ABSTRACT
The planning profession has been in a state of turmoil for several decades as planners in Western liberal democratic societies struggle to adapt to change and fragmentation in their cultural, social, and political contexts. This fragmentation is associated with a change often referred to as the shift from modernism to postmodernism. Some writers see the profession as suspended in the midst of a paradigm shift, unwilling to go back to the old modernist, “rational” paradigm, yet unable to agree on a vision of a new one (Alexander 1984; Beauregard 1991). Sandercock (1998a) has called for a new “postmodern” paradigm; Allmendinger (2001) prescribes a planning for “postmodern times”; others see a new public planning paradigm emerging. Ten years ago, Innés (1995) had the temerity to attach the label “emerging new paradigm” to a variety of views 1 loosely known as “communicative action planning.” Well, that brought out the barracudas! Since then, anything remotely associated with this “new paradigm” 2 can expect a barrage of critical commentary. 3
