Handout: Why Bottom-up Planning?

Why Bottom-up Planning?

Iqtidar ul Hassan
University of Memphis
Theory and Practice of Nonprofit Organizations
PADM 7641
Dr. Leigh Nanney Hersey
April 21, 2016

Handout: Why Bottom-up Planning?

Why Bottom-up Planning?

In order for the decisions to be effective, planning should be bottom-up instead of
top-down. Whereas the above thesis has been the subject of researches, practitioners too
have been concerned about finding comparative advantage of one approach over the other
or coming up with a useful synthesis. Sabatier (1986) has studied the bottom-up and topdown approaches in implementation research and tried to suggest synthesis, because both
approaches have relative advantages over one another which cannot be ignored. Hudson
(1979), while discussing contemporary planning theories, has established that most of
them try for the planning to be more participatory. Being participatory signifies a bottomup approach. Hoch (2007) has been writing on pragmatic model of planning which
emphasizes on the local experiential wisdom of the stakeholders to identify planning
alternatives. Practitioners also want to review the planning approaches in use and to come
up with more participatory approaches, which can ensure implementation.
As the brief literature review in above lines shows the significance of the debate
and also identify the important themes in this debate, they provide premises to my
assertion that planning should be bottom-up. In order to establish the need for adopting of
the bottom-up approach I will start from the SITAR model. SITAR is an acronym, which
stands for Synoptic, incremental, transactive, advocacy and radical school of planning
theory. Synoptic is a classical linear model, which starts with the setting of goals and
goes through identification of alternatives, evaluation and implementation decisions.
Incremental is a satisficing model, which is guided by bounded rationality. Transactive
focuses on intact experience of peoples lives revealing policy issues to be addressed,
planning is carried out in face-to-face interaction with the beneficiaries of the decisions.

Handout: Why Bottom-up Planning?

Advocacy cares for equity, it considers the unprivileged for giving preference in the
planning. Radical School is spontaneous activism, guided by an idealistic but pragmatic
vision of self-reliance and mutual aid (Hudson, (19790. It is obvious that Transactive and
Radical theories are comparatively more participatory in nature.
Now we already know the established mainstream theories of planning. Let us see
criteria for describing and evaluating planning tradition. These criteria are Public Interest,
Human Dimension, Feasibility, Action Potential, Substantive Theory and Self-reflective.
Table 1 gives the characteristics of each one of them. Table 2 shows the relative
emphasis each approach has on these different criteria. The comparison proves that the
Transactive and Radical schools which are more participatory score high on all criteria.
This establishes the comparative significance of participatory planning approaches and
thus supports the superiority of the bottom-up approach.

Handout: Why Bottom-up Planning?

Table 2

Relative Strengths of Bottom-up Approach

An explicit and replicable methodology for identifying a policy network

(implementation structure). It is this intersubjectively reliable

methodology, which distinguishes it from other approaches.

The target population owns the plan and becomes an active role-player.
This approach seeks a multiple perspective for identifying alternatives,

which renders them more comprehensiveness and inclusiveness.

Ownership of the plan by those for it is meant ensures its
implementability.

The Pragmatic Approach

Charles Hoch (2007) advocates pragmatic approach to planning. He borrows
from Dewey his concepts of experiment and pragmatic action for this purpose. To him the
problem definition is a form of experience, plan formulation is a form of inquiry and plan
implementation is a form of democratic participation. Hoch has tried to prove that the
mainstream planning theorists use the pragmatic concepts of experiment, inquiry and
participation in order to bind theory and practice. This discussion sets a premise for the

Handout: Why Bottom-up Planning?

significance of a participatory decision making which is consistent with bottom-up

planning approach.
The Practitioners Perspective
Beside these theoretical arguments in favor of bottom-up approach, practitioners
also prefer a participatory approach to ensure implementability of the plan. I interviewed
Shahid Khair, Planning Officer Baluchistan, Pakistan. According to him when the
innovative idea of stakeholders participation was introduced in the planning process we
were able to come up with more successful plans. According to Khair, planning should be
decentralized; it should be devolved to the Union Council level. He was saying this
because according to him there are different local realities that need to be considered
when preparing a plan. Building Peace through Community Participation is a project of
Community Appraisal and Motivation Program (CAMP), its participatory nature is
evident from its name. CAMP runs a good number of projects through Bottom-up
concept of planning. Civil Society Human and Institutional Development Program
(CHIP) runs Polio Eradication Program through a participatory concept of planning and
implementing.

References:
planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 45(4), 387-398.
Hoch, C. (1984). Doing good and being right the pragmatic connection in planning
theory. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(3), 335-345.

Handout: Why Bottom-up Planning?

Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research:

a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of public policy, 6(01), 21-48.
Hoch, C. J. (2007). Pragmatic communicative action theory. Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 26(3), 272-283.
Khair, S. (4/10/2016) Skype.
http://www.camp.org.pk/?page_id=171
http://www.chip-pk.org