- ara,i-$ o!

h&si"a)% io)o-i"a)% a#, So"io"u)tura) Evo)utio# /9oulder! 'olorado 8estville

Press! +H*50 1 and Jantsch:s The Se)!0Or-a#i:i#- U#iverse S"ie#ti!i" a#, ;u$a#

I$+)i"atio#s o! the E$er-i#- ara,i-$ o! Evo)utio# /(ew Kor Pergamon

Press! +H*50.

H. 9oulding! op. cit. 9oulding! in a new boo 4Evo)utio#ar& E"o#o$i"s% 9everly

6ills! 'alifornia #age Publications! +H*+0 ! uses the evolutionary ecological

paradigm for reinterpretation and extension of economic science.

+5. #omething of this nature! more limited as I perceive it! has also been articulated

by 3rich Jantsch. #ee his /esi-# !or Evo)utio# /(ew Kor eorge 9raziller!

+HC=0.


12/12

'opyright of Journal of 3conomic Issues /Association for 3volutionary 3conomics0 is the property of

Association for 3volutionary 3conomics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or

posted to a listsery without the copyright holder:s express written permission. 6owever! users may print!

download! or email articles for individual use.

001 a general theory of planning

Documents