“Planning is not radical doctrine,” some planners wrote soon after the fall of the centrally planned Soviet empire. “It is rational decision making.”
In fact, comprehensive, long-range planning cannot be rational decision making for the following reasons. I have discussed some of these reasons in detail in previous posts, and I will discuss the rest in future posts. But I thought it would be worthwhile listing them here.
Tadacip’s effect starts price sildenafil working in 30 minutes and lasts for a time of 36 hours. Shopping for cheap Tadalafil 20mg isn’t as easy as it sounds. levitra in canada What Leads to Erectile Dysfunction in a Man? Most common causes of impotence issue in man are that it affects blood vessels and blood flow in the penile region increases allowing the penis to erect. why not find out more generico viagra on line Likewise, teaching can be fulfilling too as children are the future citizens buy viagra in uk of our country and it is the responsibility of the teachers to shape and mould the personality and temperament of the students to the best of their abilities.
- The Data Problem: The amount of data needed to write a truly comprehensive plan is more than any planning agency can afford to collect. Even if collected, it is more than anyone, even with the help of computers, can comprehend.
- The Future Problem: Writing a long-range plan requires information about the future that is unknowable, such as future technologies, costs, and personal preferences.
- The Modeling Problem: All planning requires models, but before a model becomes complicated enough to be useful for comprehensive planning, it becomes too complicated for anyone to understand.
- The Pace of Change Problem: By the time planners collect all available data and go through the public process of writing a comprehensive plan, conditions have changed so much that the plan is obsolete.
- The Incentive Problem: Government planners who deal with other people’s resources, whether their land or their tax dollars, have no incentive to find the right answers because the costs of their mistakes will be imposed mostly on others.
- The Political Problem: Ultimately, the final decision in any government plan will be made through the political process, a process which is hardly rational.
- The Special Interest Problem: Any time you give a government agency the power to write plans for other people’s money and resources, you create incentives for special-interest groups to lobby in favor of plans that primarily benefit them. Such interest groups will not provide a balanced view; in particular, taxpayers will be underrepresented.
Any one of these reasons would be sufficient to make government planning unworkable. None of them can be solved by any technological or institutional improvement. Those who worry about externalities and other problems that planners purport to address need to find alternative solutions to their problems.
From what you wrote here, there isn’t much difference from the private sector too. Short term vs. long term.
“The market is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Take care, Andrew
“ The amount of data needed to write a truly comprehensive plan is more than any planning agency can afford to collect. Even if collected, it is more than anyone, even with the help of computers, can comprehend.â€Â
Why is it more than any agency can afford to collect? Why can’t it be comprehended by a human, or computer? How much information is needed to write a comprehensive plan? Are these your assumptions, or can you logically prove your statements?
“ Writing a long-range plan requires information about the future that is unknowableâ€Â
Is all future information necessary to write a plan unknowable? This seems like a shaky stance. Do we even need to know all information to make a plan? Sure, it may help to know absolutely everything, but what if we have 95% of the information? Is that not enough to take action? I don’t know everything that will happen tomorrow, but I can still plan my day.
“All planning requires models, but before a model becomes complicated enough to be useful for comprehensive planning, it becomes too complicated for anyone to understand.â€Â
You are working from the assumption that a model has to be complicated to be useful for comprehensive planning, which of course contradicts the definition of a model. It seems as though you are just saying that you can’t model complex situations. Unfortunately, logically proving that statement is troublesome as well.
I’ll leave it there for now, but it seems as though you have a lot of assumptions (possibly incorrect) that form the foundation of your stance. I’d examine those and make sure they are correct.
These are all incorrect premises.
With no examples to show your assertions are valid.
Oh, speaking of no examples, you still haven’t provided us with an example when you implied In fact, I’ve already read two versions of the fourth one, on high housing prices, in comments on this site  one of them coming from somebody named Dan. Can you provide us where you got those quotes from? I can’t find them.
You aren’t making this up, are you?
———-
The amount of data needed to write a truly comprehensive plan is more than any planning agency can afford to collect.
No. If this premise were true, no one would ever make a decision in a complex environment. And ‘Truly’. You haven’t defined your unattainable standard.
Writing a long-range plan requires information about the future that is unknowable, such as future technologies, costs, and personal preferences.
So what. Businesses, futures markets and the military don’t seem to be hampered with this problem.
Maybe they need to talk to Randal so they can get straightened out.
All planning requires models, but before a model becomes complicated enough to be useful for comprehensive planning
You must be confusing your experiences 20 years ago with a single federal agency with the rest of the world. This is why I point out the fact that you don’t do this for a living, therefore you don’t know how the process works.
By the time planners collect all available data and go through the public process of writing a comprehensive plan, conditions have changed so much that the plan is obsolete.
No.
No one on the planet does this. You don’t need to collect all available data. Why would anyone do this? Oh wait: so nothing gets done. Got it.
Government planners who deal with other people’s resources, whether their land or their tax dollars, have no incentive to find the right answers because the costs of their mistakes will be imposed mostly on others.
No.
You, a self-regarding person, are projecting your values upon others (other-regarding persons) who don’t share your values and ideology. You are, simply, wrong.
Ultimately, the final decision in any government plan will be made through the political process, a process which is hardly rational.
This is not a reason.
People are only occasionally rational. Deal with it. Or not, and create a blog and rail about how things should be in a fantasy world.
Any time you give a government agency the power to write plans for other people’s money and resources, you create incentives for special-interest groups to lobby in favor of plans that primarily benefit them.
Ah.
In your fantasy world, oversight, accountability, values do not exist. Sounds sad. This, or you aren’t letting your readers in on how things work.
DS
Dan and PDXF,
As I said, this post is merely a list of my reasons why planning can’t work. Future posts (or, in some cases, previous posts) will go into much more detail for each reason.
TheHighwayman:
The difference between public planning and private planning is that there is a self-correcting mechanism when private planning becomes too bureaucratic and autocratic: companies go out of business or severely pare their planning departments to save themselves. Public planning does not have this self-correcting mechanism.
It seems as though we are discussing the entire issue half-way through the process, when I don’t necessarily agree with the very foundations on what your stance is built on. Perhaps you could devote a section of the site to the logic that has led you to your current position. Start with the foundational issues (perhaps that the world population is predicted to level off as stated in one of your previous posts), state all premises, and build from there.
It will be much easier for me to see the thought process, and I wouldn’t have to bring up the issues with posts like this one, where the conclusion is stated before the premise.
Dan said: These are all incorrect premises.
With no examples to show your assertions are valid.
JK: So, show some counter examples.
Dan said:
Oh, speaking of no examples, you still haven’t provided us with an example when you implied
In fact, I’ve already read two versions of the fourth one, on high housing prices, in comments on this site  one of them coming from somebody named Dan.
Can you provide us where you got those quotes from? I can’t find them.
You aren’t making this up, are you?
JK: Are you really saying that you have never heard a planner claim that housing prices are due only to demand, and not affected by supply restrictions?
That claim is one of the several, obviously untrue claims that show just how stupid (or dishonest) the average planner really is. They are trying to deny the most fundamental law of economics. I hope you aren’t also trying to deny it.
â€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€-
Dan said: The amount of data needed to write a truly comprehensive plan is more than any planning agency can afford to collect.
No. If this premise were true, no one would ever make a decision in a complex environment. And ‘Truly’. You haven’t defined your unattainable standard.
JK: No, instead planners make WRONG decisions. And government planners write their mistakes into law, making such mistakes difficult to correct.
Dan said: Writing a long-range plan requires information about the future that is unknowable, such as future technologies, costs, and personal preferences.
So what. Businesses, futures markets and the military don’t seem to be hampered with this problem.
JK: You must not pay much attention to news – I have seen a number of military experts say their battle plan is mostly ignored once the shooting starts. As to the futures markets – they were originated as a way to take the risk out of future price changes in commodities. If your organization allocate $10 million for, say fuel, next year you can lock in that price with the futures market.
The difference that you ignore is that the result of a government plan tends to become law and is therefore inflexible.
Dan said: Maybe they need to talk to Randal so they can get straightened out.
JK: What a kind, respectful comment – are you, by any chance, a city planner?
Dan said: All planning requires models, but before a model becomes complicated enough to be useful for comprehensive planning
You must be confusing your experiences 20 years ago with a single federal agency with the rest of the world. This is why I point out the fact that you don’t do this for a living, therefore you don’t know how the process works.
JK: No he is pointing out what is going on all over the county right now. I see it in that planner’s mecca, Portland. It is obvious to anyone who is paying attention.
Dan said: By the time planners collect all available data and go through the public process of writing a comprehensive plan, conditions have changed so much that the plan is obsolete.
No.
No one on the planet does this. You don’t need to collect all available data. Why would anyone do this? Oh wait: so nothing gets done. Got it.
JK: You don’t even understand the phrase “all available†– it means gather up everything that is laying around, not that you spend years creating new data.
Dan said: Government planners who deal with other people’s resources, whether their land or their tax dollars, have no incentive to find the right answers because the costs of their mistakes will be imposed mostly on others.
No.
JK: YES. Just look at Portland:
* Tram. More than 500% over budget.
* West side light rail: More than 300% over budget. Ridership 38% under projection. Carries commuters equal to 1/3 of one land of freeway for $963million
* Eastside light rail: 55% over budget and 54% under ridership projection. Carries commuters equal to 1/3 of one lane of freeway
* Light rail loop through Vancouver WA. Projected to carry 25-40% of one lane of freeway for $1.2 Billion
These are not numbers you get if you are held responsible for results.
Dan said: You, a self-regarding person, are projecting your values upon others (other-regarding persons) who don’t share your values and ideology. You are, simply, wrong.
JK: Actually, it is the other way around. You appear to be from the romantic tradition and The Antiplanner from the rational school of thought. That is why you cannot produce facts – you have few to none to support your side. Romantics make decisions based on what feels good.
Dan said: Ultimately, the final decision in any government plan will be made through the political process, a process which is hardly rational.
This is not a reason.
JK: No, but it is the reality.
Dan said: Any time you give a government agency the power to write plans for other people’s money and resources, you create incentives for special-interest groups to lobby in favor of plans that primarily benefit them.
Ah.
In your fantasy world, oversight, accountability, values do not exist. Sounds sad. This, or you aren’t letting your readers in on how things work.
JK: You are partly right: “oversight, accountability, values do not exist†in the real world of politics. For examples, review the list of projects above. Or consider Metro’s current plan of placing housing in the far east part of Portland while the jobs center is on the far west. Hardly rational – but that is what the politics gave us. It is now written IN LAW and will be hard to change. It is also written into law, with quite a gaggle of nuts supporting it, that little housing can be built in the region with the most jobs.
Before planning came to Oregon, we had some of the nation’s most affordable housing and lowest unemployment. Now we have high unemployment and lousy housing affordability.
The planners are destroying Oregon.
Thanks
JK
Thanks for the effort Jim. I await the reply of the person to whom my comment was directed: Randal.
DS
Why won’t you take on a discussion with Jim, Dan? I especially would like to see some of your data points bolstering your rebuttals.
Why won’t you take on a discussion with Jim, Dan? I especially would like to see some of your data points bolstering your rebuttals.
JK: He doesn’t have any – he’s a romantic instead of a rational.
Thanks
JK
Why won’t you take on a discussion with Jim, Dan?
Thank you for asking. I didn’t address my comments to Jim, yet he decided to unapologetically butt in.
Why would I reward such behavior?
DS
Hey Jim, I guess I’ll butt in and attempt to address some of your comments:
â€ÂSo, show some counter examples.â€Â
Generally the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I personally don’t think I need to provide counter examples for the items that I brought up since I brought into question the very validitity of the premise. Statements like “the future is unknowable†ignores whether or not we need to know everything in the future to make a plan. I didn’t state a premise, and have only attempted to show what is wrong with those stated.
â€ÂNo, instead planners make WRONG decisions.â€Â
Even if this were a statement with basis, this still doesn’t answer the question of why a planning agency can’t afford to collect the amount of data necessary, or even the amount of data that is necessary.
â€ÂYou don’t even understand the phrase “all availableâ€Â
I just don’t understand why we would have to know 100% of everything to make a plan. If we did, I have no idea why any of us would get up in the morning.
â€ÂJust look at Portland:
* Tram. More than 500% over budget.
* West side light rail: More than 300% over budget…â€Â
I would first love to know where these numbers are from. I also have to point out that you are only including up-front costs (and only financial at that, I know that non-financial costs are hard to add into the equation (perhaps we should start taxing carbon emissions from autos)). What incentives do the politicians have for wasting the tax payer’s money? What’s the benefit to them, re-election?
You, a self-regarding person…â€Â
I think we all are. I generally expect people to be good and do the right thing. I understand that there are people who aren’t, but to apply the worst possible view to the world I think only makes the world worse.
“[political process] a process which is hardly rational. …No, but it is the reality.â€Â
Can someone please back up this claim?
The Antiplanner from the rational school of thought
For being rational, I keep finding plenty of faulty premises, logical fallacies and claims without supporting fact. I would be careful with the word “rationalâ€Â.
Before planning came to Oregon, we had some of the nation’s most affordable housing and lowest unemployment.
And a few million fewer people. (http://www.qualityinfo.org/pubs/pop/population05.pdf) which may have a little to do with increased prices, as well as unemployment.
Don/pdxf â€ÂSo, show some counter examples.â€Â
Generally the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I personally don’t think I need to provide counter examples for the items that I brought up since I brought into question the very validitity of the premise. Statements like “the future is unknowable†ignores whether or not we need to know everything in the future to make a plan. I didn’t state a premise, and have only attempted to show what is wrong with those stated.
JK: Er, just show some counter examples, instead of slipping and sliding all around the issue. The simple fact is the antiplanner is correct and you cannot prove otherwise.
(Actually, it is the planners that are making all these fantastic claims. Now it is time for them to prove their claims. You can start now.)
Don/pdxf â€ÂYou don’t even understand the phrase “all availableâ€Â
I just don’t understand why we would have to know 100% of everything to make a plan. If we did, I have no idea why any of us would get up in the morning.
JK: The issue is not “a planâ€Â, but a plan that works AND is desired by its subjects. Smart growth, Portland style, delivers on neither.
Don/pdxf â€ÂJust look at Portland:
* Tram. More than 500% over budget.
* West side light rail: More than 300% over budget…â€Â
I would first love to know where these numbers are from.
JK: Tram: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/TramOnBudget.htm
Toy Train: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/WestOnTimeOnBudget.htm
Don/pdxf perhaps we should start taxing carbon emissions from autos.
JK: Only if we do the same for mass transit. Did you know that buses emit more carbon per passenger-mile than cars? And in most regions LRT is close, but with an added component of mercury, uranium and thorium emission.
Don/pdxf What incentives do the politicians have for wasting the tax payer’s money? What’s the benefit to them, re-election?
JK: And ribbon cutting ceremonies. And campaign donations. See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/WhoWantsRail.htm
Don/pdxf You, a self-regarding person…â€Â
I think we all are. I generally expect people to be good and do the right thing. I understand that there are people who aren’t, but to apply the worst possible view to the world I think only makes the world worse.
JK: That was Don’s statement, not ours.
Don/pdxf “[political process] a process which is hardly rational. …No, but it is the reality.â€Â
Can someone please back up this claim?
JK: Please don’t play dumb with me.
Don/pdxf The Antiplanner from the rational school of thought
For being rational, I keep finding plenty of faulty premises,
JK: Point out a few.
Don/pdxf logical fallacies and
JK: Point out a few.
Don/pdxf claims without supporting fact.
JK: Point out a few, other than stating what is obvious to an adult.
Don/pdxf I would be careful with the word “rationalâ€Â.
JK: I used it as the opposite of “romanticismâ€Â.
Don/pdxf Before planning came to Oregon, we had some of the nation’s most affordable housing and lowest unemployment.
And a few million fewer people. (http://www.qualityinfo.org/pubs/pop/population05.pdf) which may have a little to do with increased prices
JK: You are forgetting basic economics. It is supply and demand. The supply has been restricted.
Don/pdxf as well as unemployment.
JK: Shortage of land for jobs. Thanks for mentioning this – I’ll put up a page on this soon.
Thanks
JK
Don/pdxf â€ÂSo, show some counter examples.â€Â
Generally the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
JK: Er, just show some counter examples, instead of slipping and sliding all around the issue. The simple fact is the antiplanner is correct and you cannot prove otherwise.
(Actually, it is the planners that are making all these fantastic claims. Now it is time for them to prove their claims. You can start now.)
Don/pdxfI just don’t understand why we would have to know 100% of everything to make a plan.
JK: The issue is not “a planâ€Â, but a plan that works AND is desired by its subjects. Smart growth, Portland style, delivers on neither.
Don/pdxfI would first love to know where these numbers are from.
JK: Tram: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/TramOnBudget.htm
Toy Train: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/WestOnTimeOnBudget.htm
Don/pdxf perhaps we should start taxing carbon emissions from autos.
JK: Only if we do the same for mass transit. Did you know that buses emit more carbon per passenger-mile than cars? And in most regions LRT is close, but with an added component of mercury, uranium and thorium emission.
Don/pdxf What incentives do the politicians have for wasting the tax payer’s money? What’s the benefit to them, re-election?
JK: And ribbon cutting ceremonies. And campaign donations. See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/WhoWantsRail.htm
Don/pdxfFor being rational, I keep finding plenty of faulty premises,
JK: Point out a few.
Don/pdxf logical fallacies and
JK: Point out a few.
Don/pdxf claims without supporting fact.
JK: Point out a few, other than stating what is obvious to an adult.
Don/pdxf I would be careful with the word “rationalâ€Â.
JK: I used it as the opposite of “romanticismâ€Â.
Don/pdxf Before planning came to Oregon, we had some of the nation’s most affordable housing and lowest unemployment.
And a few million fewer people. (http://www.qualityinfo.org/pubs/pop/population05.pdf) which may have a little to do with increased prices
JK: You are forgetting basic economics. It is supply and demand. The supply has been restricted.
Don/pdxf as well as unemployment.
JK: Shortage of land for jobs. Thanks for mentioning this – I’ll put up a page on this soon.
Thanks
JK
Don/pdxfI just don’t understand why we would have to know 100% of everything to make a plan.
JK: The issue is not “a planâ€Â, but a plan that works AND is desired by its subjects. Smart growth, Portland style, delivers on neither.
Don/pdxfI would first love to know where these numbers are from.
JK: Tram: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/TramOnBudget.htm
Toy Train: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/WestOnTimeOnBudget.htm
Don/pdxf perhaps we should start taxing carbon emissions from autos.
JK: Only if we do the same for mass transit. Did you know that buses emit more carbon per passenger-mile than cars? And in most regions LRT is close, but with an added component of mercury, uranium and thorium emission.
Don/pdxf What incentives do the politicians have for wasting the tax payer’s money? What’s the benefit to them, re-election?
JK: And ribbon cutting ceremonies. And campaign donations. See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/WhoWantsRail.htm
This is refusing to take my comment – says it is a duplicate.
Thanks
JK
Don/pdxfI would first love to know where these numbers are from.
JK: Tram: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/TramOnBudget.htm
Toy Train: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/WestOnTimeOnBudget.htm
Oooh, I can cherry-pick quotes too [I presume I am the ‘Don’? If no, apologies for spamming comments]:
From Jim’s website under this link (entitled ‘criticism’:
DS
Requests from Jim:
Don/pdxf logical fallacies and
JK: Point out a few.
Here are a few logical fallacies:
Non Sequitur:
“In such situations, models will not work and plans based on those models are likely to do more harm than good. This means that planning is impossible…â€Â
Ad Hominem:
“Please don’t play dumb with me.†-JimKarlock
“because I have already wasted too much time correcting you on this thread.†-Jim Karlock
“You need to pay attention†-Jim Karlock
Post Hoc:
“Before planning came to Oregon, we had some of the nation’s most affordable housing and lowest unemployment.†-JimKarlock
Guilt by Association:
“These groups prefer to work in the background, but were recently exposed in Portland when their leader, and Portland’s former mayor, turned out to be an admitted statutory rapist.â€Â
Red Herring, Non Sequitur
“95 percent or more of the U.S. is rural. Urbanization is “not considered a threat to the Nation’s food production overallâ€Â†(rural != farmable)
Don/pdxf For being rational, I keep finding plenty of faulty premises,
JK: Point out a few
Here you go, a few faulty premises:
“Forecasting the future is no more accurate today than it was sixty-five years ago.â€Â
“The amount of data needed to write a truly comprehensive plan is more than any planning agency can afford to collect.â€Â
“Writing a long-range plan requires information about the future that is unknowableâ€Â
Don/pdxf claims without supporting fact.
JK: Point out a few, other than stating what is obvious to an adult.
What are you asking me to do? Aren‘t all of the claims without supporting fact obvious?
I’ll just keep pointing them out as I see them.
Several of these responses claim that business has no problem with long term planning.
This is not so.
What business has learned!
During the seventies and eighties Corporate Planning was a cornerstone of “good management†and Business Schools spent many hours teaching MBA’s the techniques of writing massive corporate plans. By the end of the eighties such long-term corporate plans were in disrepute if only because they cost so much to produce and then sat on the shelves gathering dust.
The disenchantment with corporate planning was closely linked to the disenchantment with the long-term central planning of the failed socialist states. However, the Soviet states had simply failed to produce the goods and services their populations desired. The major corporations of market-led economies had continued to produce their standard run of goods but found they were losing the race to innovate. Shortly after J K Galbraith predicted the total world dominance by a few major corporations such as IBM and General Motors tiny companies such as Apple Computers, and the innovative companies of Japan, were threatening to topple them from their thrones and many such as Pan American Airlines did disappear. Those companies which learned to survive did so by learning to shorten their planning horizons and to focus on adapting to the growing rate of change.
Ted McCracken, CEO of Silicon Graphics said “I cannot plan more than six months aheadâ€Â. In the electronics industry, as in biotechnology today, next year was unknown territory.
For about ten years I lectured MBA students at the University of Auckland NZ, and at the Auckland Institute of Studies in the “Management of Innovation and Changeâ€Â. I spent much of my time persuading these students that the only useful planning processes were those which assisted the company to adapt to change, because all we know about the future is that it will be different from today.
At a time when businesses everywhere focus on “just in time†methods of distribution and supply, and use the latest technology to reduce the time required to take new products from idea to prototype to production model†to as little as possible, councils are producing planning documents which take years to put in place and which effectively prevent any major change from external sources throughout that time and then make change a drawn out process thereafter.
Rodney District’s “Proposed Plan 2000†was published in the year 2000. The “decisions on hearings†are only being finally distributed and some years of Environment Court Hearings now lie ahead. In the meantime, the economy is undergoing major change, population projections are well out of date, and reforms to the ACT have totally changed the legislative environment in which the District Operates relative to the Regional Plan.
Pingback: EcoWorld - Guest Commentary » Blog Archive » Rational Urban Planning
Things dealing with insurance & liability have long range planning aspects.