See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344614050

Introduction to planning theory

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

5 27,594

1 author:

Ali Madanipour
Newcastle University
130 PUBLICATIONS 5,134 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Madanipour on 12 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Madanipour, Ali, 2015, Introduction, in A. Madanipour, ed,
Planning Theory, Volume 1, London: Routledge, pp.1-25.

Introduction
Ali Madanipour
The aim of this set of four volumes is to bring together a collection of writings that offers a historical
panorama, a thematic exploration, and an awareness of the current movements and possible future
trajectories in planning theory. It is organized on a chronological basis, starting from the key trends in
the nineteenth century but primarily concentrating on the subsequent periods, which started from the
rise of systematized city planning a century ago and flourished after the mid-twentieth-century social
scientific challenges to the technical preoccupations of planning. The set is also organized on a thematic
basis, so that in each period the main theoretical movements are introduced through some of the
prominent writers of the time. Arranged through this chronological and thematic matrix, an assemblage
of seminal texts in planning theory is made available in one set, both as a tool for education and research
and as a foundation for the further development of the field. This overall introduction to the set starts
with some initial definitions and a discussion about ways of navigating the complex terrain of planning
theory, followed by brief introductions to each volume and a methodological note about the selection
of papers.
Planning and planning theory
For any field of knowledge to grow and become distinctive, it needs to have a clear subject as well as
identifiable theories and methods. Planning theory, therefore, is a fundamental part of planning as a
discipline and a profession, even for those who may deny its use and relevance. Whether it is explicitly
acknowledged or implicitly embraced, a theoretical outlook is an integral part of any purposeful and
considered process such as planning.
The subject matter of planning is by no means fixed or narrowly defined. According to the Oxford
English Dictionary, planning is ‘the process of making plans for something’. A plan, in turn, is ‘a
detailed proposal for doing or achieving something’; ‘an intention or decision about what one is going
to do’, ‘a detailed map or diagram’. As a verb, to plan means to ‘decide on and make arrangements for
in advance’, and to ‘design or make a plan of (something to be made or built)’. It shows a direct link to
the roots of the word ‘plan’, which originated from the Italian pianta (‘plan of the building’) and found
its way, via the French word plant ('ground plan, plane surface'), to English in late seventeenth century.
The synonyms of planning are preparation(s), organization, arrangement, forethought, design,
designing, drafting, working out, setting up, and groundwork.
At the individual level, planning as the process of making preparations for future action is a common
human feature, undertaken everyday in a wide range of dreams, calculations, decisions and actions. The
literature on planning theory and practice, however, addresses the institutional level of such
preparations for future: how large organizations and societies envisage and prepare for their future. In
this sense, a defining feature of planning is its orientation towards the future. In particular, the planning
theory literature is often about public planning, i.e., the process of planning as undertaken by public
authorities; how public authorities foresee and facilitate desirable future conditions. As such, a core
characteristic of public planning revolves around the circumstances of the state-society interface and
the way power is employed. This is partly why some theorists tend to equate planning with public policy
in general. But more specifically, planning theory tends to be concerned with the public authorities’
role in the transformation of the environment. It includes what has historically been called land use
planning, city planning, urban and regional planning, town and country planning, and spatial planning,
attaching a specific adjective to refer to a specific type of planning, rather than planning in general. As
the Oxford English Dictionary suggests, a common definition of planning is ‘the control of urban
development by a local government authority’. Definitions of planning, however, are not limited to
dictionaries and encyclopedias and, as we will see, theorists have tended to propose different definitions

1
for what planning is about and what it should do, and some of the fundamental debates and ambiguities
in planning theory may be found to be inherent in these definitions.
As planning addresses the future course of action, it tends to be normative: how planning should be
done. Some planning theorists have even dismissed the analysis of how planning is actually taking place
to be the terrain of sociological inquiry; for them planning theory needs to put forward a particular way
of doing planning. Much of what has been written as planning theory, therefore, is indeed about
planning methods, i.e., how to plan; but these methods often reflect broader worldviews and theoretical
perspectives.
Navigating the theoretical terrain
What guidelines do we need to navigate a complex and dense theoretical terrain that stretches back for
decades and even centuries? Three sets of considerations have the potential to guide us when exploring
this terrain: a) theoretical constitution (which includes theories of substance, knowledge and action), b)
perspectival configuration (which denotes the situated nature of any theory), and c) contextual
composition (which refers to societal circumstances, theoretical traditions, and conditions of possibility).
Together, these three considerations would provide a multidimensional understanding of a theory
through its underlying assumptions, orientation, and context.
a) One of the ways of investigating different planning theories, and distinguishing their differences from
each other, is through exploring their theoretical constitution, i.e., their ontology, epistemology and
methodology; in other words, their ideas about what exists, how to know this reality, and how to act
upon it (Hollis, 2002). In planning, this means examining the theorists’ ideas about what society and
space are made of and what the subject matter of planning is; by scrutinizing their beliefs about how
this ontology can become knowable; and by exploring how this knowledge can be acquired and acted
upon. In order to have a clearer idea about what a planning theory is about, therefore, we need to know
its theories of substance, knowledge, and action. Most debates and controversies in planning theory
can be found here in these overlapping elements of theoretical constitution, how each has been theorized
and the differing balance of emphasis on one or the other.
Theories of substance, that is, ontological questions about what planning is about, have been at the
heart of debates in planning theory; questions that indicate tensions about time, space, society, and
materiality. The debate about materiality is one of the earliest chasms in planning theory: is planning
about physical organization, or social arrangements, or both? The physical-social gap has paralleled a
substantive-procedural gap: is planning about its material outcomes, or its constituent procedures, or
both? The social-physical and substantive-procedural gaps, which opened in mid-twentieth century,
grew to become major fault lines in the theoretical debates. Around the same time, the concepts of time
and space in planning also underwent significant transformation: Is planning about a long term future
and comprehensive spatial coverage, or is it about attending to particular places and issues over medium
to short term periods? Another fundamental question that shapes planning theories is about social
ontology: how do planning theorists envisage society, and what do they think society is made of? Is
society made of individuals, households, diverse groups, conflicting classes, coherent communities, or
a unified whole? Does society have fixed and timeless features or is it continually changing? Different
planning theories have responded differently to these questions and have produced differing analyses
and proposals accordingly.
Epistemological questions have also occupied a defining place in planning theories. What theories of
knowledge do planning theorists hold: rationalism or empiricism, positivism or interpretivism? The
classical philosophical tension between rationalism and empiricism was played out early on in planning
theory: does planning knowledge come from intuitions and hypotheses of planners and decision makers,
or from empirical observation and analysis? This distinction became acute when such knowledge was
to be applied in practice: do planners plan according to a priori notions of what is desirable or do they
plan according to the needs and conditions of society? We have to distinguish, however, between
‘rational’ and ‘rationalism’: all forms of planning are in a sense rational by nature, as they propose a
series of purposeful actions to steer the future course of events, linking causes to consequences,
premises to outcomes. Rationalist planning, however, is a special type of planning, which was based on
the deductive process of setting a priori goals to be achieved in the future. The particularity of rationalist
2
planning, therefore, is the precedence of these goals and principles to any form of action, which could
prove elitist, ineffective or insensitive in a diverse and changing social context. The rationalist and
empiricist approaches, however, both played a part in positivist epistemologies, which were in turn
challenged by interpretive approaches to knowledge. Positivism has been a characteristic feature of
modern planning; it emerged as the application of scientific knowledge and technical expertise to the
management of urban development. Its core idea of universal and value-neutral facts, however, came
under attack, causing a crisis of positivism in social sciences. While positivism continues to play an
important role in planning practice, planning theorists looked for alternative theories of knowledge in
interpretive, critical, constructivist, and pragmatist theories. The social world was not there to be
discovered, but to be interpreted (and transformed) through critical engagement and discursive
construction. In interpretive approaches, knowledge, value and action became closely interrelated.
Theories of action are similarly central to planning, owing to its action-oriented nature, overlapping
with technical, political, ethical, and aesthetic questions and hence with theories of value. Theories of
action in planning can refer to the methodologies of generating knowledge as well as to the theories and
methodologies of how to plan and how to implement it. One of the key debates has been about the
nature of planning action: is it an aesthetic, technical or political undertaking? An early significant
dispute was between the aesthetic and functional nature of planning action, which witnessed a shift
from beautification to modernist functionalism, and later a return to beautification through
postmodernism. While planning had historically emerged as a technical process, revealing the value-
laden nature of planning process showed that it was imbued with political and ethical dimensions. The
questions that emerge, therefore, are about the political theory that is aligned with a planning theory: is
its orientation libertarian, liberal, social democratic, communitarian, statist, or authoritarian? Should it
be based on representative or participative democracy? How should the governance of a place and its
institutions be organized such that planning can be supported? A related question is about the ethical
theories that a planning theory resembles: is it utilitarian, deontologist, or virtue-based; is it elitist,
pluralist or relativist? A crucial concept in the theory of action has been the notion of public interest,
which has been used to justify planning action. It brings together the theories of action and substance:
Is society a unified whole in whose combined interests planning can be justified on utilitarian grounds,
or is society made of diverse groups, communities and classes which, through collaboration or conflict,
can pursue a particular course of planning action? Is planning about an elusive public interest or evident
partial interests?
Different planning theories, therefore, have different theoretical constitutions; all with explicit or
implicit theories of substance, knowledge, and action, albeit placing differing emphases on one or the
other. For some theorists, the substantive focus is the defining feature of planning; for them the
epistemological and methodological questions lose their significance. Some theorists have singled out
epistemological questions as the defining feature of the discipline, without similar attention to its
dimensions of substance and action. For yet others, who prioritize action, it is the politics and ethics of
planning that define it as whole. The prevalence of concern for action is such that planning theories are
often about how to plan; they are often normative rather than descriptive or explanatory. These
normative writings have investigated the contents of a plan (from detailed blueprints to specific policies,
and broad intentions); how these contents are generated (from elite declarations to democratic
agreements); the length of a plan’s timespan (from long-range, to middle-range, and incremental steps);
the basis of its legitimacy (from public interest to partisan interests along class, gender, race and culture,
and to collective interests); the skills that planners need to employ (from technical to administrative,
political, activist and interpersonal), and their cognate disciplinary affiliations (from architecture and
engineering to political science and public administration).
b) A theory, however, is not developed in a void; it is a narrative told from a perspective, and so to
analyse a theory it is necessary to identify that perspective and locate it in its context. In addition to the
personal circumstances of the theorist as an embedded and embodied agent, the underlying assumptions
that have formed a theory are significant. Moreover, the analysts who are investigating these theories
have particular perspectives of their own. Any investigation of planning theories would therefore need
to be aware of where the investigator is located and which perspective is being used to evaluate the
theory that is being discussed. For example, much of planning theory is written from the perspective of
3
planners trying to analyse, justify and propose concepts and methods for planning as performed by the
state; but some has been written from the perspective of those affected by planning processes; and some
by those who stand outside both the process and its impact. Rationalist planning theorists and
practitioners have been criticized by the radical and pluralist theorists for representing an elite
perspective rather than seeing the world from the viewpoint of the vulnerable and diverse populations.
In order to understand a theory, therefore, we would need to have a good grasp of the theorists’, analysts’,
and our own perspectival configuration, which gives rise to differing ideas of substance, knowledge
and action.
c) The situated perspectives of the theorists, and their differing theoretical constitutions, however, do
not appear in a void either; they have emerged in a particular set of circumstance, and therefore can be
best understood if these circumstances, i.e. the contextual composition, of a theory are analysed. This
contextual composition includes the overlapping and interrelated elements of societal circumstances,
theoretical traditions, and the conditions of possibility. The context includes the broad social,
political, economic, cultural and historical circumstances of the societies in which these theories have
emerged. The major changes that have shaped societies during the last two centuries, such as
technological and institutional change and their impacts on society and space, are closely related to how
planning is thought about and theorized. In particular, the emergence of the welfare state, its
consolidation, and its relative decline in a process of economic liberalization have framed the way
planning is thought about and practised. These circumstances, however, vary widely, even among the
different parts of the same country, let alone the vast differences across the world; as such the notion
that planning theories are universal and can be transported to any place becomes problematized. The
contextual composition also includes the theoretical traditions and paradigms in the philosophy of
science social sciences and humanities, which reflect these societal changes. Traditions such as
positivism, ecological social theory, political economy, critical theory, structuralism and
poststructuralism, and pragmatism are some of these broad schools of thought that have influenced and
shaped planning thought. Like other theories, planning theories are situated in particular circumstances
and are developed by people who have particular views about these circumstances. To study and
evaluate planning theories, therefore, we cannot look for ‘correct’ theories that are valid for all times
and places, but whether and how a theory relates to a particular set of circumstances. A planning theory
can be largely located within a single tradition or eclectically drawing on several traditions; it can
therefore be better understood by identifying its relations with, similarities to, and differences from the
general schools of thought in social sciences and humanities. Within these broad societal and theoretical
milieux, the contextual composition also includes the specific conditions of possibility within which
particular forms of planning theory and practice are made conceivable.
While there are different variations in who planners are and what they do, there is a common core to all
forms of planning: that it is a future-oriented attempt at (re)ordering some aspects of social life;
reorganizing the present in preparation for reshaping the future. This attempt is located at the
intersection of a series of conditions of possibility: necessity (as society has become more urbanized,
there is the need to coordinate the living conditions of large numbers of people coexisting in dense
environments); ability (the existence of power, which is technical, organizational, cultural and political);
and acceptability (the question of legitimacy, as to whether the exercise of power to reorder social life
is accepted by those on whom it has an impact). The attempt at (re)ordering social life can focus on
particular activities, groups or concerns; however, as Michel Foucault (1983; 2002) has argued, among
others, this search for order permeates all spheres of life; planning is one of the instruments of this
ordering, and in spatial planning the focus is on reorganizing the space of human habitat. These attempts
demonstrate the key concern in planning to have been the establishment and maintenance of order in
human activities, especially in relation to the built environment. The theoretical questions that are then
raised are about the nature of this order and how to analyse and justify it - in other words, whether this
order should be spatial or temporal, and whether its justification can be made on cultural, scientific,
ethical or political grounds. Wider questions are about the conditions of possibility for this process of
ordering: how, under what conditions, for what purpose, and by whom it is possible or desirable to
(re)order the environment. The four volumes explore these questions through the keywords of creativity,

4
efficiency, flexibility and contingency, which are used to indicate the prevailing preoccupations of the
theorists in successive periods.
1. Planning with creativity
Volume I begins with an overview of the terrain and trajectory of planning thought. It is followed by a
series of debates by major figures in social science that largely framed the idea of planning in the first
half of the twentieth century. The third part of the volume is dedicated to the spatial visions that have
characterized modern planning since its beginnings in the nineteenth century. The title of the first
volume denotes these endeavours at reimagining and improving the conditions of the modern city of
industrial capitalism. The volume ends in the middle of the twentieth century.
The intellectual milieu in which planning, like many other institutions of the modern western society,
emerged was the Enlightenment: the idea that human beings should use their reason and be in charge
of their own destiny. As Kant declared in 1785, its motto was to ‘Have courage to use your own reason’
(Kant, 1995:1). The material context for modern planning ideas was the rise of industrial capitalism in
Europe, which led to the growth and expansion of cities from the beginning of the nineteenth century.
With larger concentrations of people in cities came a wide range of urban problems, such as poverty,
disease and social upheaval. Planning was a response to these problems, aiming to improve the
conditions of life in overcrowded cities that were continually on the verge of revolution. The
combination of Enlightenment optimism, technological and institutional capability, the desire to create
and maintain social order, and the pressure for social reform led to a series of ideas and practices that
have shaped and reshaped the human environment. The utopian idea of envisaging a better future was
at the heart of the project of planning from the beginning.
From these origins in the Enlightenment, planning thought has been transformed through many
developments ever since, drawing on a wide range of intellectual traditions (Chapter 1: Friedmann,
1987). A particular turning point for planning thought was a century ago, when a planning mentality
arose that looked for systematic social and spatial ordering (Chapter 2: Boyer, 1983), institutionalized
in municipal functions, and paralleling the emergence of organized capitalism. It was when the two
ingredients of planning, skills and procedures, and its two homes, the professional practitioner and the
municipal organization, became intertwined and consolidated (Chapter 3: Perloff, 1956). Planning
theory flourished from the mid-twentieth century onwards, when it shifted from its architectural and
engineering bases to become increasingly integrated with social sciences (Chapter 4: Taylor, 1999).
Although the idea of planning suffered serious setbacks with the ascendance of the market-based ideas
(Cahpter 5: Madanipour, 2010), and despite many criticisms, it is considered to be alive and well today
(Chapter 6: Brooks, 2002).
The debates that were conducted in social sciences in the first half of the twentieth century laid the
groundwork for the articulation and justification of planning in general, and city planning in particular.
The search for efficiency in industrial production stimulated ideas about managing work and life
(Chapter 7: Taylor, 1919). The hope for the creation of a ‘great community’ through democratic
government stimulated thinking about the management and communication of knowledge (Chapter 8:
Dewey, 1927). The development of bureaucratic organizations heralded the possibility of managing
complex processes (Chapter 9: Weber, 1948). The laissez-faire attitude of the previous decades was
being left behind (Chapter 10: Keynes, 1931) and state planning as the instrument of rationalization and
control was promoted (Chapter 11: Mannheim, 1940). The backlash against state control of the
economy also started early, accusing planning’s proponents to be authoritarians without due regard for
individual freedom (Chapter 12: Hayek, 1944); as those who interpret rather than plan for social change
(Chapter 14: Popper, 1957). Capitalism’s survival, it was argued, depended on the creative destruction
of the obsolete infrastructure (Chapter 13: Schumpeter, 1943), an idea that was widely adopted by
modernist planners. A crucial question was whether to judge an action through its outcome and therefore
its substantive rationality (Chapter 15: Weber, 1947) or its process and hence its procedural rationality
(Chapter 16: Simon, 1976), a question that initiated many theoretical debates in planning theory.
Planning was based on producing visions of a better, more orderly future. These visions were primarily
spatial, but all with explicit or implicit social content, as famously illustrated by Jeremy Bentham’s
prison design (Chapter 17: Foucault, 1980). Depending on the period, these visions may have been more
5
progressive or more conservative, for social reform or for consolidating the elite (Chapter 18: Benevolo,
1967). Regularization of the city was the tool of socio-spatial ordering and realignment with modernity,
as best exemplified by the transformation of Paris in the nineteenth century, which inspired urban
change around the world (Chapter 19: Choay, 1969). Future-oriented modernity, however, caused new
problems and found new adversaries. Some objected to the artless character of modern city planning,
arguing for the importance of art and culture in urban transformation (Chapter 20: Sitte, 1945). Others
looked for ways of bridging the gap that had opened up between the city and the countryside by offering
garden cities as an alternative that would unite them once again (Chapter 21: Howard, 1902). Society
and nature had been split apart by industrialization and they now needed to be brought together in new
cities through rational means and municipal organization (Chapter 22: Geddes, 1915). There was a
momentum to apply civic arts to civic life, which was manifest in the introduction of civic institutions,
beautification of cities, and the construction of new settlements (Chapter 23: Unwin, 1934). The idea
of creating an alternative to the city in small satellite towns was echoed in advocating the subdivision
of the unruly city itself into communities and neighbourhoods, an idea that occupied a significant place
in planning for decades in the mid-twentieth century (Chapter 24: Mumford, 1954). Rather than micro-
urbanism, a distinctive approach to metropolitan urbanism called for the reorganization of the city as a
whole in what became known as functionalism, or more broadly modernism, subordinating aesthetics
to functions, following the engineering path for efficiency and functional clarity (Chapter 25: Le
Corbusier, 1929). It advocated the subdivision of the city and its hinterland into functional zones and
reorganizing it with the help of new technologies of transport and communication in a way that it can
function smoothly (Chapter 26: CIAM, 1944). A third approach, which might be called anti-urbanism,
envisaged the dispersal of the city into the countryside, thought to be the best way that democracy can
build (Chapter 27: Wright, 1945).
In these visions, a gap grew between technical and cultural considerations, which some tried to bridge,
arguing for the survival of creative urbanism (Chapter 28: Tunnard, 1929). But the tide was turning by
the mid-century when the character of planning considerably changed, shifting from substantive to
procedural concerns, and from architecture and engineering affiliations to social sciences. The spatial
patterns that were generated in this period of intensive creativity were to remain at the core of planning
thought, sometimes as its forgotten childhood memories, as its prehistory, but always as taken for
granted spatial models which would be revived and reused in practice, as the later periods witnessed.
2. Planning with efficiency
Volume II roughly covers the period from the 1950s to the 1970s. In many western countries, the three
decades after the Second World War were the height of popularity and strength for planning, which was
used as an instrument of establishing and consolidating a welfare state. From national to municipal
levels, plans were produced to control and manage the economy and set the course for the future. This
volume explores four different types of planning that emerged in this period and have continued to
influence planning theory and practice ever since: rational-comprehensive planning that focused on a
comprehensive range of means and ends; incremental planning that preferred piecemeal engagement
and adjustment; plural planning that promoted advocacy, participation and equity; and complexity
planning that drew on systems theory and cybernetics.
Comprehensive planning or master planning, which had evolved in the first half of the twentieth century,
was based on the substantive rationality of envisaging the long-range distribution of activities in an area,
fixing a desired future state of a city on paper. This ideal came under severe criticism from the 1950s
onwards. Rather than merely articulating a particular future state, the theory of planning was shifting
towards rational programming, that is, identifying the procedures that would best attain it. Master plans
were considered to be static, unrealistic, unjustified, and unrelated to the projects taking place.
Moreover, the planners’ ability to foresee and fix a long-term future was doubted.
Planning was rational and efficient if it could maximize the attainment of these ends, which is achieved
by considering all the available alternatives, identifying and evaluating all their consequences, and
selecting the best alternative that could lead to the desired end (Chapter 29: Meyerson and Banfield,
1955). There was a large gap between the long-range plan and the short-range project, which needed to
be filled by middle-range planning (Chapter 30: Meyerson, 1956). Drawing on positivist epistemology
6
and utilitarian ethics, planning was defined as a means-ends process, a course of action for the
attainment of desired ends: planning was a process of decision making and planning theory was its
logical structure (Chapter 31: Banfield, 1959). It was argued that planning should be largely concerned
with determining a few guiding principles and disseminating them to the key decision makers (Chapter
32: Simon, 1961). The emphasis was now on making decisions among alternatives that were selected
on a rational basis. Planning was a comprehensive, future-oriented, purposive process that strove
towards preferred ends by making choices in values, means and actions; its role was assisting its clients
to understand the range of the possible futures and to reveal the open choices that could be made
(Chapter 33: Davidoff and Reiner, 1962). Values were formulated as the public interest, which was at
the heart of a comprehensive planner’s task, as it was impossible to plan without some idea of the
community’s goals (Chapter 34: Altshuler, 1965).
Sceptics, however, argued that in modern democratic societies, where many different groups compete
for scarce resources and try to steer the government policy towards their needs, the idea of a single
public interest is difficult if not impossible to achieve (Chapter 35: Sorauf, 1957). The rational-
comprehensive model was a critique of the old engineering-inspired master plans for their lack of
attention to decision making processes. Its own critics, in turn, argued against its unrealistic ambitions
for comprehensiveness, its demand for intellectual capacities and sources of information that were not
available, and its impossibility and irrelevance for addressing complex problems. What appeared to be
irrational to Banfield (Chapters 29 and 31) seemed to be realistic and even superior to Lindblom
(Chapter 36: Lindblom, 1959), who defended a method of incremental policy making. The emphasis in
this model is on how policies are actually made, whereby values and objectives are not set prior to
policy development, but set through policy making, which takes place in small increments. In this
method the ends and means are not separated and the test of a good policy is that different analysts
agree on it. Rather than a deductive rationalist method of deciding on the values and goals and then
applying them in practice, which characterized the rational-comprehensive model, the incremental
method is inductive and empiricist, working on the basis of taking small steps within the confines of
familiar territory of previous policies. The approach, however, was thought to be too conservative and
in need of strategic orientation (Chapter 37: Etzioni, 1967). Unlike comprehensive planning, policy
planning was concerned with the pressing problems of urban life through procedure and action; it now
needed to learn how to resolve conflicts and manage social change through negotiation and coalition
building (Chapter 38: Rondinelli, 1973). The emphasis on decisions and programming expanded the
remit of planning, but it was argued that this expansion stretched planning so far as to lose its distinctive
identity, becoming a victim of its own success (Chapter 39: Wildavsky, 1973).
The 1960s was a period of radical social change, which was reflected in pluralist planning. In the context
of the undesirable consequences of the urban renewal schemes, the advent of social movements, the
political challenge to technical processes of planning, and the acknowledgement of the plurality of
interests in an open society, Paul Davidoff (Chapter 40: Davidoff, 1965) recommended that planners
act as adversarial advocates for a range of governmental and nongovernmental viewpoints in society.
The public interest that had formed the cornerstone of planning, as in other areas of public policy, was
criticized to be reflecting the values of the middle class, ignoring the diversity of groups and interests
in the wider society (Chapter 41: Gans, 1968). Advocacy planning is a way of ensuring citizen
participation in the planning process. As Arnstein (Chapter 42: Arnstein, 1969) suggests, however,
participation without a redistribution of power remains an empty ritual that simply maintains the status
quo and frustrates the powerless. As the well-known example of Cleveland shows (Chapter 43:
Krumholz, 1982), advocacy or equity planning was used as a response to poverty and racial segregation,
which were the root causes of the crisis in many US cities. Planning was increasingly seen as a political
rather than technical process, and parallels could be drawn between planning theories and political
theories (Chapter 44: Fainstein and Fainstein, 1971). The value of advocacy planning in practice was
in doubt, however, and it was thought to be necessary to change planning’s professional ethics (Chapter
45: Marcuse, 1976).
In parallel to the rise of political challenges to planning theory, the technical approaches found a new
theoretical home (Chapter 47: Bolan, 1967). Along the development of information and communication
technologies, the scientific and technical approach to planning drew on the newly developed systems
7
theory, which considered the environment as a complex whole, a system of interconnected ingredients.
Biological metaphors had long been adopted by the Chicago School of sociology to describe the life
and transformation of cities, and by evolutionary economists to show how the economic processes
evolved. Planners were now invited to envisage the city as organized complexity (Chapter 46: Jacobs,
1961). Newtonian mechanistic physics, which had informed the earlier generations, now gave way to
interactive open systems (Chapter 47: Rittel and Webber, 1973). Operations Research applied systems
analysis to real life situations for optimizing performance, while cybernetics was about the control of
complex systems, both living and inanimate. Planning in the systems approach became applying
cybernetic principles to controlling the environment as a system (Chapter 48: McLoughlin, 1969). This
system was formed of human activities linked through communication or, in other words, stocks and
flows. The city was envisaged not as a static machine but a dynamic system that evolves. Human society
was capable of collective self-reflection and feedback, which would be the source of generating its goals
and learning, and therefore able to grow in a linear and evolutionary way forward (Chapter 50: Faludi,
1973). Despite these efforts, optimism did not last long: it was thought that a complete general planning
theory was impossible (Chapter 51: Mandelbaum, 1979) and that rationality as a paradigm for planning
was in long-term crisis (Chapter 52: Alexander, 1984).
3. Planning with flexibility
Volume III comprises papers that were mainly written in the 1980s and 1990s, but were responding to
the dramatic changes that had started in the 1970s. Its three parts include the radical critique of planning
from the political economy and ecological perspectives; the rise of diversity planning, which argued for
the integration of race, gender and culture in the planning agenda; and a trend of dialogical planning
that advocated communication, negotiation and collaboration.
The 1970s witnessed a deep economic crisis and the end of the post-Second World War prosperity and
welfare. New critical voices emerged that, from a political economy perspective, questioned the entire
system of planning not from within so as to improve its efficiency but from outside to cast a sceptical
eye on its operations, a wholesale critique on the basis of its role in the reproduction of the social order
and its economic and political implications for the disadvantaged groups (Chapter 53: Harvey, 1978).
The role of planning was part of the way power was distributed in society (Chapter 54: Kirk, 1980),
acting as its ideology (Chapter 55: Lefebvre, 1996). Planning theory had focused too much on planning
procedures at the expense of planning substance; too much interested in policy and decision making
without paying enough attention to what these policies were about (Chapter 58: Beauregard, 1989).
Arguments for and against planning raged (Chapter 56: Klosterman, 1985) and the new versions of
rational planning, such as strategic planning, were questioned (Chapter 57: Swanstrom, 1987).
Structural anxieties for the natural environment emerged alongside the structural concerns for society.
The implications of the environmental crisis for normative planning theory were considerable. Justice
entailed that the impact of development on current and future generations be an essential part of
planning. It was argued that environmental ethics should be an integral part of planning theory, urging
planners to exert moral and ethical constraints towards the natural environment (Chapter 59: Beatley,
1989). Planners were expected to reconcile the conflicting demands of ecology, economics and politics,
simultaneously stimulating economic development, protecting the environment, and supporting the
disadvantaged (Chapter 60: Campbell, 1996). In practice, however, with deindustrialization, economic
decline and globalization, economic development became the driving force for policy making,
continually at odds with the social and environmental considerations. As governments set out to
stimulate and support the markets, the nature of state-society interface in general, and the nature of
planning in particular, underwent radical transformation.
The systems theory, political economy, and environmental approaches looked at the planning problems
from a holistic, structural perspective. They looked at the society as a whole and tried to analyse and
transform it in its entirety on a scientific basis. In this sense, they had epistemic affinity with each other
and with the rational comprehensive model of planning, in a sense developing it towards more
sophisticated methodologies or more critical standpoints. In contrast to the incremental approaches they
emphasized the total system rather than specific procedures within it. However, within themselves the
key difference between them was the way they interpreted this system: a system of actions and
8
interactions, an ecosystem, or a web of economic and political power; concerned about efficiency,
systemic sustainability, or equality and justice; making adjustments to this system or changing it
altogether; drawing on cybernetics, public policy, or activism and social mobilization. Planning was
criticized for its role in support of capitalism, which had resulted in social inequality and mindless
exploitation of nature. Planning was also criticized for its role in the suppression of the diverse groups
that made up society.
With deindustrialization and the pressure on the industrial working class, it was the turn of gender, race
and culture to replace social class as the basis for social struggle. It was not enough to think of society
as a collection of competing individuals or an entity divided into two warring classes; society was now
envisaged as an archipelago of different groups, each with dynamics of its own, struggling for
recognition, and in need of organization in its fight for social justice. This was a new form of social
ontology, which required its own epistemology and methodology; a new form of pluralism which
required a new form of planning theory. Advocacy planning, which had emerged in support of poor
citizens in the turmoil of urban renewal, was now extended to structural dissenting groups who were
asserting their rights and demands. The ideas of diversity planning drew on a quest for fairness, pressing
for equal rights for women, racial and cultural minorities, asking for the same privileges that the elite
men had historically enjoyed, and demanding the correction of injustices of the past. It was argued that
women were ignored in the workplace, mythologized in families, and silenced in public discourse
(Chapter 61: Moore Milroy, 1991). Universal notions such as the public interest had envisaged society
to be homogeneous and unitary, formed of 'average' citizens who fitted into a narrow stereotype.
Feminists argued that these notions were inherently associated with male dominance, reflecting the
ideas and values of white middle to upper class men in western societies, constructing spatial
arrangements that reflected an unequal relationship, exploiting, oppressing and devaluing women in
society (Chapter 62: Ritzdorf, 1992). Feminism and planning needed to be brought together (Chapter
63: Young, 1992). The question of race had also remained invisible in planning theory and history, but
it was argued that the two subjects were closely related, especially in the United States (Chapter 64:
Manning Thomas, 1994). Multiculturalism, as the expression of cultural diversity in society, found
expression in demanding awareness about the issues of race and culture among planners and public
officials (Chapter 65: Qadeer, 1997). The coexistence of such increased levels of diversity posed serious
challenges to planning that needed careful consideration (Chapter 66: Sandercock, 2000). Rigid and
elitist universalism was challenged to be replaced by diversity and flexibility in planning.
Several strands of planning theory that had developed since the 1960s as a critique of the rational
comprehensive model came together in what may be broadly called dialogical planning. Incremental
planning, participatory planning, and diversity planning were all combined to develop a new style of
planning in which the planner engages with society through the micro-politics of localized interaction
and dialogue. It displays a clear theoretical shift away from positivism to pragmatism and social
constructivism, and from rationalism to empiricism; it also parallels a shift in political culture that shows
resistance to state intervention by both investors and civil society groups, moving from welfarist social
democracy to entrepreneurial and participatory democracy. The economic context of these shifts was
globalization, associated with a change in the global division of labour, deindustrialization and rise of
services in some areas and industrialization in others, international migration, and the development of
new transport, information and communication technologies. The political context was the changing
priorities of the neoliberal state, which included reluctance to interfere in the market, and hence
immense pressure on planning to reduce its remit. Although the social aims of advocacy and equity
planning are also incorporated in the development of this new model, the activist partisanship of
advocacy planning and the egalitarian demands of equity planning are often avoided in the name of
conflict resolution and social harmony. As the radical sentiments of the 1970s gave way to the
entrepreneurial spirit of the 1980s, the voices of the dissenters were lost in a new period of economic
vibrancy; dissent could still come in the community rejection of a development proposal but no longer
under the banner of systematic demand for equity. Social inequality and difference is not ignored, but
it is argued that it can be settled not through conflict but through communication and collaboration,
working towards harmony and consensus. Different terms have been used to describe the different
versions of this new dialogical and consensual model: transactive (Chapter 67: Friedmann, 1993),

9
meditated negotiation (Chapter 68: Forester, 1987), communicative (Chapter 69: Healey, 1992),
phronetic (Chapter 70: Flyvbjerg, 1992), dialogical incrementalism (Chapter 71: Sager, 1994),
consensus building (Chapter 72: Innes, 1996), and argumentative or rhetorical planning (Chapter 73:
Throgmorton, 1996).
4. Planning with contingency
Volume IV covers the planning theory debates of the new century, which show a combination of
recurring and emerging trends. With the intensification of globalization, urbanization and frequent
economic and ecological crises, the challenge for planning theory is to understand and explain the
contingencies of planning for an uncertain future. The volume is divided into three parts: the critical
voices from political economy and poststructuralism that question the neoliberal character of planning
and see conflict as the driving force for social change; the pragmatists who continue to argue for
deliberative, communicative and consensual planning; and a more technical attitude that promotes
holistic and strategic approaches to spatial and ecological dimensions of planning.
The debates in planning theory have sometimes been crystalized around a central dichotomy between
consensus and conflict, represented by Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault (Chapter 74: Flyvbjerg,
1998). The field, nevertheless, is characterized by a diversity of views inspired by a range of
philosophies. One of the main features of this period has been a critical backlash, both political
economic as well as cultural, against the entrepreneurial and consensual styles of planning. While the
political economy critique is a continuation of the trend that had flourished in the 1970s, the
poststructuralist critique is a follow-up to the cultural sensitivities that had been partly expressed by
diversity and pluralism. A significant argument is made for a return to the social reform ideals and see
social justice as the basis for planning (Chapter 75: Fainstein, 2000). The communicative theorists have
been criticized for their focus of on communication at the expense of the wider social and economic
contexts and the consequences of planning practice (Chapter 76: Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000). The
concentration of global forces in the city leads to its gentrification, pushing out the poorer residents to
be displaced by the middle and upper income groups who are aligned with the new economic relations
(Chapter 77: Smith, 2002), sacrificing the right to the city in favour of property rights (Chapter 78:
Harvey, 2003). Ethical planners have argued that the liberal theories of planning, with their emphasis
on the process rather than product, and their universalist notions of society, are not able to address the
demands of justice (Chapter 79: Campbell, 2006) or deep difference in multicultural societies (Chapter
80: Watson, 2006). In pluralist and multicultural societies, agonistic strife, i.e., disagreements between
adversaries rather than a fight between enemies, can be settled through continuous communication and
participation (Chapter 81: Pløger, 2004). The critics argue that communicative planning, despite its
apparently democratic programme, has been captured by, or built on, the market forces rather than
community ideals (Chapter 82: Gunder, 2010).
Deliberative planning is affiliated with a number of philosophical traditions, most closely with
pragmatism, which is thought to be a philosophy of action and optimism involved in practical judgement
(Chapter 83: Healey, 2009). Its proponents accuse the critics to be conducting a structural analysis of
the limitations of liberal democracy and its implications for planning theory and practice, which they
do not see as relevant or helpful for planning theory. Pragmatists, therefore, shift the debate from what
they see as doctrinal disputes about knowledge claims to empirical and interpretive claims about the
effect of particular planning activities (Chapter 84: Hoch, 2007). A critical form of pragmatism argues
for addressing social problems through dialogue and negotiation (Chapter 85: Forester, 2013). Another
attends to planning’s links with moral and political philosophy of John Rawls, arguing that planning as
a normative enterprise needs a normative ethical theory based on the common values of society, which
in western societies are liberal values (Chapter 86: Stein and Harper, 2005). Jürgen Habermas’ idea of
communicative rationality also remains a major voice in pragmatist planning theories, as some try to
link it with other ideas such as the network society (Chapter 88: Verma and Shin,2004). All deliberative
planning theorists emphasize communication and participation as the key to a successful planning
process, but not in the usual ways that tend to cause anger and mistrust (Chapter 87: Innes and Booher,
2004).

10
Meanwhile, a group of theories revive the application of technical and spatial ideas in planning.
Concepts from science and engineering are used as metaphors for describing and managing the world.
One is the idea of complex adaptive systems which draws on biology and physics. Complexity science
and systems thinking have returned to the planning agenda with a renewed energy, representing an
aspiration to find scientific explanations and solutions for the environmental and social problems
(Chapter 89: Batty and Torrens, 2005). The proponents of complexity theory hope to combine scientific
rigour with social sensibilities (Chapter 90: Byrne, 2003). A related concept, inspired by computer
science, is network, which is used to envisage the spatial and social relations, and the position of actors
within these networks (Chapter 91: Beuregard, 2005). Another recurring theme has been a revival of
garden cities and new towns, now called new urbanism and eco-towns, this time with an ecological
imperative to control the urban sprawl and reorganize the suburban pattern of development (Chapter 92:
Hebbert, 2004). Its social claims to community building, however, have been questioned, as it may be
seen as the other side of the coin from gated neighbourhoods and exclusive enclaves (Chapter 93: Grant,
2007).
Strategic planning is a practical revision of comprehensive planning, in the sense that rather than trying
to cover all aspects of urban and regional development by the single agency of the government, which
had proved impossible in practice, it revolves around the mobilization of a range of actors in the context
of fragmented governance and structural economic change. To do so, it gives priority to what is
considered to be important, articulating a vision as the focus around which this fragmented range of
actors can collaborate. Like complexity planning, the relations between parts and wholes becomes an
important consideration in strategic planning (Chapter 94: Hillier, 2008). The two theories differ in the
direction of this relationship: in strategic planning the whole (that is, strategy) is more important than
the parts, while in complexity theory the micro-processes (parts) can reshape the system as a whole. In
this sense, strategic planning is nearer to deductive epistemologies, while complexity planning gives
more space to inductive theories. While it is argued that strategic planning is useful in mobilizing
resources towards a particular purpose (Chapter 95: Albrechts, 2004), it is also argued that it should not
replace the traditional land use planning, especially in the context of a market-oriented approach to
urban development, which requires maintaining public controls. Its ambitions, therefore, must be put in
perspective, as it does not offer a magic solution to the urban and regional problems (Chapter 96:
Kunzmann, 2013; Chapter 97: Mazza, 2013).
The normative ideas that have characterized the different periods of planning history have not
disappeared, but only pushed to the background, making up an ever richer tapestry. The ideas that
prevailed in a period survived, finding new forms and expressions, either becoming part of the fabric
of planning, or recurring with some new vigour and flavour at later periods. The engineering ideas of
functionality and efficiency, the artistic ideas of subjectivity and creativity, the scientific application of
mathematics and computer technology, the political insights into the diversity of interests and forces,
the institutional understanding of policy processes and decision making, the economic analysis of land
and its use, the social demand for equality and justice, the pragmatic interaction with the market and
civil society, have all shaped the history and theory of planning since the end of the nineteenth century.
Each has occupied a place of prominence for a while, but downgraded by the incoming trends that have
taken up the centre stage, all as endeavours to give shape and order to the increasingly complex spatial
relations and to lay down a path towards a more desirable future.
Selection of texts
I have employed several methods to identify the texts, searching in library catalogues, journal databases,
academic syllabi, existing collections and lists, and direct consultation. I searched in the library
catalogues and planning journals to find papers that have been explicitly identified as addressing
planning theory. The shortcoming of this approach is that a paper may address a planning theory topic
without being explicitly labelled with that keyword. I also consulted the list of ‘most cited’ and ‘most
read’ papers in the planning journals where their websites would allow the option of viewing these
papers, specifically in Planning Theory, Planning Theory and Practice, Planning Literature, Planning
Education and Research, and Journal of American Planning Association. The limitations of this data is
that they are limited to some journals; even these selections are based on the citations and readers’ views

11
of the articles in the last three years and do not go back further. I have consulted the existing readers on
planning theory, especially Faludi (1973), Madelbaum, Mazza and Burchell (1996), Campbell and
Fainstein (2003), and Hillier and Healey (2008). I consulted the available teaching material from the
universities that place their planning theory syllabi online. Reading lists from 20 major universities
were selected for consultation. This selection has provided a snapshot of the current approach to
teaching planning theory by the experts in the field. However, the limitation of this data is that it is
primarily from American universities, where the practice of publishing their full syllabus online is
widespread. To go back in time, I have also benefited from consulting the work of writers who have
provided an overview of the use planning theory literature in teaching, in particular Perloff (1956),
Hightower (1969), and Kolsterman (1981, 1992, 2011), which together have covered an entire century
of planning theory teaching material. Furthermore, the lists of references in each of the texts that I
initially reviewed were instrumental in identifying the key references that were essential to include. By
drawing on all of these research methods in compiling my list, I have tried to overcome their individual
limitations.
Papers are all published in English, and as such tend to come from the English speaking countries, and
in particular the US and UK, where the size of the discipline, the number of university programmes, the
relative coherence and the intensity of interaction between the programmes have generated a wealth of
material. To ensure that I have included material from other countries, I have contacted senior planning
academics from other countries to seek advice, although the main obstacle is the limited availability of
these publications in English.
The included material is primarily from within the discipline of planning and texts written by planning
thinkers. I have also included texts that embrace a broader notion of planning, which include the spatial
visions that have informed planning decisions for two centuries, as well as the social science theories
that have been relevant to the study of planning. Some of this material is not specifically labelled as
planning theory, and may not even be located within the planning discipline. These include discussions
about the relationship between the state and society, the nature of management, and the legitimacy of
state intervention in the market. I have therefore included the theoretical writings that have framed
planning theory, particularly in its formative years.
The texts are organized in a chronological order, which provides a degree of clarity in the selection and
presentation of the papers, and also facilitates the contextualization and periodization of theoretical
approaches in planning theory. Major structural changes in the political economy and in the broader
spheres of social theory and philosophy could be aligned, offering a framework within which the
different planning theories could be located and analysed. In other words, the conditions of possibility
of different planning theories were identified which could help understand a theory in the context of the
particular period and the series of circumstances in which it arose. The connection between a theory
and the political economic context, however, is not necessarily immediate or causal. Theoretical ideas
may emerge in the middle of a distinctive political economic phase, either to explain, support or criticize
it, which may or may not be taken up in the phase that follows. In other words, ideas take a longer time
to evolve and are not exactly coextensive with the political economic periods, but may overlap with
them with a temporal gap.
Despite these efforts, no single reader can include all the good papers that have been written on planning
theory or those that can be beneficial in studying the subject. The papers that are included are only
indicative of a much wider field as evolved in particular contexts; the mark of success for this collection
of papers would be if it were to encourage the reader to look for more.
References
Albrechts, Louis, 2004, Strategic (Spatial) Planning Re-examined, Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 31, pp.743-758.
Alexander, Ernest, 1984, After Rationality, What? A Review of Responses to Paradigm Breakdown,
Journal of the American Planning Association, 50, 1, pp.62-69.
Altshuler, Alan, 1965, The Goals of Comprehensive Planning, Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 31, 3, pp.186-195.
12
Arnstein, Sherry, 1969, A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
35, 4, pp.216-224.
Banfield, Edward, 1959, Ends and Means in Planning, International Social Science Journal, 11, 3,
pp.361-368.
Batty, Michael, and Paul Torrens, 2005, Modelling and Prediction in a Complex World, Futures, 37,
pp.745–766.
Beatley, Timothy, 1989, Environmental Ethics and Planning Theory, Journal of Planning Literature, 4,
1, pp.1-32.
Beauregard, Robert, 1989, Between Modernity and Postmodernity: The Ambiguous Position of US
Planning, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 7, pp.381-395.
Beauregard, Robert, 2005, Planning and the Network City: Discursive Correspondences, in Louis
Albrechts and Seymour Mandelbaum (eds.), The Network Society: A New Context for Planning, London:
Routledge, pp.24-33.
Benevolo, Leonardo, 1967, Preface, in The Origins of Modern Town Planning, London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, pp. xi-xiv.
Bolan, Richard, 1967, Emerging Views of Planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33,
4, pp.233-245.
Boyer, M. Christine, 1983, The Rise of the Planning Mentality, in Dreaming the Rational City: The
Myth of American City Planning, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp.59-82.
Brooks, Michael, 2002, Running the Gauntlet of Planning Critics, in Planning Theory for Practitioners,
Chicago: Planners Press, pp.35-49.
Byrne, David, 2003, Complexity Theory and Planning Theory: A Necessary Encounter, Planning
Theory, 2, 3, pp.171-178.
Campbell, Heather, 2006, Just Planning: The Art of Situated Ethical Judgment, Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 26, 92-106.
Campbell, Scott, 1996, Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning and the
Contradictions of Sustainable Development, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 3,
pp.296-312.
Campbell, Scott, and Susan S. Fainstein, 2003, eds, Readings in Planning Theory, 2nd edition, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Choay, Francoise, 1969, Regularization, in The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century, New York:
George Braziller, pp.15-27.
CIAM, 1944, The Town-Planning Chart, Fourth C.I.A.M Congress, Athens 1933, in Josep Lluis Sert,
Can Our Cities Survive? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp.246-249.
Davidoff, Paul, 1965, Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning, Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 31, 4, pp.331-38.
Davidoff, Paul, and Thomas Reiner, 1962, A Choice Theory of Planning, Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 28, 2, pp.103-115.
Dewey, John, 1927, Search for the Great Community, in The Public and Its Problems, New York:
H.Holt, pp.143-184.
Etzioni, Amitai, 1967, Mixed-Scanning: A "Third" Approach to Decision-Making, Public
Administration Review, 27, 5, pp.385-392.
Fainstein, Susan, 2000, New Directions in Planning Theory, Urban Affairs Review, 35, 4, pp.451-478.

13
Fainstein, Susan, and Norman Fainstein, 1971, City Planning and Political Values, Urban Affairs
Review, 6, pp.341-62.
Faludi, Andreas, 1973, (ed.), A Reader in Planning Theory, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Faludi, Andreas, 1973, The Rationale of Planning Theory, in Planning Theory, Oxford: Pergamon Press,
pp.35-53.
Flyvbjerg, Bent, 1992, Aristotle, Foucault and Progressive Phronesis: Outline of an Applied Ethics for
Sustainable Development, Planning Theory, 7--8, pp.65- 83.
Flyvbjerg, Bent, 1998, Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society?, The British Journal of
Sociology, 49, 2, pp.210-233.
Forester, John, 1987, Planning in the Face of Conflict: Negotiation and Mediation Strategies in Local
Land Use Regulation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 53, 3, pp.303-314.
Forester, John, 2013, On the Theory and Practice of Critical Pragmatism: Deliberative Practice and
Creative Negotiations, Planning Theory, 12, 1, pp.5-22.
Foucault, Michel, 1980, The Eye of Power, in Colin Gordon (ed.), Power/Knowledge, Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited, pp.146-165.
Foucault, Michel, 1983, The subject and power, in Dreyfus, Hubert and Rabinow, Paul, eds, Michel
Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp.208-226.
Foucault, Michel, 2002, The Order of Things, London: Routledge.
Friedmann, John, 1987, Two Centuries of Planning Theory: An overview, in Planning in the Public
Domain: From Knowledge to Action, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.51-85.
Friedmann, John, 1993, Toward a Non-Euclidian Mode of Planning, Journal of the American Planning
Association, 59, 4, pp.482-485.
Gans, Herbert, 1968, City planning in America: A Sociological Analysis, in People and Plans, New
York: Basic Books, pp.57-77.
Geddes, Patrick, 1915, Ways to the Neotechnic City, in Cities in Evolution, London: Williams &
Norgate Ltd, pp.84-108.
Grant, Jill, 2007, Two Sides of a Coin? New Urbanism and Gated Communities, Housing Policy
Debate, 18, 3, pp.481-501.
Gunder, Michael, 2010, Planning as the Ideology of (Neoliberal) Space, Planning Theory, 9, 4, pp.298-
314.
Harvey, David, 1978, On Planning the Ideology of Planning, in Robert Burchell and George Sternlieb
(eds.), Planning Theory in the 1980s, New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers
University, pp.213-233.
Harvey, David, 2003, The Right to the City, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
27, 4, pp.939-41.
Hayek, Friedrich, 1944, Individualism and Collectivism, in The Road to Serfdom, London: Routledge,
pp.24-31.
Healey, Patsy 1992. Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory, Town
Planning Review, 63, 2, pp.143-162.
Healey, Patsy, 2009, The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 28, pp.277-292.
Hebbert, Michael, 2004, New Urbanism – The Movement in Context, Built Environment, 29, 3, pp.193-
209.

14
Hightower, Henry, ‘Planning Theory in Contemporary Professional Education’, Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 35, 5, 1969, pp.326-329
Hillier, Jean, 2008, Plan(e) Speaking: a Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning, Planning Theory, 7, 1,
pp.24-50.
Hillier, Jean, and Patsy Healey, 2008, eds, Critical Essays in Planning Theory, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hoch, Charles, 2007, Pragmatic Communicative Action Theory, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 26, pp.272-283.
Hollis, Martin, 2002, The Philosophy of Social Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howard, Ebenezer, 1902, Introduction, in Garden Cities of To-Morrow, London: Swan Sonnenschein
& Co. Ltd, pp.9-19.
Huxley, Margo, and Oren Yiftachel, 2000, New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the
Communicative Turn in Planning Theory, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, pp.333-
342.
Innes, Judith, 1996, Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive
Planning Ideal, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 4, pp.460-472.
Innes, Judith, and David Booher, 2004, Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century,
Planning Theory and Practice, 5, 4, pp.419-436.
Jacobs, Jane, 1961, The Kind of Problem a City Is, in The Death and Life of Great American Cities,
New York: Random House, pp.428-448.
Kant, Immanuel, 1995, What is Enlightenment? In Isaac Kraminck, ed, The Portable Enlightenment
Reader, London: Penguin, pp.1-7.
Keynes, John Maynard, 1931, The End of Laissez-faire, in Essays in Persuasion, London: Macmillan,
pp.312-322.
Kirk, Gwyneth, 1980, Theoretical Approaches to Urban Planning, in Urban Planning in a Capitalist
Society, London: Croom Helm, pp.55-94.
Klosterman, Richard E., ‘Contemporary Planning Theory Education: Results of a Course Survey’,
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 1, 1, 1981, pp.1-11.
Klosterman, Richard E., ‘Planning Theory Education in the 1980s: Results of a Second Course Survey’,
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 11, 1992, pp.130-140.
Klosterman, Richard E., ‘Planning Theory Education: A Thirty-Year Review’, Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 31, 3, 2011, pp.319-331.
Klosterman, Richard, 1985, Arguments For and Against Planning, Town Planning Review, 56, 1, pp.5-
20.
Krumholz, Norman, 1982, A Retrospective View of Equity Planning: Cleveland, 1969-1979, Journal
of the American Planning Association, 48, 2, pp.163-174.
Kunzmann, Klaus, 2013, Strategic Planning: A Chance for Spatial Innovation and Creativity, disP: The
Planning Review, 49, 3, pp.28-31.
Le Corbusier, 1929, The Great City, in The City of To-morrow and Its Planning, London: The
Architectural Press, pp.86-105.
Lefebvre, Henri, 1996, Philosophy of the City and Planning Ideology, in Eleonore Kofman and
Elizabeth Lebas (eds.), Writings on Cities: Henri Lefebvre, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.97-99.
Lindblom, Charles, 1959, The Science of “Muddling Through”, Public Administration Review, 19, 2,
pp.79-88.
Madanipour, Ali, 2010, Connectivity and Contingency in Planning, Planning Theory, 9, 4, pp.351-368.
15
Mandelbaum, Seymour , 1979, A Complete General Theory of Planning Is Impossible, Policy Sciences,
11, 1, pp.59-71.
Mandelbaum, Seymour, Luigi Mazza and Robert W. Burchell, 1996 & 2012, (eds), Explorations in
Planning Theory, New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Mannheim, Karl, 1940, The Concept of Social Control: Planning as the Rational Mastery of the
Irrational, in Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &
Co, pp.265-273.
Manning Thomas, June, 1994, Planning History and the Black Urban Experience: Linkages and
Contemporary Implications, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 1, pp.1-11.
Marcuse, Peter, 1976, Professional Ethics and Beyond: Values in Planning, Journal of the American
Institute of Planners 42, 3, pp.264-274.
Mazza, Luigi, 2013, If Strategic “Planning Is Everything, Maybe It's Nothing”, disP - The Planning
Review, 49, 3, pp.40-42.
McLoughlin, Brian, 1969, The Guidance and Control of Change: Physical Planning as the Control of
Complex Systems, in Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach, London: Faber and Faber,
pp.75-91.
Meyerson, Martin, 1956, Building the Middle-Range Bridge for Comprehensive Planning, Journal of
the American Institute of Planners, 22, 2, pp.58-64.
Meyerson, Martin, and Edward Banfield, 1955, Note on a conceptual scheme, in Politics, Planning,
and the Public Interest, New York: Free Press, pp.303-329.
Moore Milroy, Beth, 1991, Taking Stock of Planning, Space, and Gender, Journal of Planning
Literature, 6, 1, pp.3-15.
Mumford, Lewis, 1954, The Neighborhood and the Neighborhood Unit, The Town Planning Review,
24, 4, pp.256-270.
Perloff, Harvey, 1956, Education of City Planners: Past, Present and Future, Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 22, 4, pp.186-217.
Pløger, John, 2004, Strife: Urban Planning and Agonism, Planning Theory, 3, 1, pp.71-92.
Popper, Karl, 1957, Interpreting versus Planning Social Change, in The Poverty of Historicism, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.44-46.
Qadeer, Mohammad, 1997, Pluralistic Planning for Multicultural Cities: The Canadian Practice,
Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 4, pp.481-494.
Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber, 1973, Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences,
4, 2, pp.155-169.
Ritzdorf, Marsha, 1992, Feminist Thoughts on the Theory and Practice of Planning, Planning Theory,
7/8, pp.13-19.
Rondinelli, Dennis, 1973, Urban Planning as Policy Analysis: Management of Urban Change, Journal
of the American Institute of Planners, 39, 1, pp.13-22.
Sager, Tore , 1994, Dialogical Incrementalism, in Communicative Planning Theory, Aldershot:
Avebury, pp.3-25.
Sandercock, Leonie, 2000, When Strangers Become Neighbors: Managing Cities of Difference,
Planning Theory & Practice, 1, 1, pp.13-30.
Schumpeter, Joseph, 1943, The Process of Creative Destruction, in Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy, London: Routledge, pp. 81-86.

16
 Simon, Herbert, 1961, Decision Making and Planning, in H.S.Perloff (ed.), Planning and the Urban
Community, Pittsburgh: Carnegie Institute of Technology and the University of Pittsburgh Press,
pp.188-192.
Simon, Herbert, 1976, From Substantive to Procedural Rationality, in S.J.Latsis (ed.), Method and
Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.129-148.
Sitte, Camillo, 1945, The Artless and Prosaic Character of Modern City Planning, in The Art of Building
Cities: City Building according to its Artistic Fundamentals, New York: Reinhold, pp.53-58.
Smith, Neil, 2002, New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy, Antipode,
34, 3, pp.427-450.
Sorauf, Frank, 1957, The Public Interest Reconsidered, The Journal of Politics, 19, 4, pp.616-639.
Stein, Stanley, and Thomas Harper, 2005, Rawls's 'Justice as Fairness': A Moral Basis for Contemporary
Planning Theory, Planning Theory, 4, 2, pp.147-172.
Swanstrom, Todd, 1987, The Limits of Strategic Planning for Cities, Journal of Urban Affairs, 9, 2,
pp.139-157.
Taylor, Frederick Winslow,1919, Introduction, in The Principles of Scientific Management, New York:
Harper & Brothers Publishers, pp.5-8.
Taylor, Nigel, 1999, Anglo-American Town Planning Theory Since 1945: Three Significant
Developments But No Paradigm Shifts, Planning Perspectives, 14, pp.327–345.
Throgmorton, James, 1996, The Argumentative or Rhetorical Turn in Planning, in Planning as
Persuasive Storytelling: The Rhetorical Construction of Chicago 's Electric Future, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, pp.36- 54.
Tunnard, Christopher, 1951, Creative Urbanism, The Town Planning Review, 22, 3, pp.216-236.
Unwin, Raymond, 1934, Of Civic Art as the Expression of Civic Life, in Town Planning in Practice,
New York: Benjamin Blom, pp.2-14.
Verma, Niraj and HaeRan Shin, 2004, Communicative Action and the Network Society: A Pragmatic
Marriage?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, pp.131-140.
Watson, Vanessa, 2006, Deep Difference: Diversity, Planning and Ethics, Planning Theory, 5, 1, pp.31-
50.
Weber, Max, 1947, The Formal and Substantive Rationality of Economic Action, in The Theory of
Social and Economic Organization, New York: The Free Press, pp.184-186.
Weber, Max, 1948, Technical Advantages of Bureaucratic Organizations, in H. H. Gerth and C. Wright
Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.214-216.
Wildavsky, Aaron, 1973, If Planning is Everything, Maybe It’s Nothing, Policy Sciences, 4, 2, pp.127-
53.
Wright, Frank Lloyd, 1945, The Usonian Vision in When Democracy Builds, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, pp.65-71.
Young, Iris Marion, 1992, Concrete Imagination and Piecemeal Transformation, Planning Theory, 7/8,
pp.59-62.

17

View publication stats