The paper continues from Part 1 which appeared in the previous issue of the journal. The primary concern is with neglected aspects of the growth-pole strategy, particularly as these relate to its implementation. Of importance here are the spatial configuration of the planned poles, the economic activity to be located within these, the spillover effects of a planned pole, and the presence of a pole within an existing urban system. Consideration is also given to the failure, abandonment and non-adoption of the strategy and to the reasons for this. It is argued that growth-pole strategy has never been evaluated in terms of an adequate conceptual framework, and the rudiments of one such framework are outlined.