Comprehensive rationality and disjointed incrementalism are among the decisionmaking models discussed in planning theory. But the practical relevance of this discussion has been questioned and concrete evidence of links between theory and practice is rare. The case of the planning of Highway 6 in Israel demonstrates this link. Litigation preceding implementation of the project provides documentary evidence, which includes a debate about the respective merits of comprehensive-rational planning and disjointed incrementalism as the way to plan this highway. It is shown that such strategic projects are not and cannot be planned incrementally. Analysis of this case suggests some conclusions concerning the timing and practical consequences of the choice between planning models, and the potential of a contingent framework to link theory to practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderE R, 1972, “Choice in a changing world”Policy Sciences3325–337
2.
AlexanderE R, 1984, “After rationality, what? A review of responses to paradigm breakdown”Journal of the American Planning Association5062–69
3.
AlexanderE R, 1992Approaches to Planning: A Review of Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues (Gordon and Breach, Philadelphia, PA)
4.
AlexanderE R, 1994a, “The non-Euclidean mode of planning: What is it to be?”Journal of the American Planning Association60372–376
5.
AlexanderE R, 1994b, “To plan or not to plan: Transaction cost theory and its implications for planning”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design21341–352
6.
AlexanderE R, 1997, “A mile or a millimeter? Measuring the ‘planning theory-practice gap’”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design243–6
7.
AlexanderE RAltermanRLaw-YoneH, 1983Evaluating Plan Implementation: The National Statutory Planning System in Israel (Pergamon, Oxford)
8.
Bagatz 2683/92, 1994Maccabim et al vs Commission for Residential Construction Central District et al Israel High Court of Justice verdict, 13/1/94 (Piskei din, kerach mem-het, helek rishon; in Hebrew) pp 535–553
9.
Bagatz 2920/94, 1994Israel Union for Environmental Defense et al vs National Council for Planning and Building et al Israel High Court of Justice proceedings (applicants' and respondents' expert witnesses' opinions; in Hebrew)
10.
BaumH, 1987The Invisible Bureaucracy: The Unconscious in Organizational Problem Solving (Oxford University Press, New York)
11.
EtzioniA, 1967, “Mixed scanning: A ‘third’ approach to decision making”Public Administration Review27387–391
12.
ForesterJ, 1984, “Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through”Public Administration Review4423–31
13.
ForesterJ, 1994Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice—Towards a Critical Pragmatism (SUNY Press, Albany, NY)
14.
FriedmannJ, 1993, “Toward a non-Euclidean mode of planning”Journal of the American Planning Association59482–485
15.
FriedmannJ, 1994, “The utility of non-Euclidean planning”Journal of the American Planning Association60377–379
16.
FriendJ KJessopW N, 1969Local Government and Strategic ChoiceTavistock Institute, London
17.
GarbY, 1997, “The trans-Israel highway: Do we know enough to proceed”, WP-5, The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies, Jerusalem
HallP, 1980Great Planning Disasters (Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London)
20.
HallP, 1989, “The turbulent eighth decade: Challenges to American city planning”Journal of the American Planning Association55275–282
21.
HeadicarP, 1996, “The local development effects of major new roads: M40 case study”Transportation2355–69
22.
HealeyP, 1992, “A planner's day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice”Journal of the American Planning Association589–20
23.
HemmensG C, 1980, “New directions in planning theory”Journal of the American Planning Association46259–260
24.
HopkinsonP GNashC ASheehyN, 1992, “How much do people value the environment? A method to identify how people conceptualise and value the costs and benefits of new road scheme”Transportation1997–115
25.
IMI/NCPB, 1992Tokhnit Mit'ar Artzit number 31 (National Statutory Plan number 31), Planning Administration, Israel Ministry of the Interior/National Planning and Construction Board, Jerusalem (in Hebrew)
26.
InnesJ, 1986, “Visible planning theory: An agenda for research and education”, in Strategic Perspectives on Planning Practice Ed. CheckowayB, (D C Heath, Lexington, MA)
27.
InnesJ, 1995, “Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice”Journal of Planning Education and Research14183–189
28.
Israel 2020, 1993, report stage A, volume A, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa (in Hebrew)
29.
LindblomC E, 1965The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision-Making Through Mutual Adjustment (Free Press, New York)
30.
MandelbaumS J, 1979, “A complete general theory of planning is impossible”Policy Sciences1159–71
31.
MonzB EDixonJ E, 1993, “From law to practice: EIA in New Zealand”Environmental Impact Assessment Review1389–108
32.
OdeckJ, 1996, “Ranking of regional road investment in Norway: Does socioeconomic analysis matter?”Transportation23123–140
33.
RittelHWebberM, 1973, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”Policy Sciences4155–169
34.
Statistical Abstract of Israel1994 (Government Printing Office, Jerusalem)
35.
TorgovnikE, 1990The Politics of Urban Planning Policy (University Press of America, Lanham, MD)
36.
USDT, 1993The Development of Logical Project Termini (Advisory) Federal Highway
37.
Administration, US Department of Transportation (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
38.
WildavskyA, 1979Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (Little and Brown, Boston, MA)
