ABSTRACT
In Planning as Persuasive Storytelling (1996), I argued that planning can usefully be construed as persuasive and constitutive storytelling about the future. Three broad lines of critique have been directed against that claim. One argues that to think of planning as storytelling is to open the floodgates to fabrications. The second essentially argues that power, not stories, is what matters. And the third suggests that there is more to storytelling than first meets the eye. Furthermore, my claim was not well connected to contemporary scholarship about economic restructuring and the emergence of a globalized “network society” and the postmodern, global, or transnational city.
