Most of the research and published literature deals almost entirely with the effects of planned intervention. This is remarkable because since the late 1970s emphasis has shifted from plan to planning process. A planning process cannot be assessed in terms of the traditional measures of effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to describe a methodology for assessing a planning process by making use of variables related to normative, methodological, and institutional dimensions of planning with a view to initiate a comparative examination of methodologies for assessing a planning process as well as to develop more integrated thinking with regard to such an assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltshulerA A, 1965The City Planning Process (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY)
2.
ÅhrénU, 1945Ett planmässigt samhällsbyggande (A planned urban development) (SOU, Stockholm)
3.
BohmK, 1985Med- och motborgare i stadsplanering (For or against citizen participation in urban planning) (Liber, Stockholm)
4.
BolanR S, 1967, “Emerging views of planning”AIP Journal35233–246
5.
BranchM C, 1966Planning: Aspects and Applications (John Wiley, New York)
6.
BraybrookeDLindblomC, 1963A Strategy for Decision (Free Press, New York)
7.
ChamberlainN W, 1965Private and Public Planning (McGraw Hill, New York)
8.
FaludiAVoogdH, (Eds), 1985Evaluation of Complex Policy Problems (Delftsche UM, Delft)
9.
FloderusÅ, 1986, “Vad hände med det planmässiga samhällsbyggandet?” (“What happened to the planned urban development”), in Planering med nya lagar (Planning with new laws) Ed. FloderusÅ (Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm) pp 11–35
10.
FloderusÅ, 1989Planeringens trovärdighet (The credibility and legitimacy of physical planning) (SIB, Gävle)
11.
FriedmannJ, 1967, “The institutional context”, in Action Under Planning Ed. GrossB M, (McGraw Hill, New York) pp 31–67
12.
FriedmannJ, 1987Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
13.
Government Bill1985/86:1, The Planning and Building Act (Parliamentary Records, Stockholm)
14.
Government Bill1985/86:3, The National Resources Act (Parliamentary Records, Stockholm)
15.
HögbergO, 1980Föreställningar och spelregler i kommunal planering (Perceptions and rules of the game in local government planning)Department of Business Administration, University of Stockholm, Stockholm
16.
KhakeeA, 1983Municipal Planning: Restrictions, Methods and Organizational Problems (Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm)
17.
KhakeeA, 1988, “Relationship between futures studies and planning”European Journal of Operational Research33200–211
18.
KhakeeA, 1989a, “Alternative urban planning organizations: Their effectiveness and distributive impact”Planning and Administration167–20
19.
KhakeeA, 1989bKommunal planering i omvandling 1947–1987 (Urban planning in transition 1947–1987), Gerum 13, University of Umeå, Umeå
20.
LeemansA F, (Ed.), 1976The Management of Change in Government (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague)
21.
LichfieldNKettlePWhitbreadM, 1975Evaluation in the Planning Process (Pergamon, Oxford)
22.
LidströmA, 1991Discretion: An Art of the PossibleDepartment of Political Science, University of Umeå, Umeå
23.
MackR P, 1971Planning on Uncertainty: Decision Making in Business and Government Administration (John Wiley, New York)
