If a ‘general theory of planning’ is impossible, a contingent framework is proposed to integrate prevailing and emergent planning paradigms which present four different views of planning: deliberative rationality, communicative practice, coordinative planning, and frame setting. These are not mutually exclusive but are complementary aspects of a contingent and dynamic planning process. Rationality is invoked in deliberative problem solving by individuals or quasi-individuals, whose interaction takes the form of communicative practice. Coordinative planning represents interaction between organizations, whereas the domain of planning as frame setting is the community. This contingent framework also subsumes descriptive and normative planning models, which are reviewed and illustrated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderE R, 1984, “After rationality, what? A review of responses to paradigm breakdown”Journal of the American Planning Association5062–69
2.
AlexanderE R, 1992a, “A transaction cost theory of planning”Journal of the American Planning Association58190–200
3.
AlexanderE R, 1992bApproaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues (Gordon and Breach, New York)
4.
AlexanderE R, 1993, “Interorganizational coordination: Theory and practice”Journal of Planning Literature7328–343
5.
AlexanderE R, 1995How Organizations Act Together: Interorganizational Coordination in Theory and Practice (Gordon and Breach, New York)
6.
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, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 45–64
7.
AlexanderE R, 1997, “The theory of planning and its profession, and comment”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24167–168
8.
AlexanderE R, 1998, “Planning theory in practice: The case of Highway 6 in Israel”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25435–445
9.
AlexanderE RFaludiA, 1989, “Planning and plan implementation: Notes on evaluation criteria”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design16127–140
10.
AlexanderE RFaludiA, 1996, “Planning doctrine: Its uses and implications”Planning Theory1611–61
11.
AlexanderE RAltermanRLaw-YoneH, 1983, “Evaluating plan implementation: The statutory planning system in Israel”Progress in Planning20 Part 2
12.
AllisonG T, 1971Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Little, Brown, Boston, MA)
13.
BachrachPBaratzM S, 1963, “Decisions and non-decisions: An analytical framework”American Political Science Review57632–642
14.
BeauregardR, 1996, “Advocating preeminence: Anthologies as politics”, in Explorations in Planning Theory Eds MandelbaumS JMazzaLBurchellR W (Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 105–110
15.
BolanR, 1991, “Planning and institutional design”Planning Theory5/67–34
16.
BrysonJ, 1988Strategic Planning for Public and Non-profit Organizations (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA)
17.
BrysonJCrosbyB, 1992Leadership for the Common Good: How to Tackle Public Problems in a Shared-Power World (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA)
18.
CarsG, 1996, “Sweden: Planning as social development”Planning Theory1689–93
19.
CookeP, 1983Theories of Planning and Spatial Development (Hutchinson Education, London)
20.
DrorY, 1971Design for Policy Sciences (Elsevier, New York)
21.
FaludiA, 1987A Decision Centred View of Environmental Planning (Pergamon, Oxford)
22.
FaludiA, 1996, “Framing with images”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2393–108
23.
FaludiAvan der ValkA, 1994Rule and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the 20th Century (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
FeldmanM, 1981Order without Design: Information Production and Policy Making (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
26.
FeldmanM A, 1995, “Regime and regulation in substantive planning theory”Planning Theory1465–95
27.
FlyvbergB, 1996, “The dark side of planning: Rationality and realrazionalität”, in Explorations in Planning Theory Eds MandelbaumS JMazzaLBurchellR W (Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 383–394
28.
FlyvbergB, 1998Rationality and Power (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
29.
ForesterJ, 1987, “Planning in the face of conflict”Journal of the American Planning Association53303–314
30.
ForesterJ, 1989Planning in the Face of Power (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
31.
ForesterJ, 1993Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice (SUNY Press, Albany, NY)
32.
ForesterJ, 1996, “Argument, power and passion in planning practice”, in Explorations in Planning Theory Eds MandelbaumS JMazzaLBurchellR W (Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 241–262
33.
FriedmannJ, 1987Planning in the Public Domain (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
34.
HajerM, 1989City Politics, Hegemonic Policy and Discourse (Gower, Aldershot, Hants)
35.
HajerM, 1995The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
36.
HarrisB, 1996, “Planning technologies and planning theories”, in Explorations in Planning Theory Eds MandelbaumS JMazzaLBurchellR W (Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 483–496
37.
HarrisB, 1997, “The theory of planning and of its profession”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24483–489
38.
HealeyP, 1992, “A planner's day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice”Journal of the American Planning Association589–20
39.
HealeyP, 1993, “The communicative work of development plans”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2083–104
40.
HealeyP, 1996, “The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design23217–234
41.
HealeyP, 1997, “Comment on Britton Harris's: ‘The theory of planning and of its profession’”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24490–492
42.
ter HeideH, 1992, “Diagonal planning: Potentials and problems”Planning Theory7/8135–154
43.
InnesJ, 1995, “Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice”Journal of Planning Education and Research14183–189
44.
LaumannE OKnokeD, 1987The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI)
45.
LauriaMWhelanR K, 1995, “Planning theory and political economy: The need for reintegration”Planning Theory148–33
LowN, 1991Planning, Politics and the State: Political Foundations of Planning Thought (Unwin Hyman, London)
48.
LowryK, 1996, “Planning doctrine in Hawaii”Planning Theory1698–101
49.
MandelbaumS J, 1979, “A complete general theory of planning is impossible”Policy Sciences1159–71
50.
MandelbaumS J, 1991, “Telling stories”Journal of Planning Education and Research10209–214
51.
MandelbaumS J, 1996a, “Introduction: The talk of the community” in Explorations in Planning Theory Eds MandelbaumS JMazzaLBurchellR W (Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ) pp xi–xix
52.
MandelbaumS J, 1996b, “Open moral communities”, in Explorations in Planning Theory Eds MandelbaumS JMazzaLBurchellR W (Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 83–104
53.
MarchJ CSimonH A, with GuetzowH, 1958Organizations (John Wiley, New York)
PoultonM C, 1991a, “The case for a positive theory of planning. Part 1: What is wrong with planning theory?”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design18225–232
58.
PoultonM C, 1991b, “The case for a positive theory of planning. Part 2: A positive theory of planning”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design18263–275
59.
RittelHWebberM, 1973, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”Policy Sciences4155–169
60.
SabatierP AJenkins-SmithH, 1993Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Westview Press, Boulder, CO)
61.
SagerT, 1994Communicative Planning Theory (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants)
62.
SchönD AReinM, 1994Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Disputes (Basic Books, New York)
63.
SchönD A, 1996, “Dutch planning: Doctrine or dialectic?”Planning Theory1671–75
64.
ThrogmortonJ, 1992, “Planning as persuasive storytelling about the future: Negotiating an electric power rate settlement in Illinois”Journal of Planning Education and Research1217–31
65.
VoogdH, 1983Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning (Pion, London)
