This paper examines how national planning frameworks differ from each other and how those differences relate to patterns of urban development using an international cross section of metropolitan regions. We construct a composite index to measure institutional planning frameworks through objective criteria—restrictive versus permissive; binding versus nonbinding; nationally versus locally oriented—that enables comparison between (not within) countries. We also estimate a series of models to evaluate the relationship between institutional frameworks and patterns. The evidence suggests that a more centralized and coordinated planning framework produces more compact development, whereas a more decentralized and uncoordinated planning framework results in less compact development.
AhrendR.GamperC.SchumannA.2014. “The OECD Metropolitan Governance Survey: A Quantitative Description of Governance Structures in large Urban Agglomerations.” OECD Regional Development. https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/govaab/2014-4-en.html.
BengstonD. N.FletcherJ. O.NelsonK. C.2004. “Public Policies for Managing Urban Growth and Protecting Open Space: Policy Instruments and Lessons Learned in the United States.” Landscape and Urban Planning69:271–505.
5.
DeGroveJ.2005. Planning Policy and Politics: Smart Growth and the States. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
GifiA.1990. Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis. New York: John Wiley.
8.
LandisJ.2006. “Growth Management Revisited.” Journal of the American Planning Association72:411–30.
9.
McGrathD.2005. “More Evidence on the Spatial Scale of Cities.” Journal of Urban Economics58:1–10.
10.
MichailidisG.de LeeuwJan. 1998. “The Gifi System of Descriptive Multivariate Analysis.” Statistical Science13 (4): 307–36.
11.
NelsonA. C.1999. “Comparing States with and without Growth Management: Analysis Based on Indicators with Policy Implications.” Land Use Policy16:121–27.
12.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2012. Redefining “Urban”: A New Way to Measure Metropolitan Areas. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264174108-en.
13.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2014. “OECD Regional Outlook 2014: Regions and Cities: Where Policies and People Meet.” OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264201415-en.
14.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2017a. Land-Use Planning Systems in the OECD: Country Fact Sheets. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264268579-en.
15.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2017b. The Governance of Land Use in OECD Countries: Policy Analysis and Recommendations. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264268609-en.
16.
PaulsenK.2012. “Yet Even More Evidence on the Spatial Size of Cities: Urban Spatial Expansion in the US, 1980–2000.” Regional Science & Urban Economics42:561–68.
17.
PaulsenK.2014. “Geography, Policy, or Market? New Evidence on the Measurement and Causes of Sprawl (and Infill) in US Metropolitan Regions.” Urban Studies51 (12): 2629–45.
18.
PendallR.1999. “Do Land-Use Controls Cause Sprawl?” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2:555–71.
19.
PuentesR.MartinJ.PendallR.2006. From Traditional to Reformed: A Review of the Land Use Regulations in the Nation’s 50 Largest Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institute.
SchmidtS.BuehlerR.2007. “The Planning Process in the US and Germany: A Comparative Analysis.” International Planning Studies12 (1): 55–75.
22.
SchmidtS.FinaS.SiedentopS.2017. “How Effective are Regions in Determining Urban Spatial Patterns? Evidence from Germany.” Journal of Urban Affairs40 (5): 639–56.
23.
SchmidtS.KrehlA.FinaS.SiedentopS.2020. “Does the Monocentric Model Work in a Polycentric Urban System? An examination of German Metropolitan Regions.” Urban Studies58 (8): 1674–90.
24.
WassmerR.2006. “The Influence of Local Urban Containment Policies and Statewide Growth Management on the Size of United States Urban Areas.” Journal of Regional Science46 (1): 25–65.
