Decision making refers to the approach through which policymakers follow in an attempt of coming up with choices applicable in the planning process. From this view, the decision-making process requires the application of various steps in the analysis to come up with the best alternative to be used in planning. Every decision-making approach should undergo through the process of searching for other options based on the concept thus providing the best action to be applied through the evaluation approach. When deciding the appropriate alternatives, people may draw a conclusion based on experience, research, and analysis or experimentation. In modern society, people decision-making process is shifting from rational theory to critical, social learning theory, and advocacy planning. This departure from a calculative approach has created dilemmas in decision making and planning process. Social learning, advocacy, and critical planning theories have themes that differentiate such perspectives from the traditional methods of decision making.
Advocacy planning theory
Themes:
According to Davidoff (1965), decision making and planning process consists of various groups with different interests. The first group consists of the political parties who need their interests to be considered in the planning process. In this case, political parties include those individuals in power and those in the opposition. Discrimination is evident in every community, and it results in the creation of people different classes in the same society. For example, there may be the rich and poor in population, and the national planning agencies need to consider people from all the groups thus creating dilemmas in the decision-making process (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Under this condition, decision making and planning process becomes complicated, and it calls for the need of including representatives from all the parties.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Difference
The advocacy theory shows a significant difference from the traditional approach because it calls for a need of introducing plans in the planning process as opposed to the intellectual paradigm which called for a unitary agent given the obligation of evaluating available alternatives and making choices in the planning process.
Social learning Planning
Themes
According to Friedmann, (1987) social learning planning calls for the need of exercising policies and plans that serve the interests of the public. In this theory, the decision-making process should take into consideration the varying ideas and interests of people in the community and ensure that they reach at an agreement before implementing the policy. Like the advocacy theory, social learning recognizes that groups and individuals have different ideas regarding the same issue and successful planning should demonstrate satisfaction of the conflicting parties. Social learning theory recognizes that there is no single thinking that is right and dilemmas in the decision-making process can be reduced by calling for a negotiation process. This information indicates that planning requires system thinking which creates an opportunity for collecting the conflicting views, network building, dialogue, and the knowledge should be well-managed to take care of the interests of all the parties. According to Banfield, (1959) the implementation of the planning should reflect the negotiation process showing that the choice is a public output but not for the privileged people in the society as the case in rational theory.
Difference
The difference between social learning and rational theory is that the latter choice of outcomes serves the interests of the privileged minority in the society while the former demonstrates agreement between the conflicting parties.
Critical theory
Themes
According to Forester, (1993) successful planning and decision-making process require the interaction of people from different fields to share and critically evaluate the application of alternatives. The central idea of this argument is that people cannot make successful decisions basing arguments on what they have experienced in the environment in which they live. In this case, there is a need for a person to listen to ideas from other people and evaluate the appropriateness of that information. This argument calls for encouraging of encouraging ideas from people in different departments and assess the relevance of the information in planning for a particular project (Lindblom, 1973). For example, national policymakers should comprise of individuals across different fields such as economics, sociology, and psychology for successful implementation of a particular policy.
Difference
Critical theory of planning differs from the rational paradigm in that the former encourages ideas from outside the context requiring the policy, and it emphasizes the importance of communicating with people from different environments. On the other hand, rational theorists believe that decision making and planning can be achieved exclusively within the political context ignoring the importance of social context.
Social learning, critical, and advocacy theories of planning create diverse perspectives through which plan can be achieved. Critical theory calls for the need of extending the planning process to encourage ideas and inputs from people of a different environment. The argument is that policymakers should consider political, economic, and social aspects in the planning process. Advocacy theory calls for a need of creating a multi-party approach by considering the inputs of all the parties while social learning theory calls for lack of implementing policies that reflect the interests of the public as opposed to the rational argument that depicted interests of the privileged groups.
References
Banfield, E. C. (1959). Ends and means in planning. International Social Science Journal , 11 (3), 361-368.
Charles Lindblom (1973) The science of muddling through. Public AdministrationReview, 19(2),79 ‐ 88
Davidoff, P. (2011). “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning”: Journal of the American Institute of Planners (1965). In The City Reader (pp. 491-501). Routledge.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action . Princeton University Press.
John_Forester (1993).Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. Albany: State University of NewYorkPress, pp.37 ‐ 66;83 ‐ 1
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences , 4 (2), 155-169.
