The concept of a planning doctrine can be used to analyse spatial planning systems, making reference to the ways in which their performance is influenced by patterns of thought. In the Netherlands the performance of the planning system has been attributed to a strong national consensus on a set of interrelated and enduring notions on spatial configurations and development strategies and how they should be handled: in plain terms, a ‘spatial planning doctrine’. The spatial planning context has changed so much in the past fifteen years that many critics are questioning whether Dutch spatial planning can continue to live up to its internationally acclaimed reputation. We analyse the workings of the planning doctrine and conclude that it is still having an effect on planning practice. However, if it does not evolve more dynamically, it might be wrenched out of joint by the constantly changing planning context. We furthermore reflect on the potential role of a planning doctrine in the analysis of planning systems.
AdgerW NBrownKFairbrassJJordanAPaavolaJRosendoSSeyfangG, 2003, “Governance for sustainability: Towards a'thick' analysis of environmental decisionmaking”Environment and Planning A351095–1110.
2.
AlbrechtsL, 2001, “The planning community reflects on enhancing public involvement. Views from academics and reflective practitioners”Planning Theory and Practice3331–347.
3.
AlexanderE R, 2002, “Metropolitan regional planning in Amsterdam: A case study”Town Planning Review7317–40.
4.
AlexanderE RFaludiA, 1990, “Planning doctrine: Its uses and implications”, RP B/90.9, Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
5.
AllmendingerPGunderM, 2005, “Applying Lacanian insight to planning's ‘dark side’”Planning Theory487–112.
6.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG, 2009, “Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway”Environment and Planning A41617–633.
7.
AltermanR, 1997, “The challenge of farmland preservation: Lessons from a six-nation comparison”Journal of the American Planning Association63220–243.
8.
BakerMHincksS, 2009, “Infrastructure delivery and spatial planning: The case of English local development frameworks”Town Planning Review80173–199.
9.
BallM, 2011, “Planning delay and the responsiveness of English housing supply”Urban Studies48349–362.
10.
BlombergA BDe GierAAJRobbeJ, 2009, “The integration of the protection of nature conservation areas in Dutch spatial planning law and environmental management law”Utrecht Law Review5132–157.
BontjeM, 2003, “A'planner‘s paradise’ lost?: Past, present and future of Dutch national urbanization policy”European Urban and Regional Studies10135–151.
13.
BrehenyM, 1995a, “Counter-urbanisation and sustainable urban forms”, in Cities in Competition: Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st Century Eds BrotchieJBattyMBlakelyEHallPNewtonP (Longman, Melbourne) pp 402–429.
14.
BrehenyM, 1995b, “The compact city and transport energy consumption”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series2081–101.
BurkeG L, 1966Greenheart Metropolis: Planning the Western Netherlands (Macmillan, London).
20.
CoopSThomasH, 2007, “Planning doctrine as an element in planning history: The case of Cardiff”Planning Perspectives22167–193.
21.
DaltonL C, 2007, “Preparing planners for the breadth of practice: What we need to know depends on whom we ask”Journal of the American Planning Association7335–46.
22.
De VriesAVan der WagtMMaasT, 2008Strategische Kennisagenda RuimteMinisterie van Volkhuisvestig, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu, The Hague.
23.
DriessenPPJDe GierAAJ, 1999, “Flooding, river management and emergency legislation experiences of the accelerated reinforcement of dikes in the Netherlands”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie90336–342.
24.
EversD, 2008, “Reflections on territorial cohesion and European spatial planning”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie99303–315.
25.
EversDBen-ZadokEFaludiA, 2000, “The Netherlands and Florida: Two growth management strategies”International Planning Studies57–23.
26.
FainsteinS S, 2005a, “Cities and diversity: Should we want it? Can we plan for it?”Urban Affairs Review413–19.
27.
FainsteinS S, 2005b, “Planning theory and the city”Journal of Planning Education and Research25121–130.
28.
FaludiA, 1985, “A decision-centred view of environmental planning”Landscape Planning12239–256.
29.
FaludiA, 1989, “Perspectives on planning doctrine”Built Environment1557–64.
30.
FaludiA, 1996a, “European planning doctrine: A bridge too far?”Journal of Planning Education and Research1641–50.
31.
FaludiA, 1996b, “Framing with images”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2393–108.
32.
FaludiA, 1997, “A planning doctrine for Jerusalem?”International Planning Studies283–102.
33.
FaludiA, 1999, “Patterns of doctrinal development”Journal of Planning Education and Research18333–344.
34.
FaludiA, 2000, “The performance of spatial planning”Planning Practice and Research15299–318.
35.
FaludiA, 2005, “The Netherlands: A culture with a soft spot for planning”, in Comparative Planning Cultures Ed. SanyalB (Routledge, London) pp 285–307.
36.
FaludiAvan der ValkA, 1994Rule and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht).
37.
FlyvbjergB, 1998, “Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society?”British Journal of Sociology49210–233.
38.
GalleM, 2008, “Ruimte voor debat: Nieuwe Wro zet in op achterhaalde sturingsstrategie”Stedebouw and Ruimtelijke Ordening8958–60.
39.
GeursK Tvan WeeB, 2006, “Ex-post evaluation of thirty years of compact urban development in the Netherlands”Urban Studies43139–160.
40.
GualiniEMajoorS, 2007, “Innovative practices in large urban development projects: Conflicting frames in the quest for ‘new urbanity’”Planning Theory and Practice8297–318.
41.
HajerMZonneveldW, 2000, “Spatial planning in the network society—rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands”European Planning Studies8337–355.
42.
HallP, 1988 [1966] The World Cities (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London).
43.
HershkowitzA, 2010, “Ideological shifts and doctrine changes in national level planning in Israel”Town Planning Review81261–281.
44.
HillierJ, 2003, “Agonizing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’”Planning Theory237–59.
45.
HuxleyMYiftachelO, 2000, “New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory”Journal of Planning Education and Research19332–342.
46.
Janssen-JansenL B, 2008, “Space for space, a transferable development rights initiative for changing the Dutch landscape”Landscape and Urban Planning87192–200.
47.
KerstenP, 2005Een nota ruimte met nieuwe vergezichten, maar kijk eens een andere kant uit … Oproep tot vakdebat over ruimtelijke ordening (Wageningen UR, Wageningen).
48.
KoomenEDekkersJvan DijkT, 2008, “Open-space preservation in the Netherlands: Planning, practice and prospects”Land Use Policy25361–377.
49.
AltesKorthals WK, 1992, “How do planning doctrines function in a changing environment”Planning Theory7/8110–115.
50.
AltesKorthals WK, 1995De Nederlandse planningdoctrine in het fin de siecle: Voorbereiding en doorwerking van de Vierde nota over de ruimtelijke ordening (extra) (Van Gorcum, Assen).
51.
AltesKorthals WK, 2006, “Towards regional development planning in the Netherlands”Planning Practice and Research21309–321.
52.
AltesKorthals WK, 2007, “The impact of abolishing social-housing grants on the compact-city policy of Dutch municipalities”Environment and Planning A391497–1512.
53.
KunzmannK R, 2000, “Strategic spatial development through information and communication”, in The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning Eds SaletWFaludiA (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam) pp 259–265.
54.
LurksM, 2001De spanning tussen centralisatie en decentralisatie in de ruimtelijke ordening (with summary in English: The tension between local and central government in public decisionmaking processes concerning the zoning and use of land), Instituut voor Bouwrecht, The Hague.
55.
MaierK, 1998, “Czech planning in transition: Assets and deficiencies”International Planning Studies3351–365.
56.
MeijersE, 2005, “Polycentric urban regions and the quest for synergy: Is a network of cities more than the sum of the parts?”Urban Studies42765–781.
NeumanM, 2007, “Multi-scalar large institutional networks in regional planning”Planning Theory and Practice8319–344.
68.
PløgerJ, 2004, “Strife: Urban planning and agonism”Planning Theory371–92.
69.
PriemusH, 1996, “Physical planning policy and public expenditure in the Netherlands”Journal of Housing and the Built Environment11151–171.
70.
RingerF, 2002, “Max Weber on causal analysis, interpretation, and comparison”History and Theory41163–178.
71.
SagerT, 2009, “Responsibilities of theorists: The case of communicative planning theory”Progress in Planning721–51.
72.
ShacharA, 1998, “Reshaping the map of Israel: A new national planning doctrine”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science555209–218.
73.
SpaansM, 2006, “Recent changes in the Dutch planning system towards a new governance model?”Town Planning Review77127–146.
74.
Tewdwr-JonesMAllmendingerP, 1998, “Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning”Environment and Planning A301975–1989.
75.
ThomasDMinettJHopkinsSHamnettSFaludiABarrellD, 1983Flexibility and Commitment in Planning (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague).
76.
TK, Tweede Kamer der State-Generaal, The Hague2010aVaststelling van de begrotingsstaten van het Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (XII) voor het jaar 2011: 32500 XII 56 Brief van de minister en staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieuhttps://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-32500-XII-56.html.
77.
TK, Tweede Kamer der State-Generaal, The Hague2010bVaststelling van de begrotingsstaten van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (XI) en van de begrotingsstaat van het Waddenfonds voor het jaar 2011, 32500 XI 8 Verslag houdende een lijst van vragen en antwoordenhttps://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-32500-XII-8.html.
Van der WoudenRDammersEVan RavesteynN, 2006, “Knowledge and policy in the Netherlands: The role of the Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research”DISP16534–42.
80.
VangnbyBJensenO B, 2002, “From slum clearance to urban policy: Discourses and doctrines in Danish inner city redevelopment”Housing Theory and Society193–13.
81.
Van RavesteynNEversD, 2004Unseen Europe: A Survey of EU Politics and its Impact on Spatial Development in the Netherlands (NAi, Rotterdam; Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research, The Hague).
82.
Van RijH EAltesKorthals WK, 2008, “The merits of outmoded planning instruments for improving metropolitan green areas: The Midden-Delfland approach”Planning Theory and Practice9345–362.
83.
VerschuurenJ, 2010, “The Dutch Crisis and Recovery Act: Economic recovery and legal crisis?”Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroom Elektroniese Regstydskrif135–25.
VoßW, 1997, “Niederlande”, in Boden—Wem nutzt er? Wen stützt er? Neue Perspektiven des Bodenrechts Bauwelt Fundamente 119 (Vieweg, Braunschweig) pp 109–123.
87.
VROM, 1991VINEX deel III Kabinetsstandpunt TK 21879, nrs 5–6, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubcheer [Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment] (SDU, The Hague).
88.
VROM, 2007, “Ontwerp-Besluit ruimtelijke ordening”, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubcheer [Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment]Staatscourant8514.
89.
VROM, LNV, VenW, EZ, 2004Nota Ruimte: Ruimte voor OntwikkelingMinisterie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, The Hague.
90.
VROM, LNV, VenW, EZ, OC&W, Defensie, 2008Realisatie nationaal ruimtelijk beleid onder de nieuwe WroMinisterie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubcheer [Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment], The Hague, http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=2706&sp=2&dn=8211.
91.
WeberM, 1949 [1904], “‘Objectivity’ in social science and social policy [Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis]”, in Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences Eds ShilsE AFinchH A (The Free Press, Glencoe, IL) pp 50–112.
92.
WilleyS, 2007, “Planning appeal processes: Reflections on a comparative study”Environment and Planning A391676–1698.
93.
WolsinkM, 2003, “Reshaping the Dutch planning system: A learning process?”Environment and Planning A35705–723.
94.
WoodB, 1998Vacant Land in Europe (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA).
95.
WRR, 1994Besluiten over grote projecten [Deciding about large projects], Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid [Scientific Council for Government Policy] (SDU, The Hague), http://www.wrr.nl/content.jsp?objectid=2403.
96.
WRR, 1999Spatial Development Policy: Summary of the Fifty-third ReportWetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid [Scientific Council for Government Policy], The Hague, http://www.wrr.nl/english/content.jsp?objectid=3257.
97.
ZonneveldW, 2007, “A sea of houses: Preserving open space in an urbanised country”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management50657–675.
