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. mocracy 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”. l 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. s 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. ints of general agreement are:- acy is the preferred social-spatial ordering approach for regulating complex self-organising systems – societies and cities. concepts – nomocracy and teleocracy – have limited use for applied research and empirical analysis of planning practices. e contributors disagree on definitions, leading to divergent normative conclusions:1. acy 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. ased spatial planning can be viewed as a form of nomocracy, necessary for spatial expression of the polityʹs public interest. Such planning includes schematic spatial topologies (e.g. the urban grid) and regulative planning. acy 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.