Past research has revealed that governments are often tempted to underestimate the costs and overestimate the benefits of infrastructure projects. However, an analysis of local-government estimates and accounts reveals that servicing land by local authorities in the Netherlands is an exception to this general phenomenon. The profits made by local authorities from land development are growing, while the costs, revenues, and results are, on average, underestimated by local authorities. This may have consequences for the explanation of budget overruns and the solutions that may be effective in countering this problem. It is not always necessary for there to be one single moment in the planning process at which a fully informed choice can be made; an alternative is to leave room for flexible, piecemeal decision making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdairABerryJMcGrealS, 2003, “Financing property's contribution to regeneration”Urban Studies401065–1080
2.
AtmerT, 1987, “Land banking in Stockholm”Habitat International1147–55
3.
BoelhouwerP JBoumeesterHVan der HeijdenH M H, 2006, “Stagnation in Dutch housing production and suggestions for a way forward”Journal of Housing and the Built Environment21299–314
4.
BonnevilleM, 2005, “The ambiguity of urban renewal in France: between continuity and rupture”Journal of Housing and the Built Environment20229–242
ClaydonJSmithB, 1997, “Negotiating planning gains through the British development control system”Urban Studies342003–2022
8.
Commissie BBV, 2005Rondetafelconferentie over Grond [Round table conference on land], The Hague, http://www.commissiebbv.nl
9.
Commissie BBV, 2008Notite Grondexploitatie [Memorandum land development], The Hague, http://www.commissiebbv.nl
10.
de BruijnHLeijtenM, 2008, “Management characteristics of mega-projects”, in Decision-making on Mega-projects: Cost — benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation Eds PriemusHFlyvbjergBvan WeeB (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 23–39
11.
de VriesPBoelhouwerP, 2005, “Local house price developments and housing supply”Property Management2380–96
12.
DingC, 2007, “Policy and praxis of land acquisition in China”Land Use Policy241–13
13.
EnnisF, 1997, “Infrastructure provision, the negotiating process and the planner's role”Urban Studies341935–1954
14.
EnnisF, 2003, “Infrastructure provision and the urban environment”, in Infrastructure Provision and the Negotiating Process Ed. EnnisF (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 1–18
15.
FaludiA, 2000, “The performance of spatial planning”Planning Practice and Research15299–318
16.
FaludiAMastopJ M, 1982, “The TOR school': the development of a planning methodology”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design9241–256
FlyvbjergB, 2007, “Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design34578–597
19.
FlyvbjergBSkamris HolmMBuhlS, 2002, “Underestimating costs in public works projects: error or lie?”Journal of the American Planning Association68279–295
20.
GordonD L A, 1997, “Financing urban waterfront redevelopment”Journal of the American Planning Association63244–265
21.
HenneberryJRobertsC, 2008, “Calculated inequality? Portfolio benchmarking and regional office property investment in the UK”Urban Studies451217–1241
22.
JanssenRStewartT J, 2009, “Making progress towards effective spatial decision support: a response from Janssen and Stewart”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design368–11
23.
KalbroT, 2000, “Property development and land-use planning processes in Sweden”, in Property Development and Land-use Planning around the Baltic Sea Eds BöhmeKLangeBHansenM (Nordregio, Stockholm) pp 95–109
24.
Korthals AltesW K, 2006a, “Stagnation in housing production, another success in the Dutch ‘Planner's Paradise’?”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design3397–114
25.
Korthals AltesW K, 2006b, “The single European market and land development”Planning Theory and Practice7247–266
26.
Korthals AltesW K, 2007, “The impact of abolishing social-housing grants on the compact-city policy of Dutch municipalities”Environment and Planning A391497–1512
27.
LefcoeG, 1978, “When governments become land developers—notes on public sector experience in the Netherlands and California”Southern California Law Review51165–263
28.
LouwE, 2008, “Land assembly for urban transformations—the case of 's-Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands”Land Use Policy2569–80
29.
MacManusS, 2004, “‘Brick and Mortar’ politics: how infrastructure decisions defeat incumbents”Public Budgeting and Finance2496–112
30.
MaltbyJ, 2000, “The origins of prudence in accounting”Critical Perspectives on Accounting1151–70
31.
MillerP, 1990, “On the interrelations between accounting and the state”Accounting, Organizations and Society15315–338
32.
MillerP, 1994, “Accounting as social and institutional practice: an introduction”, in Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice Eds HopwoodA GMillerP (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 1–39
33.
MillerP, 2004, “Governing by numbers: why calculative practices matter”, in The Blackwell Cultural Economy Reader Eds AminAThriftN J (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 179–189
34.
MillerRLessardD R, 2008, “Evolving strategy: risk management and the shaping of mega-projects”, in Decision-making on Mega-projects: Cost — Benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation Eds PriemusHFlyvbjergBvan WeeB (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 145–172
35.
Muñoz GielenDKorthals AltesW K, 2007, “Lessons from Valencia: separating infrastructure provision from land ownership”Town Planning Review7861–79
36.
NeedhamB, 1992, “A theory of land prices when land is supplied publicly”Urban Studies29669–681
37.
NeedhamB, 1997, “Land policy in the Netherlands”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie88291–296
38.
NeedhamB, 2000, “Spatial planning as a design discipline: a paradigm for Western Europe?”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27437–453
39.
NeedhamBFaludiA, 1999, “Dutch growth management in a changing market”Planning Practice and Research14481–491
SagerTRavlumI-A, 2005, “The political relevance of planners' analysis: the case of a parliamentary standing committee”Planning Theory433–65
46.
SkaburskisATeitzM B, 2003, “Forecasts and outcomes”Planning Theory and Practice4429–442
47.
te BrömmelstroetM, 2009, “The relevance of research in planning support systems: a response to Janssen et al”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design364–7
48.
TseR Y C, 2001, “Impact of comprehensive development zoning on real estate development in Hong Kong”Land Use Policy18321–328
49.
TurkS SKorthals AltesW K, 2010, “Institutional capacities in the land development for housing on greenfield sites in Istanbul”Habitat International34183–195
50.
VerhageR, 2003, “The role of the public sector in urban development: lessons from Leidsche Rijn Utrecht (The Netherlands)”Planning Theory and Practice429–44
51.
VollmerH, 2003, “Bookkeeping, accounting, calculative practice: the sociological suspense of calculation”Critical Perspectives on Accounting14353–381
52.
ZhuXVan OmmerenJRietveldP, 2009, “Indirect benefits of infrastructure improvement in the case of an imperfect labor market”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological4357–72
