Over the past two decades planners, analysts, and managers have all been urged to become more involved in the actual process of negotiation that surrounds all public policymaking. The article both summarizes the literature on how negotiation is emerging as a central feature of these three professions and provides three cases, all derived from litigation, in which the role of negotiator is required of the technician or neutral advisor. The article then suggests what is at stake when negotiation is adopted as a primary professional role.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllisonG.1971. The Essence of DecisionBoston: Little-Brown.
2.
AlperinA. S.1987. World class city or freeway parking lot: Developments in land use controls in Los Angeles. Los Angeles Lawyer (November): 16–24.
3.
BaumH.1983. Politics and ambivalence in planners' practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research3(1):13–22.
4.
DavidoffP.1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners31(4):331–338.
5.
DiMentoJ.1980. The Consistency Doctrine and the Limits of PlanningCambridge: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Haln.
6.
EdwardsG. C.III1980. Implementing Public PolicyWashington, D.C.: CQ Press.
7.
ForesterJ.1987. Teaching and studying planning practice: An analysis of the planning and institutional processes course at MIT. Journal of Planning Education and Research6(2):116–137.
8.
Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Szanton, Inc. 1979. Desegregating the Los Angeles Unified School District. Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Columbia University, Document #ED 257 899.
9.
HaynesK. E.StubbingsR. G.1987. Planning and philosophy: The anthropology of action. Journal of Planning Education and Research6(2):75–85.
10.
HochC.CibulskisA.1987. Planning threatened: A preliminary report on planners and political conflict. Journal of Planning Education and Research6(2):99–107.
11.
de NeufvilleInnes J.1987. Knowledge and action: Making the link. Journal of Planning Education and Research6(2):86–92.
12.
KirlinJ. J.1985. The bargaining process: Trends and issues. In Managing Development Through Public/Private Negotiations, LevittR.KirlinJ., eds. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
13.
LaxD. A.SebeniusJ. K.1986. The Manager as NegotiatorNew York: Free Press.
14.
LefcoeG.1981. California's land planning requirements: The case for deregulation. University of Southern California Law Review54(3):447–501.
McGovernF. E.1986. Toward a functional approach for managing complex litigation. University of Chicago Law Review53(2):440–493.
17.
MooreM.1984. A conception of public management. In Teaching Public Management: Proceedings of a Workshop to Assess Materials and Strategies for Teaching Public Management. Boston University, May 1984. Boston: Program for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
18.
OzawaC. P.SusskindL.1985. Mediating science-intensive policy disputes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management5(1):23–29.
19.
PattonC. V.SawickiD. S.1986. Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and PlanningEnglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
20.
RabinovitzF.1969. City Politics and PlanningNew York: Atherton Press.
21.
ResnickJ.1982. Managerial Judges. Harvard Law Review96 (December):374–448.
22.
SchonD.1982. Some of what a planner knows: A case study of knowing in practice. Journal of the American Planning Association48(3):351–364.
23.
SusskindL.CruikshankJ.1987. Breaking the ImpasseNew York: Basic Books.
24.
SusskindL.McMahonG.RolleyS.1986. Resolving development disputes: A briefing paper. MIT Center for Real Estate Development. November 1986. Working Paper No. 5.
25.
SusskindL.OzawaC.1984. Mediated negotiation in the public sector: The planner as mediator. Journal of Planning Education and Research4(1):5–15.
26.
WoodR.1982. Out of the trenches: Professionals at bay — Managing Boston's public schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management1(4):454–468.
