Planning As a Moral Discourse: Some Ideas For Planning Education in Indonesia

B. Setiawan

Abstract


This  paper  questions the direction of planning education which is: 1) too oriented toward the practical interest of planning profession; 2) bas ed on the planning perception which is too deterministic and too emphasis on spatial aspect; 3) not fully perceive a more broader role   and  position  of  planning  in  general  public;  and  4)  ignoring  the  role  of  planning education as a place for developing planning science. Starting out from the conception that planning  is also a “moral discourse”, this paper suggests a “holistic” planning education based  on  the  reality  that  the  thought  and  activity  of  planning  is  not  merely  a  technical rational  process,  but  fu ll  of  economic,  social,  and  political  complexities.  Begin  by evaluating and clarifying streams in planning theory, this paper then discusses the context and some ideas for the development of planning in developing countries as a whole and in Indonesia, in particular.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alexander, E.R. 1986. Approaches to Planning. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publisher.

Beauregard, R. 1995. Edge of Critics. Journal of Planning Education and Research Vol.14.No.3:155-189.

Dalton, Linda. 1986. Why the Rational Paradigm Persists. The Resistance of Professional Education and Practice to Alternative Forms of Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research .Vol.5.No.3:147-153.

Feldman, Marshall M.A. 1994. Perloff Revisited: Reassessing Planning Education in Postmodern Times. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol.13.No. :89-103.

Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Friedmann, J. 1993. Empowerment, The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge M.A.: Blackwell Publisher.

Friedman, John. 1995. Teaching Planning Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research Vol.14.No.3:155-189.

Harper Thomas, L. and Stanley M. Stein. 1995. Out of the Postmodern Abyss: Preserving the Rationale for Liberal Planning. Journal of Planning and Education Research. Vol.14.N0.4:232-244.

Hendler, S. 1995. Planning Ethics, A Reader in Planning Theory, Practice, and Education. New Brunswick: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research.

Heumann, 1988, It is Time to Take Stock of the Education of Foreign Students in North American Planning Ph.D. Programs. Journal of Planning and Education Research. Vol.10.No.2:154-157.

Hoch, Charles J. 1984. Pragmatism, Planning, and Power. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol.4.N0.2:86-95.

Jones, Gareth and Peter.M. Ward. 1994. The World Bank’s “New” Urban Management Programme: Paradigm Shift or Policy Continuing? Habitat International.Vol.18.No.3.33-51.

Klosterman, Richard E. 1981. Contemporary Planning Theory Education: Results of a Course Survey. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol.1.No.1:1-11.

Klosterman, Richard E. 1992. Planning Theory Education in the 1980s: Results of a Second Course Survey. Journal of Planning Education and Research.Vol.11.No.2:130-40.

Kueckeberg, P. 1984. Planning and the New Depression in the Social Science. Journal of Planning Education and Research.Vol.3:78-86.

Schon, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.




Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2019 Journal of Regional and City Planning