Urban Studies

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reade, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, 159-171 (1983)
DOI: 10.1080/00420988320080301
© 1983 Urban Studies Journal Limited

If Planning is Anything, Maybe it Can be Identified

E. Reade

Department of Town & Country Planning, University of Manchester

Summary. A number of writers have pointed out that the word 'planning' is used so loosely that it can describe almost any approach to policy-making or decision-making. This paper asks whether it is in fact possible to identify planning as an analytically distinct method of informing and making public policies and decisions. (Clearly, it will not be empirically distinct, since in practice, policies and decisions will also reflect the influence of other 'methods', such as relying upon the market, or upon the ballot box). To permit the examination of this question, four such analytically distinct methods of decision-making, of which planning is one, are each set out in ideal-type form. Planning, since it is less readily comprehended, is set out in more detail than are the other three. This is done by breaking it down into its most characteristic 'constituent ideas'. Examination of these 'constituent ideas' of planning thought suggests that they fall into two groups. Firstly, we can distinguish a collection of ideas, each of which has intellectual credibility, but none of which seems logically or empirically to be the prerogative of planning; any policy-making, planned or unplanned, would seem able to make use of them. Secondly we can distinguish among the 'constituent ideas' of planning thought a group which are not intellectually credible, since their meaning is unclear. It is therefore concluded that planning cannot be an analytically distinct method of informing and making public policies and decisions.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
M. Huxley and O. Yiftachel
New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory
Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2000; 19(4): 333 - 342.
[Abstract] [PDF]