Book Reviews 203

strength of the book then is not so much in the detailed substance but in the stimulating issues it raises. Certainly the use of a rigidly dualist division of society into the ‘moral’ and “technical is frustrating at times, particularly in view of recent important developments in the Marxist literature - both economic and anthropological, however, to judge the book entirely at this level is to miss its point. Peattie utilises the mor~/technic~ order debate as a means of con- fronting the dom~ant orthodoxy - the established ‘economic’ view of development planning - and in this she is very suc~e~fu1,

As an an~ropolo~st working with development planners, I found it fascinating particularly in its lucid identification of the importance of the anthropologist, as anthropologist, within the field of planning, clearly distinct from but as important as the social planner. At a time of increasing preoccupation among university ~~ropolo~ departments about the job market for the swelling numbers of unemployed ~~ropolo~ts {most obviously manifest in the pro- ~feratio~ of final year courses in ‘applied’ ~thropolo~) this is a very welcome book. It is to be hoped that it will enlighten the attitudes of the more entrenched end of the academic anthropological profession - to whom development means destruction - by showing them that it is not necessary to be ‘applied’ to work in the real world of planning. However, this book is not simply for ~thropolo~sts. Although Peattie’s experiences with the planners in Venezuela occurred over 20 years ago, many of the attitudes she desc~bed still predom~ate today. While recogni~on exists that somewhere there is a ‘problem’ and a need for considering the social context more explicitIy,3 nevertheless planning practitioners still find it easier to concentrate on the economic and assign to those involved with the %ocial’ in development, the practical planning of social facilities such as schools or health-care centres. As long as anthropologists are isolated from the fund~ent~ decisions about the society for which they are meant to be pla~ng, the important contribu~on they can make will continue to be ignored.

Cardine O.N. Moser Development Planning Unit

University Colkge London

SHEANMcCONNELL,~eories few Plarming, Heinemann, London, 198 1,208 pp.

In this book ~cConne~ has attempted to offer a prescriptive formula for the development of pl~~g theory. In his own words ~cConne~ wishes to ‘~um~ate the paths and purposes ahead for urban planning’ - to rescue the scapegoat planner from inadequate theory which has hitherto rendered the planner vulnerable to criticism.

McConnell claims that planning theory should be ‘falsifiable’, that is, set in specific terms and easily subject to testing or correction. In addition, McConnell suggests that planning must be effective, responsive to the needs and preferences of those affected by planing policies, and morally just.

The work of Karl Popper is offered in support of M~Conne~s view that planning theory must be steered away from inductive approaches to theorising as associated with Positivism, Idealism, Behaviourism, or Materialism. It is suggested that planning theory must be specific in terms of time and place, deductive and tentative, with the theorist in constant search of error and correction. The “falsifiable’ nature of planning theory would in turn allow theory to be tested in terms of its effectiveness, responsiveness, and the extent to which that theory pro- duced just results.

McConnell recognises that while planning theory must strive for responsiveness and justice, to be effective, theory must be sanctioned by those who hold political power. Ultimatelyy, McConnell suggests that as a form of political action, planning may be moderated by ethical con~derations throu~ participation and democratic derision-rn~~g.

3 For a clear indication of this see: Human Fuctcm in Pm&~t Work, World Bank Staif Working Paper No. 397, June 1980.

204 Book Reviews

Turning from the ‘falsifiable’, effective or responsive nature of planning theory, McConnell takes up the question of justice and what he sees as a basic ethical consideration - the recon- ciliation of the maintenance of individual liberty and the need for egalitarian justice. McConnell refers to the work of John Rawls (A Theory ofJustice, 1971) with the claim that the work of Rawls may provide a basis for an ethical theory for planning. Rawls lays stress on the import- ance of individual liberty believing that “Justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by the greater good shared by others.” For Rawls each member of society should have access to the most extensive system of liberties. Injustice or the restriction of individual liberty is only acceptable in order that greater injustice be avoided or the overall network of liberties strengthened. McConnell also emphasises the belief of Rawls that society has a duty to protect its inheritance, and to uphold institutions and resources for the benefit of future gener- ations. Fundamental to the work of Rawls is the belief that society and the individual is natur- ally orientated towards a social system which would allow protection from disadvantage and inequalities. This view contrasts sharply with the belief that advantaged individuals or social groups will seek to protect their privileged position. Critics, such as Wolff (1977), have suggested that Rawls is essentially an idealist and place his work in the tradition of late-nineteenth century utopian liberalism. By focusing on the institutional and distributive mechanisms in society, Rawls manages to ignore social relations as they relate to production - and writes with a dis- regard for Marxist political economic interpretations.

While Rawls did not relate his thinking directly to planning, McConnell suggests that the ideas of Rawls with respecl to justice and liberty may be applied to questions such as zoning and the control of land use. It is suggested that the ideas of Rawls with respect to ‘just savings’ and the maintenance of the social inheritance may be applied to the planners’ relationship to conservation. As McConnell suggests the ideas of Rawls may be inviting to the majority of practising planners ‘who are in some politically-central position’.

While McConnell may be correct in the assumption that planners may find support in a theory for planning which draws its methodology from Popper and its ethics from Rawls, critics may feel that - perhaps ironically - the insistence on democracy, liberty, pluralism, participation and the ‘open society’ may mask an actual abdication from questions of justice. The planner, who McConnell suggests is no stranger to compromise, may find validation in a theory which offers ethical respectability but suggests no threat to the status quo.

For those not in search of validation Theories for Planning may prove disappointing. It contains little that is new and is put together with a lack of incision or rigour. While McConnell claims to follow John Friedmann in the belief that “. . . any theory about public sector plan- ning which does not pay due regard to political and moral ideas is deficient”, the regard paid to the plethora of philosophers and theoreticians whose names fii this book is scant and often

clumsy. A gamut of philosophical positions are accounted for with cliches and generalisations - many of which beg further questioning or refutation. Materialist or Marxist approaches to planning in particular, are dispatched with statements such as “. . _ he (Marx) might have said something different if he had lived a century later”. This may seem a particularly unscholarly dismissal of Marx and the current development of Marxian interests as they relate to planning theory. Such a dismissal of what might be considered the most obvious alternative viewpoint to that taken by McConnell may also be unwarranted in that the work of Rawls has been

related to late-nineteenth century liberal utopianism. Finally, it may be said that however much McConnell may have fallen short of a rigorous

analysis of ideological perspectives in planning theory, 7’heories for Planning is of interest as an expression of the formation of ideology in planning theory.

Patrick Malone Plymouth Polytechnic