14.2 Descriptive Models of the Planning Process
A reasonable model of the infrastructure planning process assigns to the planner the
function of formulating a set of alternatives. General goals are proposed directly or
indirectly by special interests, public decision makers, and the planner. The planner
must determine which of these goals are relevant and translate them into operational
objectives or design criteria. Specific planning alternatives, which accomplish these
objectives to varying degrees, are then generated. When one or more of the planning
alternatives are submitted to a policy maker, or policy-making group, either a plan
for implementation is selected or the submitted alternative(s) are rejected. As policy
makers hold elective or appointed roles in a political system, it follows that plan
selection is inherently a political decision. Thus, further to a project being both
technically and financially feasible, a further crucial consideration, in the public
planning process, is its political feasibility. To be successful, infrastructure planning
must, to an extent, conform to the realities of political decision-making, and an
understanding of the policy-making process is a requisite to effective multi-objective
planning.
14.2.1 The Policy-Making Process
A discussion of politics relies on some basic assumptions concerning human
behaviour:
(1) all individuals have different goals varying both in direction and in intensity.
(2) the same person may have many goals, some of which conflict with others.
(3) the goals of one individual may conflict with or be similar to those of others.
(4) the relative value or worth of people’s goals can be indicated by what they are
willing to give up to achieve them.
These assumptions imply that conflict has a central role in any social system.
Furthermore, individuals are willing to exert some effort to prevent their goals from
being frustrated. These implications lead directly to the need for a political system.
When individuals seek to achieve their objectives through government actions,
personal goals become political goals, and a political decision determines which
political goals will be achieved.
There are two concepts which clarify the mechanism of political decisions:
(1) Agency: Public decision makers are agents of the members of a political system
and are authorized to make choices among political goals. Attention focuses on
these agents or policy makers, and individuals try to influence them to support
various goals.
(2) Association: A political association attempts to get other people in a political
system to accept the political goals of the association’s members. One of the
14.2 Descriptive Models of the Planning Process
385
A reasonable model of the infrastructure planning process assigns to the planner the
function of formulating a set of alternatives. General goals are proposed directly or
indirectly by special interests, public decision makers, and the planner. The planner
must determine which of these goals are relevant and translate them into operational
objectives or design criteria. Specific planning alternatives, which accomplish these
objectives to varying degrees, are then generated. When one or more of the planning
alternatives are submitted to a policy maker, or policy-making group, either a plan
for implementation is selected or the submitted alternative(s) are rejected. As policy
makers hold elective or appointed roles in a political system, it follows that plan
selection is inherently a political decision. Thus, further to a project being both
technically and financially feasible, a further crucial consideration, in the public
planning process, is its political feasibility. To be successful, infrastructure planning
must, to an extent, conform to the realities of political decision-making, and an
understanding of the policy-making process is a requisite to effective multi-objective
planning.
14.2.1 The Policy-Making Process
A discussion of politics relies on some basic assumptions concerning human
behaviour:
(1) all individuals have different goals varying both in direction and in intensity.
(2) the same person may have many goals, some of which conflict with others.
(3) the goals of one individual may conflict with or be similar to those of others.
(4) the relative value or worth of people’s goals can be indicated by what they are
willing to give up to achieve them.
These assumptions imply that conflict has a central role in any social system.
Furthermore, individuals are willing to exert some effort to prevent their goals from
being frustrated. These implications lead directly to the need for a political system.
When individuals seek to achieve their objectives through government actions,
personal goals become political goals, and a political decision determines which
political goals will be achieved.
There are two concepts which clarify the mechanism of political decisions:
(1) Agency: Public decision makers are agents of the members of a political system
and are authorized to make choices among political goals. Attention focuses on
these agents or policy makers, and individuals try to influence them to support
various goals.
(2) Association: A political association attempts to get other people in a political
system to accept the political goals of the association’s members. One of the
14.2 Descriptive Models of the Planning Process
385