Characterizing plans as means of interaction and influence among organizations rather than as mechanisms of control over a complex multiorganizational environment frames the question: In what circumstances should plans be shared widely? Organizations have persistent and repeated interactions about many issues, have fractured capabilities and authorities, and make multiple, overlapping, and interacting plans. Some of these plans are public and some of them are kept private because the plan makers and plan users can benefit from doing so. The public-ness or privateness of plans and that of the processes that make plans serve distinct purposes. Examples from recent recovery planning in New Orleans illustrate why and in what circumstances individuals, voluntary groups, and governments choose to plan in public, make their resulting plans public, and find the public plans of others credible. Plans as rhetorics of action, intention, commitment, and influence can be more effective if revealed strategically to particular audiences at particular times.
Abbott, J.2005a. Does planning reduce uncertainty? Examining SEQ 2001 . Paper presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Kansas City, MO.
2.
Abbott, J.2005b. Understanding and managing the unknown: The nature of uncertainty in planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (3): 237-51.
3.
Akerlof, G.A.1970. The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics84 (3): 488-500.
4.
Alexander, E.R.2001. Why planning vs. markets is an oxymoron: Asking the right question. Planning and Markets4 (1). Available at http://www.-pam.usc.edu/volume4/v4i1a2s1.html
5.
Altshuler, A.1965. The city planning process. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6.
Arrow, K.1951. Social choice and individual values. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Berke, P.R., D.R. Godschalk, E.J. Kaiser, and D.A. Rodriguez.2006. Urban land use planning. 5th ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
8.
Bratman, M.E.1987. Intention, plans and practical reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Bring New Orleans Back Commission.2006Action plan for New Orleans: The new American city. New Orleans, LA: Urban Planning Committee and Wallace Roberts and Todd, LLC.
10.
Bruce, B.C., and D. Newman.1978. Interacting plans. Cognitive Science2:195-233.
11.
Chapin, F.S.1957. Urban land use planning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
12.
Christensen, K.S.1993. Teaching savvy. Journal of Planning Education and Research12:202-12.
13.
Christensen, K.S.1999. Cities and complexity: Making intergovernmental decisions . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Davidoff, P.1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners31 (4): 331-38.
15.
Donaghy, K.P., and L.D. Hopkins.2006. Coherentist theories of planning are possible and useful. Planning Theory5 (2): 173-202.
16.
Elster, J.1984. Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in rationality and irrationality . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Flyvbjerg, B.1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Trans. S. Sampson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Friend, J.K., and W.N. Jessop.1969. Local government and strategic choice: An operational research approach to the processes of public planning. London: Tavistock.
19.
Gordon, P., F.F. Deng, and H.W. Richardson .2007. Private communities, market institutions, and planning. In Institutions and planning, ed. N. Verma, 187-206. New Brunswick, NJ: CUPR Press.
Healey, P.2007. Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge.
22.
Helling, A.1998. Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Results from evaluating Atlanta's Vision 2020 Project. Journal of the American Planning Association64 (3): 335-49.
23.
Hoch, C.1994. What planners do: Power, politics, and persuasion. Chicago: APA Planners Press.
24.
Hoch, C.2007. Making plans: Representation and intention. Planning Theory6 (1): 16-35.
25.
Hopkins, L.D.2001. Urban development: The logic of making plans. Washington, DC: Island Press.
26.
Innes, J.E.1995. Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14:183-89.
27.
Innes, J.E.1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association62 (4): 460-72.
28.
Innes, J.E.2004. Consensus building: Clarification for the critics. Planning Theory3 (1): 5-20.
29.
Kaza, N.2006. Tyranny of the median and costly consent: A reflection on the justification for participatory urban planning processes. Planning Theory5 (3): 255-70.
30.
Knaap, G.J., C. Ding, and L.D. Hopkins.2001. The effect of light rail announcements on price gradients. Journal of Planning Education and Research21 (1): 32-39.
31.
Kwartler, M., and G. Longo.2008. Visioning and visualization: People, pixels, and plans. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
32.
Levin, P.H.1976. Government and the planning process. London: Allen and Unwin.
33.
Mandelbaum, S.J.2000. Open moral communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Mastop, H., and A. Faludi.1997. Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24:815-32.
35.
Olson, M.1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Putnam, R.H., I. Light, X.D.S. Briggs, W.M. Rohe, A.C. Vidal, J. Hutchinson, J. Gress, and M. Woolcock.2002. Symposium: Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and practice. Journal of the American Planning Association70 (2): 142-92.
37.
Sager, T.2002. Democratic planning and social choice dilemmas: Prelude to institutional planning theory. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
38.
Schelling, T.C.1971. Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology1:143-86.
39.
Sen, A.K.1970. The impossibility of a Paretian liberal. Journal of Political Economy78 (1): 152-57.
40.
Sunstein, C.R.2003. Why societies need dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Susskind, L.D., and J. Cruikshank.1987. Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.
42.
Susskind, L.D., and J. Cruikshank.2006. Breaking Robert's rules: The new way to run your meeting, build consensus, and get results. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
Susskind, L.D., M.V.D. Wansem, and A. Ciccarelli.2000. Mediating land use disputes: Pros and cons. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
44.
Washington Post.2007. A waiver for New Orleans; The city has a new plan to build on higher ground, but it needs another push from Washington. April 1. B06.
45.
Webster, C., and L.W.-C. Lai .2003. Property rights, planning, and markets. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
46.
Wies, K.1992. Cooperative strategy in regional transportation planning: Planning the Lake-Will North Expressway. PhD diss., University of Illinois at Chicago.
