Balance of technical, morals and values in Planning.

The movement initiated by Paul Davidoff in his famous 1965 article 'Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning' has become a required reading in most planning courses throughout the world.  Although the ideal is considered out dated today, Davidoff has undeniably influenced the planning profession immensely.

Paul Davidoff was known as a tireless advocate and dedicated a lot of his advocacy to the disadvantaged, minorities and low-income communities. 

This reading primarily concentrated on the needs of the people, advocating for the people and for the ideas of the people.  A planner as advocate would initially strive to seek clients that had compatible morals and values to therefore advocate for their true beliefs.  

Planning began to move away from being just technical and integrated social values and justice into the profession.  It concluded that everyone is entitled to a fair representation and deserves a voice.  

Pluralism in Planning was the second idea prosed by Davidoff and this explored gathering ideas from all different groups therefore giving them a voice and being able to discuss viable options for proposed plans.  

Amongst Davidoff's radical and revolutionising ideals he suggested that planners should be incorporating their values and morals into their profession.  This was a new notion that revolutionised the way that planners had previously thought and shaped the way in which they were taught. 

Planners of that era were encouraged to advocate for the disadvantaged in particular, as previously mentioned this was obviously a passion of Davidoffs.

http://www.generatepr.com.au/generatepr_community_consultation.html

Advocacy and pluralism is incorporated into planning today mainly through community consultation.  Giving communities a voice is a positive step forward in improving social welfare and the needs and wants of the people.  However, it is questioned whether the values and morals of planners should be integrated into plans as planners are ultimately out to benefit the communities, not their own beliefs.

What is the correct balance? To what extent, if any, should planners’ morals and values be embraced?