Interconnectedness and complexity in systems

Interconnectedness and Complexity Order Number

Interconnectivity and Complexity

Interconnectedness and Complexity

Given the new challenges facing today's planners, the technical aspect of planning is becoming ever more dominant in my analysis. Thus my hypothesis calling for a "hybrid approach." Planners need to work hand in hand with politicians to achieve public policy goals.

The proper role of planners -- and the question of interconnectedness and complexity in public administration -- has been at the center of debate in the field of planning theory for well over a century now. Sometimes, the goals and roles of planners conflict with each other. On one side, scholars described planners as "value free technical advisors" that were not encouraged to bring up their own values into the planning process. Scholars, on the other hand, have also argued that planning can never be removed from politics. Some have opined that planners should try to influence political decisions from behind the scene. Other roles, i.e. negotiators, managers, facilitators, advocates, organizers, and even bureaucrats emanate from the same ideas.

My hypothesis is that there should be a "hybrid" of the theories of interconnectedness and complexity in public administration, even though Woodrow Wilson back in his famous 1887 article. The Study of Administration, argued that there should be a separation in these spheres, a disconnect from politics and administration, or from interconnectedness and complexity.

Given the new challenges facing today's planners, the technical aspect of planning is becoming ever more dominant in my analysis. Thus my hypothesis calling for a "hybrid approach." Planners need to work hand in hand with politicians to achieve public policy goals.

Should planners only act as "pure technicians and bureaucrats, or should they bring their political values to the job?" asks Ihab Nabil Elkhawas in his landmark paper, The Role of Planners Between Theory and Reality: Revisiting an Old Question, Workshop theme: Planning Theory and Philosophy. "All the above mentioned roles can be described in this context. Technicians, managers, and bureaucrats can all be labeled as value-free planners, while political actors, advocates, facilitators, and negotiators can be labeled as political planners. Thus, the real issue is whether planners should be pure technicians, or political actors, or something in between?"

To be sure, there is a lot of disagreement and even dissatisfaction in the planning field, as a result of this debate. Perhaps this short paper will add to the literature and help settle the matter a bit.

Planning is the process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of goals, policies, and procedures for a social or economic unit. The very act of planning is to create a plan for arranging, realizing, or achieving something, i.e. going through some kind of process to achieve planning goals.

The objective of planning in general is "doing good" for everyone, improving the overall quality of life within cities, regions, and even nations.

Former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson is considered the father of public administration in the U.S. He is considered the first here to formally recognized public administration in an 1887 article entitled "The Study of Administration." Wilson wrote that "it is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of energy."