The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice.
Abstract
It's like the story of Little an influential actor says in Rationality and Power when choosing a metaphor to describe how he manipulated to gain power, bell ringer . . . has to set the church clock. So he calls the telephone exchange and asks what time it is, and the telephone operator looks out the window towards the church clock and says, 'It's five o'clock.' 'Good,' says the bell ringer, 'then my clock is correct.' In the Enlightenment tradition, is considered well-defined, independent of context; we know what is, and its meaning is constant across time and space. Bent Flyvbjerg shows that is context-dependent and that the crucial context is determined by decision-makers' power. Power blurs the dividing line between and rationalization. The result is a that is often as imaginary as the time in Little Town, yet with very real social and environmental consequences. Flyvbjerg takes us behind the scenes to uncover the real politics—and real rationality—of policy-making, administration, and planning in an internationally acclaimed project for environmental improvement, auto traffic reduction, land use, and urban renewal. The action takes place in the Danish city of Aalborg, but it could be anywhere. Aalborg is to Flyvbjerg what Florence was to Machiavelli: a laboratory for understanding power and what it means for our more general concerns of social and political organization. Policy-making, administration, and planning are examined in ways that allow a rare, in-depth understanding. The reader is a firsthand witness to the classic, endless drama that defines what democracy and modernity are, and what they can be. The result is a fascinating narrative that is both concrete and general, current and timeless. Drawing on the ideas of Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Foucault, and Habermas, Flyvbjerg reads the Aalborg case as a metaphor of modernity and of modern politics, administration, and planning. Flyvbjerg uncovers the interplay of power and that distorts policy deliberation. He demonstrates that modern rationality is but an ideal when confronted with the real rationalities involved in decision making by central actors in government, economy, and civil society. Flyvbjerg then elaborates on how this problem can be dealt with so that more fruitful deliberation and action can occur.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Stirling, A. (2008) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243907311265 · Cited by 1,567
Seeing from the South: Refocusing Urban Planning on the Globe’s Central Urban Issues
Watson, V. (2009) · Urban Studies · doi:10.1177/0042098009342598 · Cited by 1,008
Collaborative Planning in Perspective
Healey, P. (2003) · Planning Theory · doi:10.1177/14730952030022002 · Cited by 990
How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris holm, M. K., & Buhl, S. L. (2003) · Transport Reviews · doi:10.1080/01441640309904 · Cited by 783
Self-citationBetsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2004) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00310.x · Cited by 684
Metadata
- Authors
- Jasper, J. M., & Flyvbjerg, B.
- Venue
- Social Forces
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 806
- ISSN
- 0037-7732 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984411180
- Cited by
- 1,531
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 184.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3005579
- The paper
- Jasper, J. M., & Flyvbjerg, B. (1999). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Social Forces. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005579
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.