ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the phenomenon of manipulation in planning by drawing on the perspectives and the analytic results of social choice theory. The outcome also reflects the structure of power and interests in the planning agency and the project organization. Even in the institutionally enriched literature one is faced with the great trade-off in social choice theory between low concentration of power and high degree of consistency in collective choice. The transitivity condition of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem implies path independence and thus rules out planning that affects the social decisions. The purpose is to show, with the support of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, that manipulation is ubiquitous in democratic decision-making, that planning cannot prevent it, and that sincere dialogue is even likely to be a utility maximizing strategy for the planners themselves. The importance attributed to path independence in social choice theory suggests a contradiction with planning theory.
