It is assumed here that planning style and the organisational properties of the agency are loosely coupled. A number of such properties are discussed in order to construct four agency profiles corresponding to the values and basic ideas of synoptic, incremental, communicative, and advocacy planning. The four identified configurations of style and structure can (1) be theoretical reference points when analysing constellations of planning style and agency characteristics found in practice, and (2) be used for forming hypotheses about such empirical constellations. The analysis responds to the critique raised against procedural planning theories for being abstract and context free and thus unfit to guide planning in real societies where public planning is embedded in particular organisations and institutions. Most of the organisational features dealt with here have been studied in the economic theory of organisation, and this facilitates the construction of consistent and coherent agency profiles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderE R, 1995How Organizations Act Together (Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam).
2.
AlexanderE R, 1996, “After rationality: Towards a contingency theory for planning”, in Explorations in Planning Theory Eds MandelbaumS JMazzaLBurchellR W (Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 45–64.
3.
BanksJ SWeingastB R, 1992, “The political control of bureaucracies under asymmetric information”American Journal of Political Science36509–524.
4.
BaronD PFerejohnJ, 1987, “Bargaining and agenda formation in legislatures”American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings77303–309.
5.
BeauvoisJ-LJouleR-V, 1996A Radical Dissonance Theory (Taylor and Francis, London).
6.
BendorJ B, 1985Parallel Systems: Redundancy in Government (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
7.
BendorJ B, 1988, “Review article: Formal models of bureaucracy”British Journal of Political Science18353–395.
8.
BishopJ, 1998, “Collaboration and consensus”Town and Country Planning67(3) 111–113.
9.
BolanR S, 1991, “Planning and institutional design”Planning Theory number 5/6, 7–34.
BrunssonN, 1989The Organization of Hypocrisy (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex).
12.
BrysonJ MCrosbyB C, 1992Leadership for the Common Good (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).
13.
BrysonJ MEinsweilerR C (Eds), 1998Strategic Planning Threats and Opportunities for Planning (Planners Press, Chicago, IL).
14.
BurgerT, 1987Max Weber's Theory of Concept Formation: History, Laws, and Ideal Types (Duke University Press, Durham, NC).
15.
CampbellHMarshallR, 1999, “Ethical frameworks and planning theory”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23464–478.
16.
CampbellSFainsteinS (Eds), 1996Readings in Planning Theory (Blackwell, Cambridge, MA).
17.
CullingworthJ BNadinV, 1994Town and Country Planning in Britain11th editionRoutledge, London).
18.
DaltonL C, 1985, “Politics and planning agency performance: Lessons from Seattle”American Planning Association Journal51189–199.
19.
DaltonL C, 1986, “Why the rational paradigm persists—the resistance of professional education and practice to alternative forms of planning”Journal of Planning Education and Research5(3) 147–153.
20.
DaltonL C, 1989, “The limits of regulation: Evidence from local plan implementation in California”American Planning Association Journal55151–168.
21.
DavidoffP, 1965, “Advocacy and pluralism in planning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners31596–615.
22.
DrorY, 1963, “The planning process: A Facet design”International Review of Administrative Sciences29(1) 46–58.
23.
DunleavyP, 1991Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice. Economic Explanations in Political Science (Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, Herts).
24.
FainsteinN IFainsteinS S, 1982, “New debates in urban planning: The impact of Marxist theory within the United States”, in Critical Readings in Planning Theory Ed. ParisC (Pergamon Press, Oxford) pp 147–173.
25.
FaludiA, 1970, “The planning environment and the meaning of ‘planning’”Regional Studies41–9.
26.
FaludiA (Ed.), 1973aA Reader in Planning Theory (Pergamon Press, Oxford).
27.
FaludiA, 1973bPlanning Theory (Pergamon Press, Oxford).
28.
FaludiA, 1987A Decision-centred View of Environmental Planning (Pergamon Press, Oxford).
29.
FaludiA, 1998, “Planning by minimum consensus: Austrian ‘co-operative federalism’ as a model for Europe?”European Planning Studies6485–504.
30.
FaludiA, 2000, “Strategic planning in Europe: Institutional aspects”, in The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning Eds SaletWFaludiA (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam) pp 243–258.
31.
ForesterJ, 1989Planning in the Face of Power (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
32.
FriedmannJ, 1967, “The institutional context”, in Action Under Planning Ed. GrossB M (McGraw-Hill, New York) pp 31–67.
33.
FriedmannJ, 1973Retracting America: A Theory of Transactive Planning (Anchor Press, Garden City, NY).
34.
FriendJHicklingA, 1997Planning Under Pressure2nd editionButterworth-Heinemann, Oxford).
35.
GilbertN, 1979, “The design of community planning structures”Social Service Review53644–654.
36.
HabermasJ, 1990Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
37.
HallR H, 1982Organizations: Structure and Process (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
38.
HammondT H, 1986, “Agenda control, organizational structure, and bureaucratic politics”American Journal of Political Science30379–420.
39.
HammondT HHornJ H, 1985, “‘Putting one over on the boss’: The political economy of strategic behavior in organizations”Public Choice45(1) 49–71.
40.
HammondT HThomasP A, 1989, “The impossibility of a neutral hierarchy”Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization5(1) 155–184.
41.
HammondT HThomasP A, 1990, “Invisible decisive coalitions in large hierarchies”Public Choice66(2) 101–116.
42.
HarperT LSteinS M, 1992, “The centrality of normative ethical theory to contemporary planning theory”Journal of Planning Education and Research11(2) 105–116.
43.
HarveyD, 1978, “On planning the ideology of planning”, in Planning in the 1980's Eds BurchellR WSternliebG (Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 213–233.
HealeyP, 1999, “Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places”Journal of Planning Education and Research19(2) 111–121.
46.
HeimannC F L, 1993, “Understanding the Challenger disaster: Organizational structure and the design of reliable systems”American Political Science Review87421–435.
47.
InnesJ EBooherD E, 2000, “Planning institutions in the network society: Theory for collaborative planning”, in The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning Eds SaletWFaludiA (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam) pp 175–190.
48.
KellyJ S, 1991, “Symmetry groups”Social Choice and Welfare8(1) 89–95.
49.
KrumholzN, 1982, “A retrospective view of equity planning: Cleveland 1969–1979”American Planning Association Journal48163–174.
50.
KrumholzNClavelP, 1994Reinventing Cities. Equity Planners Tell Their Stories (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA).
51.
KrumholzNForesterJ, 1990Making Equity Planning Work (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA).
52.
LandauM, 1969, “Redundancy, rationality, and the problem of duplication and overlap”Public Administration Review29346–358.
53.
LaneJ-E, 1990, “The epistemological foundations of public choice theory”Scandinavian Political Studies13(1) 65–82.
54.
LindblomC E, 1959, “The science of ‘muddling through’”Public Administration Review19(2) 79–88.
55.
LindblomC E, 1965The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment (Free Press, New York).
56.
LowN P, 1991Planning, Politics and the State: Political Foundations of Planning Thought (Unwin Hyman, London).
57.
McKelveyB, 1975, “Guidelines for the empirical classification of organizations”Administrative Science Quarterly20509–525.
58.
MandelbaumS J, 1979, “A complete general theory of planning is impossible”Policy Sciences11(1) 59–71.
59.
MandelbaumS J, 1985, “The institutional focus of planning theory”Journal of Planning Education and Research5(1) 3–9.
60.
MeyersonMBanfieldE C, 1955Politics, Planning, and the Public Interest (Free Press, New York).
61.
MintzbergH, 1989Mintzberg on Management (Free Press, New York).
62.
MoeT M, 1984, “The new economics of organization”American Journal of Political Science28739–777.
63.
MorganG, 1997Images of Organization2nd editionSage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
64.
NeedlemanMNeedlemanC E, 1974Guerrillas in the Bureaucracy (John Wiley, New York).
65.
OstromE, 1990Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
66.
SagerT, 1994Communicative Planning Theory (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants).
67.
SagerT, 1998, “Loyalty and the impossibility of Paretian advocacy planning”Journal of Planning Education and Research18(2) 103–112.
68.
SagerT, 1999, “Manipulation in planning: The social choice perspective”Journal of Planning Education and Research19(2) 123–134.
69.
SagerT, 2001a, “Positive theory of planning: The social choice approach”Environment and Planning A33 forthcoming.
70.
SagerT, 2001b, “Manipulative features of planning styles”Environment and Planning A33 forthcoming.
71.
SamuelsonWZeckhauserR, 1988, “Status quo bias in decision making”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty1(1) 7–59.
72.
SayerA, 1992Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach2nd editionRoutledge, New York).
73.
SchattschneiderE E, 1975The Semisovereign People (Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL).
74.
ScottA J, 1980The Urban Land Nexus and the State (Pion, London).
75.
ShepsleK, 1979, “Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models”American Journal of Political Science23(1) 27–59.
76.
ShepsleK, 1986, “The positive theory of legislative institutions: An enrichment of social choice and spatial models”Public Choice50(1–3) 135–178.
77.
SillinceJ, 1986A Theory of Planning (Gower, Aldershot, Hants).
78.
ThomasM J, 1982, “The procedural planning theory of A. Faludi”, in Critical Readings in Planning Theory Ed. ParisC (Pergamon Press, Oxford) pp 13–25.
79.
ThornleyA, 1993Urban Planning Under Thatcherism: The Challenge of the Market2nd editionRoutledge, London).
80.
WeickK E, 1976, “Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems”Administrative Science Quarterly21(1) 1–19.
81.
WoltjerJ, 2000Consensus Planning: The Relevance of Communicative Planning Theory in Dutch Infrastructure Development (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
