Planning without plans? Nomocracy or teleocracy for social-spatial ordering

Debate about social-spatial ordering systems began as the opposition between planning and markets. This symposium discusses a related dichotomy: teleocracy (traditional directive planning) vs. nomocracy: social-spatial ordering by general-relational rules. This debate is not only theory; real institutional proposals and alternative practices demonstrate its practical relevance. In addition to the introduction, three contributions make up this volume.Why Nomocracy elaborates the case for nomocracy, claiming its superior effectiveness and morality. Only general relational rules can guide complex societies and enable spontaneous order in the face of structural ignorance, which defeats teleocratic projects and plans. Normatively, radical pluralism prescribes nomocracy as the preferred alternative to teleocracies that imply a particular vision of the “good society”.Spatial planning rules and regulations distinguishes between planning as a government decision process and planning as a technical activity, emphasising the cyclical character of spatial planning processes and the technical autonomy of rules and regulation. Definitional analysis concludes that spatial planning is essentially nomocratic, with grids and rules determining cities’ morphologies. Though‘nomocracy’ and ‘teleocracy’ may have some heuristic value, this dichotomy is not very helpful for planning practice.Towards a dialectic theory of planning proposes a synthesis that recognises nomocracy and teleocracy as complementary social ordering systems. An association between nomocracy and institutions, and between teleocracy and organisations was found, which has limited analytical value but offers useful normative rules. Whilst ideal types of planning seem associated with teleocracy or nomocracy, the real world demands both, suggesting contingent rules for adopting these modes in planning.Two points of general agreement are:-Nomocracy is the preferred social-spatial ordering approach for regulating complex self-organising systems – societies and cities.-These concepts – nomocracy and teleocracy – have limited use for applied research and empirical analysis of planning practices.But the contributors disagree on definitions, leading to divergent normative conclusions:1.Nomocracy should be the dominant social-spatial ordering system. State planning for other sectors should be limited to nomocratic instruments, defined as universal-general relational laws and rules.2.Rule-based spatial planning can be viewed as a form of nomocracy, necessary for spatial expression of the polity's public interest. Such planning includes schematic spatial topologies (e.g. the urban grid) and regulative planning.3.Nomocracy and teleocracy are complementary social-spatial orders. A planning subject should act as an institution when “planning for others”, using nomocratic tools to promote common values; when “planning for itself” it should use teleocratic tools acting as an organisation to realise its goals.

► Social-spatial ordering systems are juxtaposed: teleocracy (traditional directive planning) vs. nomocracy: ordering by general-relational rules.
► Why Nomocracy claims superior effectiveness and morality: only general rules can direct complex societies.
► Rules and regulations have technical autonomy in spatial planning, which is nomocratic: grids and rules determine cities’ morphologies.
► A Dialectic Theory recognizes nomocracy and teleocracy as complementary, and suggests some useful contingent normative rules for adopting these modes in planning.