Analysis of the practice of planning is increasingly being used to develop planning theory, The papers by Roweis and Forester in the second issue of Environment and Planning D: Society and Space base analysis of planning practice on hermeneutic, linguistic, and phenomenological approaches, as an alternative to the technical -rational approach to planning theory, In the present paper, I argue that the approaches adopted by these two authors create more problems than they solve, and a critique of Roweis's and Forester's theoretical ideas is made, It is argued that these approaches rest upon idealist ontological assumptions, rendering explanation of qualitative change (development) impossible. Discussion of Giddens's concept of structuration and of the negative consequences for scientific explanation of Habermas's epistemological position is presented, as both approaches are used by Roweis and Forester. Criticism is also made of the separation of territorial relations from relations of substance. Finally, the serious consequences of their approaches for scientific and social practice are outlined. I conclude that this type of approach cannot provide a satisfactory basis for planning theory, and furthermore, that the approach is inherently conservative. Some ideas arc presented concerning planning theory based on materialist ontological foundations.
Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: Reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning
