This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]

On: 04 June 2013, At: 10:23

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning Association

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts

and Contradictions
Barclay M. Hudson , Thomas D. Galloway & Jerome L. Kaufman
Published online: 26 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Barclay M. Hudson , Thomas D. Galloway & Jerome L. Kaufman (1979): Comparison of Current Planning
Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions, Journal of the American Planning Association, 45:4, 387-398

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944367908976980

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Comparison of Current Planning Theories:
Counterparts and Contradictions
Barclay M. Hudson
with comments by Thomas D. Galloway and Jerome L. Kaufman

This article reviews shortcomings in the synoptic, or temporary American planning theory.
rational comprehensive planning tradition, as well A five-part classification of planning traditions is
as in other, countervailing theories that have at- discussed under the heuristic rubric of SITAR,
tempted to fill specific deficiencies in the synoptic covering the Synoptic, Incremental, Transactive,
tradition. The chief problem of the synoptic approach Advocacy, and Radical schools of planning thought.
appears to be its lopsided application due to the dif- Comparison is made of their relative strengths and
ficulties of simultaneously bringing to bear other weaknesses, revealing ways they are often com-
counterpart planning traditions. Each tradition plementary, but often strongly at odds. Contradic-
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

resists blending with others; each has its own tions among them are not seen to be deficiencies in
internally consistent, mutually sustaining web of the theories themselves, but reflections of homol-
methods, social philosophies, professional standards, ogous tensions and contradictions in society at
and personal styles. Yet real world problems are not large. Parallel application of more than one theory
so consistent or self-contained. Effective solutions is usually necessary for arriving at valid, three-
require diverse perspectives and multiple levels of dimensional perspectives on social issues and
action, extending beyond the scope of any con- appropriate action implications.

For sake of a place to start, planning can be defined social philosophies; the nature of resistances to
as “foresight in formulating and implementing pro- parallel or mixed use of diverse theories in tandem;
grams and policies.” The overall purpose of this and the extent of harmony or basic antagonism
article is to replace this unitary definition by defining among the various traditions, both in theory and
more specific categories of planning, some of them practice.
complementary, and some of them contradictory to a
degree that scarcely permits an umbrella meaning
of planning. Bases for a classification scheme
The first section of the article presents a simple If planning consists of “foresight in formulating
classification of planning traditions. The second sec- and implementing programs and policies,” then plan-
tion provides a general set of descriptive criteria for ners were clearly in evidence 4000 years ago when
planning theories and practices. N o single tradition of King Hammurabi caused the laws of Babylonia to be
planning can do everything, and the list of criteria carved on stone. Typical problems of twentieth
serves as a framework to compare the relative century planning have had their counterparts through-
strengths and limitations of different approaches. The out history, and professionals have been there to solve
criteria reflect some timeless debates in the field of them-in urban design and public works programs;
planning: why to plan, and how; for whom, and by in regulation of coinage and trade; in foreign policy
whom. Major issues of this type are briefly discussed in and military defense; in forecasting the future and
connection with the criteria proposed. preparing against calamity; in pushing back geo-
The concluding section suggests some implications
for planning theory, practice, and further empirical
The author, formerly with the Urban Planning Program at UCLA,
research: the need for more systematic comparative
now heads Barclay Hudson C3 Associates in Santa Monica,
study of different planning approaches; the relative California, specializing in compact policy assessment-the appli-
validity of different traditions to different settings and cation of rapid, intensive proceduresf o r collating data and judg-
problems; the internal cohesiveness of each paradigm menh applied to deciiion making, proposal evaluation, and task
with regard to methods, professional groupings, and force management.

OCTOBER 1979 387

 graphical frontiers and laying down transportation is much attention given to lessons of historical ex-
networks; and in devising laws for prevention of perience based on case studies of past planning ef-
disease and disorder. forts. Instead, predominant concern has generally
T o understand planning, one has to look for the centered on the tradition of rational comprehensive
few abiding principles that underlie all purposeful planning, also known as the synoptic tradition.
action. The apparent diversity is mainly a matter Because of its pre-eminence, the synoptic tra-
of labelling and packaging, with subtle differences dition serves as the centerpiece in the classification
that are often exaggerated to achieve what sales- scheme to be developed below. The synoptic approach
people are always seeking- “product differentiation” has dominated both American planning practice and
that will help sell the particular product each planner the planning of development assistance programs
has to offer. For example, what yesterday was PPBS overseas. The approach is well suited to the kind
today is MBO (management by objectives), or ZBB of mandate bestowed on government agencies: a set of
(zero-based budgeting), or GAA (goals-achievement constrained objectives, a budget, and accountability
analysis), or logframe (logical framework program- for not allowing one to stray too far out of line from
ming). PPBS (the Planning-Programming-Budgeting the other.
System) is often cited as originating during World There are, however, several other counterpoint
War I1 as a means for allocating scarce resources for schools of planning, most of which take their point
the war effort. Others claim it goes back to the auto of departure from the limits of the synoptic ap-
industry in an earlier decade. Similarly, benefit-cost proach. The most important of these other traditions
analysis came to prominence in public policy making include incremental planning, transactive planning,
during the sixties, yet it played an important role in advocacy planning, and radical planning. These by no
planning the canal system in the American Northeast means exhaust the range of contemporary planning
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

as early as the 1830s. Nor was that by any means traditions, but they cover enough ground to illustrate
the first time anyone had added up costs and bene- the major developments in planning theory and prac-
fits of acting on a proposal. Private businessmen tice since roughly 1960, developments which have
and entrepreneurs were doing that long before Adam grown up in response to recognized deficiencies in
Smith. Almost any form of investment is a form of the synoptic approach.
planning. Each of the five traditions to be considered has
Clearly, then, planning covers too much territory an internally consistent, self-reinforcing network of
to be mapped with clear boundaries. It overlaps far methods, data requirements, professional skills, and
into the terrain of other professions, and its frontiers working styles. Each has its own epistemology for
expand continually with the historical evolution of validating information and its own institutional set-
social problems to be solved. The way to grasp a ting for putting ideas into practice. Each perceives
layout of the planning field is not by reconnoitering the public interest in its own way, reflecting its
from the periphery, but by drawing demarcation lines particular assessment of human nature and its own
radiating out from the most familiar crossroads at sense of the legitimate range of interventions in
the center. In other words, one needs a classifica- social, economic, and political processes. The five
tion scheme that will highlight comparative dis- traditions will be reviewed briefly in turn. Principal
tinctions among current planning traditions without similarities and differences will then be discussed in
necessarily pinning down their farther limits. terms of several descriptive criteria which have been
A number of classification schemes might serve: chosen to highlight their relative strengths and weak-
procedural theories versus substantive theories (High- nesses, their areas of complementariness, and their
tower 1969; Faludi 1973b1, or algorithms versus points of fundamental antagonism.
heuristics- that is, standardized problem-solving ver-
sus exploratory search procedures.2 Another way of Synoptic planning
categorizing the field reflects different sources of aca- Synoptic planning, or the rational comprehensive
demic and professional literature, entailing four major approach, is the dominant tradition, and the point of
areas of concern: the tradition of rationalism, or- departure for most other planning approaches,
ganizational development theory, empirical studies of which represent either modifications of synoptic
planning practice, and philosophical synthesis relating rationality or reactions against it.
to broad theories of social structural change (Fried- Synoptic planning has roughly four classical ele-
mann and Hudson 1974).3 These four “literary ments: (1) goal-setting, (2) identification of policy
traditions” receive fairly balanced attention at the alternatives, (3) evaluation of means against ends,
level of planning theory, but in planning practice, and (4) implementation of decisions. The process is
some far outweigh the others. Planning efforts in the not always undertaken in this sequence, and each
field rarely make overt reference to philosophical stage permits multiple iterations, feedback loops,
synthesis or organizational development theory, nor and elaboration of sub-processes. For example

388 APA JOURNAL

 evaluation can consist of procedures such as benefit- series of consultations” (Horvat 1972, p. 200). This
cost analysis, operations research, systems analysis, description might apply to planning anywhere else in
and forecasting research. Looking closer at forecast- the world as well. Lindblom calls it “the science of
ing, one finds that it can be broken down into muddling through.”
deterministic models (trend extrapolation, econo- The case for incremental planning derives from a
metric modelling, curve-fitting through multiple re- series of criticisms leveled at synoptic rationality: its
gression analysis); or probabilistic models (Monte insensitivity to existing institutional performances
Carlo methods, Markov chains, simulation programs, capabilities; its reductionist epistemology; its failure
Beyesian methods), or judgmental approaches (Delphi to appreciate the cognitive limits of decision-makers,
technique, scenario writing, cross-impact matrices). who cannot “optimize” but only “satisfice” choices by
Synoptic planning typically looks at problems from successive approximations. Incrementalists also take
a systems viewpoint, using conceptual or mathe- issue with the synoptic tradition of expressing social
matical models relating ends (objectives) to means values (a priori goal-setting; artificial separation of
(resources and constraints), with heavy reliance on ends from means; presumption of a general public
numbers and quantitative analysis. interest rather than pluralist interests). Finally,
Despite its capacity for great methodological re- synoptic planning is criticized for its bias toward
finement and elaboration, the real power of the central control-in the definition of problems and
synoptic approach is its basic simplicity. T h e solutions, in the evaluation of alternatives, and in the
fundamental issues addressed-ends, means, trade- implementation of decisions.
offs, action-taking-enter into virtually any planning These criticisms are reflected in the countervailing
endeavor. Alternative schools of planning can nitpick tendencies of incremental planning, but also in the
at the methodological shortcomings of the synoptic thrust of other planning approaches discussed below.
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

approach, or challenge its particular historical ap-

plications, or take issue with its circumscribed logic, Transactive planning
yet the practical tasks it encompasses must be ad- The transactive planning approach focuses on the
dressed in some form by even its most adamant critics. intact experience of people’s lives revealing policy
For this reason, there is a sustained dialectical tension issues to be addressed. Planning is not carried out
between synoptic planning and each of the other with respect to an anonymous target community of
counterpart theories; neither side of the debate feels beneficiaries, but in face-to-face contact with the
comfortable with its opposite, yet they cannot do with- people affected by decisions. Planning consists less of
out each other. Each helps define the other by its field surveys and data analyses, and more of inter-
own shortcomings; each sharpens the other’s dis- personal dialogue marked by a process of mutual
criminatory edge of intentions and accomplishments. learning.
Transactive planning also refers to the evolution
Incremental planning of decentralized planning institutions that help people
A chief spokesperson for the incremental planning take increasing control over the social processes that
approach is Charles Lindblom, who describes it as govern their welfare. Planning is not seen as an
“partisan mutual adjustment” or “disjointed incre- operation separated from other forms of social action,
mentalism.’’ Criticizing the synoptic approach as un- but rather as a process embedded in continual evolu-
realistic, he stresses that policy decisions are better tion of ideas validated through action (Friedmann
understood, and better arrived at, in terms of the push 1973.)
and tug of established institutions that are adept at In contrast to incremental planning, more emphasis
getting things done through decentralized bargaining is given to processes of personal and organizational
processes best suited to a free market and a democratic development, and not just the achievement of specific
political economy. A good illustration of incremental functional objectives. Plans are evaluated not merely
planning is the apocryphal interview of a Yugoslavian in terms of what they do for people through delivery
official who was asked to describe his country’s most of goods and services, but in terms of the plans’ ef-
important planning instrument. After a pause for fect on people-on their dignity and sense of effective-
thought the official replied, “the telephone.” Yugoslavia ness, their values and behavior, their capacity for
in fact represents a blend of synoptic and incremental growth through cooperation, their spirit of generosity.
approaches. It promulgates national plans through a By contrast, incremental planning adheres more
Federal Planning Bureau, but the country’s economic closely to the economic logic of individuals pursuing
and planning systems are composed of autonomous, their own self-interest.
self-governing working organizations. Plans are
constructed by a mixture of “intuition, experience, Advocacy planning
rules of thumb, various techniques (rarely sophis- T h e advocacy planning movement grew up in the
ticated) known to individual planners, and an endless sixties, rooted in adversary procedures modelled upon

OCTOBER 1979 389

 the legal profession, and usually applied to defend- of the Establishment rather than challenging the sys-
ing the interests of weak against strong-community tem head-on. T h e philosophy which underlies its
groups, environmental causes, the poor, and the dis- social vision can also be found in the thinking of edu-
enfranchized against the established powers of busi- cational figures like John Dewey, Paul Goodman
ness and government. (Alinsky 1971; Heskin 1977.) (Communitas), Ivan Illich (Deschooling Society), and
Advocacy planning has proven successful as a means others who share the view that education needs to
of blocking insensitive plans and challenging tra- draw on materials from everyday life of local com-
ditional views of a unitary public interest. In theory, munities, with minimum intervention from the state
advocacy calls for development of plural plans rather and maximum participation of people in defining,
than a unit plan (Davidoff 1965). In practice, how- controlling, and experimenting with their own en-
ever, advocacy planning has been criticized for posing vironment. Somewhat the same concerns find their
stumbling blocks without being able to mobilize way into conventional planning-for example, as re-
equally effective support for constructive alterna- flected in the Bundy Report on decentralizing the
tives (Peattie 1968). New York City school system, and in the HEW-
One effect of the advocacy movement has been to sponsored educational voucher experiments aimed at
shift formulation of social policy from backroom nego- letting neighborhood committees take over plan-
tiations out into the open. Particularly in working ning functions usually vested in central bureaucracies.
through the courts, it has injected a stronger dose T h e second stream of radical thought takes a more
of nortnative principles into planning, and greater critical and holistic look at large-scale social proc-
sensitivity to unintended side effects of decisions. A esses: the effect of class structures and economic
residue of this can be seen in the increasing require- relationships; the control exercised by culture and
ments for environmental, social, and financial impact media; the historical dynamics of social movements,
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

reports to accompany large scale project proposals, confrontations, alliances, and struggles. The focus is
whether originating in the private or public sector. less on ad hoc problem solving through resurrected
Another result has been the stronger linkage be- community, and more on the theory of the state,
tween social scientists and judiciary processes in policy which is seen to permeate the character of social and
decisions. In the field of education, this alliance has economic life at all levels, and in turn determines the
left a mark in areas such as integration and busing, structure and evolution of social problems (Gordon
sources of school finance, equal provision for women 1971. See also Ellul 1954). Radicals in this tradition
in sports, disclosure of records, teacher training re- view conventional planning as a form of Mandarinism,
quirements, unionization, and selection of teaching playing “handmaiden to conservative politics” (Kravitz
materials. Advocacy planning has both reflected and 1970).
contributed to a general trend in planning away It is not the purpose of this paper to describe at
from neutral objectivity in definition of social prob- length particular schools of planning thought. Any
lems, in favor of applying more explicit principles of list of planning forms and styles could be extended
social justice. almost indefinitely. Those discussed above are probably
sufficient, however, to illustrate the variety of concerns
Radical planning that planners address and the range of conceptual
Radical planning is an ambiguous tradition, with tools they bring to their task.
two mainstreams of thinking that occasionally flow T h e five approaches described above can be
together. One version is associated with spontaneous summed u p in an acronym, SITAR, based on the
activism, guided by an idealistic but pragmatic vision first letters of Synoptic, Incremental, Transactive,
of self-reliance and mutual aid. Like transactive Advocacy, and Radical planning. T h e sitar is a five-
planning, it stresses the importance of personal stringed musical instrument from India, a type of lute
growth, cooperative spirit, and freedom from which can be played by performing on a single string
manipulation by anonymous forces. More than other at a time, or by weaving a blend of harmony and
planning approaches, however, its point of departure dissonance from all five. T h e same applies to SITAR
consists of specific substantive ideas about collective as a taxonomy of planning theories; each can render
actions that can achieve concrete results in the im- a reasonable solo performance in good hands, but
mediate future. It draws on varying sources of in- fuller possibilities can be created by use of each
spiration-economics and the ecological ethic theory in conjunction with the others.
(Schumacher 1973), social architecture (Goodman
197 l), humanistic philosophy (Illich 1973), and his- Criteria for comparative description and
torical precedents (Katz and Bender 1976, Hampden-
Turner 1975).
evaluation of planning theories
This is radicalism in the literal sense of “going In judging the value of any particular planning
back to the roots,” content to operate in the interstices tradition one can ask, how constrained are we to using

390 APA J O U R N A L
 one theory at a time? No single approach is perfect, experience can you cite that has been most success-
but a particular theory can establish itself as “best” ful, and what constitutes that success?” Their col-
simply because there are no salient options kept in lated answers reflect considerable planning experience
view. The SITAR package suggests some of these as well as academic grounding in planning theory,
options, but comparative evaluation requires another including general principles of policy science, social
step-the establishment of criteria for comparison of philosophy, and political economy.
different traditions’ strengths and weakness, along From these various sources, roughly fifty different
with their varying intentions and accomplishments. criteria were suggested, often overlapping, some-
Table 1 presents a simple list of basic criteria that times contradictory, occasionally esoteric. Winnowing
one might use for assessing the scope, character, and and synthesis to a manageable set of criteria neces-
adequacy of the various planning traditions. The six sarily involves personal choices, and probably reflects
criteria have been distilled from three independent the author’s own implicit philosophy of planning. It
selection processes; each process is somewhat sub- should be noted, though, that final choice of the six
jective, but they overlap considerably in their results. criteria shown in Tables 1 and 2 reflects, in part, a
First, the criteria were generated in part by internal deliberate effort to balance strengths and weaknesses
features of the various SITAR traditions themselves, within and among the five SITAR traditions.
as expressed in the planning literature. Some cri- Table 2 is an attempt to evaluate the five SITAR
teria, such as definition of the public interest, reflect traditions against the list of criteria described in
a common concern of all the SITAR traditions (al- Table 1. The purpose of this comparison is to suggest
though they differ considerably in their treatment of areas of similarity and difference among the various
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

it). Other criteria, such as the use of substantive planning approaches, the relative strengths and weak-
theories of political action and models of social change, nesses within each theory, and the overall pattern of
represent a central concern-even a raison d’etre- emphasis and neglect found in the planning field taken
of some traditions but are glaringly absent from others. as a whole.
The second source of criteria was an informal re- T h e SITAR theories differ both in terms of their
view of historical outcomes from past planning efforts. intentions and how well they have succeeded his-
Most of these cases are described in the l i t e r a t ~ r e ; ~ torically in fulfilling their chosen purposes. The
some have been suggested by anecdotal sources and table indicates for each theory at least one area in
personal experiences shared with colleagues in the which it claims special strength, other areas in which
profession. T h e third source of nominations for cri- it offers a partial or one-sided approach, and still
teria has been an advanced seminar in urban planning other areas where clear shortcomings can be ob-
at UCLA, where over the years several cohorts of served.
students have been posed the questions, “How do you In any given area (for example, action potential)
j u d g e a good planning theory? What planning the theories provide different prescriptions for the

Table 1. Criteria for describing and evaluating planning traditions

Criteria Characteristics and applications

Public interest Explicit theory of the public interest, along with methods to articulate significant social problems,
and pluralist interests in outcomes. May include principles of distributive justice, and procedures
for dealing with conflict.
Human dimension Attention to the personal and spiritual domains of policy impacts, including intangible outcomes
beyond functional-instrumental objectives-for example, psycho-social development, enhance-
ment of dignity, and capacity for self-help.
Feasibility Ease of learning and applying the theory. Implies the theory is practical to translate into policy
implications, and adaptable to varying types of problems, scales of action and social settings.
Action potential Provision for carrying ideas into practice, building on experience underway and identifying new
lines of effective solutions to problems.
Substantive theory Descriptive and normative theory of social problems and processes of social change. Predictive
capacity based on informal judgments, not just trend extrapolation; ability to trace long range
and indirect pol icy consequences; historical perspectives on opportunities and constraints on
action.
Self-reflective Capacity for laying analytical assumptions open to criticism and counter-proposals; provision for
learning from those being planned for; capacity for depicting concrete experience in everyday
language, as well as conceptual models using aggregate data.

OCTOBER 1979 39 1
 Table 2. Relative emphasis of SITAR theories based on selected criteria

The SITAR traditions

Major criteria, or
descriptive characteristics Synoptic Incremental Transactive Advocacy Radical
of planning theory planning planning planning planning planning

Public interest 0 0 0 0 0
Human dimension 0 0
Feasibility 0 0
Action potential 0 0 0 0 0
Substantive theory 0 0 0
Self-reflective 0 0 0
Explanation of Table:
Characteristics are taken from Table 1
indicates major strength or area of concern
0 indicates partial or one-sided treatment
blank cells indicate characteristic weaknesses

planner-different analytical methods, varying sub- ard of social justice. Synoptic rationality also focusses
stantive definitions of problems, different forms of primarily on technical relationships and objective
action to consider. Consequently each of the six cri- realities, to the exclusion of subjective and emo-
teria included in the list presents an arena for debate tional discussion sparked by divergent perceptions of
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

on certain classic issues of planning theory and prac- problems being addressed. In addition, synoptic plan-
tice. T h e true meaning of the criteria is that they ning typically creates a division of labor between
represent areas of philosophical choice in which planners (experts) and politicians-a split which casts
planners must turn to one or another planning tra- planners as technicians who can simply ignore
dition for answers. Each tradition constitutes a body political considerations of the public interest.
of foregone conclusions about problem definition and The human dimension. Major issue: should planning
problem solutions. Planners can exercise better critical seek to provide a framework of objective decision
judgment about the assumptions they buy into if they rules (e.g., as benefit-cost analysis provides in synoptic
consider the possibilities offered by a range of alterna- planning)? Or should it aim at a more holistic con-
tive candidate theories. A matrix like Table 2 may be text for judgment, referring not just to scientific and
simplistic for this purpose, but it is a place to start. technical data but to subjective realities, including
T o give fuller meaning to the six criteria listed in political concerns, cultural, aesthetic, psychological
Tables 1 and 2, it is worth discussing them briefly, and ideological considerations, and controvertible
with special attention to the kinds of issues that each theories of social, ecological, and historical processes?
one raises. Transactive planning gives special attention to psycho-
Theory of the public interest. Definition of the social and institutional processes which facilitate
public interest raises a fundamental planning issue: growth and mutual learning between the planner and
can goals be considered separately from specific his constituency. Radical planning emphasizes the
options? Synoptic planning responds “yes,” most role of human will and ideological cohesiveness
other approaches, “no.” Another key issue is: should which gives effective power to technical knowledge.
conflicts that arise among groups in connection with Both radical and transactive planning raise explicit
planning be underplayed in favor of seeking a con- questions about the limitations of social science as an
sensus? Or should they be focal points for defining exclusive way of understanding social problems. Both
communities of interest and promoting organized ef- give specific attention to alternative epistemologies,
forts to achieve a more just distribution of bene- or bases for validating the uses and limits of knowl-
fits? Radical and advocacy planning are based on con- edge. Both emphasize the role of personal knowledge,
flict models of the public interest. Transactive and using concrete experience and direct participation as
incremental planning are based on dialogue and the point of departure for problem-solving and social
bargaining among plural interests, although without struggle.
an explicit treatment of power. Synoptic planning Feasibility. T h e world is complicated, but planning
largely ignores or avoids issues of conflict by re- methods need to be simple enough to make under-
ferring to a unitary concept of the public interest. standing manageable. How does one translate com-
For example, the synoptic tradition tends to rely on plexity into simplicity without falling into the trap of
the Pareto optimum to deal with the problem of mistaking the model for reality itself? Indeed, plan-
skewed incidence of benefits-a fairly lenient stand- ners tend to forget too often that the map is not

392 APA JOURNAL

 the territory. Synoptic planning has the virtue of being implementing solutions. Radicals would respond by
easily grasped: its analytical techniques are fairly saying that they are looking for long run, not short
standard applications of social science, and its inten- run results. If their effectiveness is not very visible,
tions are straightforward. Incremental and advocacy it is because most people are not educated in recog-
planning refer to the more subtle and complex proc- nizing the contradictions within the system and the
esses of bargaining, but they come closer to what manifestations of growing tensions that will eventually
skilled entrepreneurs and politicians and social lead to decisive transformations. Radicals also argue
mobilizers do anyway, so they score fairly well on the that significant change involves real but unrecognized
criterion of feasibility. The operating principles of forms of social, economic, and historical relationships
transactive and radical planning are less well known which are being ignored by conventional social science
among planning professionals. Furthermore, both of and by the liberal philosophy that currently dominates
these approaches call for the fostering and strength- social planning. Finally, the radicals would argue that
ening of community-based institutions which are pres- radical change, when it comes, is rarely foreseeable;
ently overshadowed by centralized and bureaucratically rather, it is a matter of being prepared for unique
organized agencies of government and corporate historical turning points. Other planning theories, in
enterprise. contrast, tend to focus exclusively on futures that
Another issue of feasibility revolves around a are predictable on the basis of continuity in existing
basic paradox of planning pointed out by numerous social structures and processes.
observers (Lindblom 1965; Caiden and Wildavsky Outside of military science there is little writing
1974; Friedmann 1973). Where planning for the ’ in planning theory directly addressed to a theory of
future is feasible (based on good data and analytical action. An important exception is the literature on
skills, continuity in the trends being extrapolated, “non-violent alternatives,” which explicitly takes on
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

and effective means to control outcomes), then plan- the problem of power and ways of realigning it toward
ning is unnecessary-it is simply redundant to what practical, short-term objectives. Although the his-
already goes on. Conversely, where planning is most torical foundations of non-violent action have evolved
needed (where there is absence of data and skills and mainly in situations of overt conflict and transient
controls in the presence of primitive or turbulent confrontation, this is not always the case. In many
social conditions), planning is least feasible. respects, this literature provides a missing link be-
Action potential. Here the issue revolves around the tween theory and practice which other theories have
meaning of “action.” Synoptic planning addresses pos- not fully provided. In Table 2, all five SITAR theories
sibilities of large scale action and major departures are shown to address this problem, but without full
from current strategies of problem-solving, based on success. This is not surprising because one definition
fresh insight and thorough examination of goals and of planning is that it is an activity “centrally concerned
policy alternatives. By the same token, however, ra- with the linkage between knowledge and organized
tional comprehensive planning is vulnerable to the action” (Friedmann and Hudson 1974, p. 2). All tra-
criticism that its plans never reach the stage of im- ditions of planning struggle with this relationship. If
plementation. Master Plans are written and filed away, any had fully succeeded, there would scarcely be
except in rare cases when vast new sources of fund- need for more than that one approach.
ing become available in lumps and allow the planner Substantive theory. Mainstream theories of planning
to design programs from scratch, thus putting real are principally concerned with procedural tech-
clout into Government-by-Master-Plan. Examples of niques. Substantive content is usually left to second-
this are the Tennessee Valley Authority (financed by ary levels of specialization in sectorial areas such as
the first surge of economic pump-priming under the education, housing, poverty, industrial development,
New Deal); and large-scale projects undertaken in de- or land use regulation. Exceptions are radical plan-
veloping countries by OPEC governments or institu- ning and, to a lesser extent, transactive planning.
tions like the World Bank. Both insist that planning styles and methods must
Other planning traditions seek to reduce the gap adapt to correspond to the specific nature of social
between decision making and implementation by problems being addressed. If they do not, our under-
embedding planning processes in the common every- standing of problems will be dictated by the arbitrary
day practice of social management and experimenta- strengths and limits of our methodology, and not by
tion. Only in synoptic planning is there major empha- an a priori appreciation of the substantive phe-
sis on producing “plans.” Elsewhere, planning is more nomenon. For example, to understand what “poverty”
characteristically a process that consummates itself in means, it is not enough to simply look at census
direct action rather than production of documents. data, nor is it enough to simply experience it first
The “structuralist” version of radical planning is hand. One needs a substantive theory of poverty,
similar to synoptic planning in presenting a major built up from comparative and historical study of its
gap between analysis of problems and means for nature, as well as from principles of socia1justice and

OCTOBER 1979 3 93
 theories of transformation in economic structures. of discussing social problems and solutions, but lacks
Otherwise, methodological bias or random availability the reliability and objectivity found in the more familiar
of data or purely arbitrary perceptions from personal tools of social science. Different schools of planning
experience will dictate the way poverty is perceived. come down on different sides of this issue, but in the
In this case one can easily become locked into a dominant synoptic and incremental traditions, theories
partial- hence erroneous-explanation of poverty, of substance tend to be subordinated to theories
variously interpreted as the consequence of personal of procedure.
or genetic or cultural traits, or as a problem rooted Self-reflective theory. T h e central issue here is
in family structures, or in the physical infrastructure whether a planning theory needs to be explicit about
of communities, or in national policies of neglect, or its own limitations, and if so, how can the theory
in global dynamics of resource flows favoring indus- make clear what has been left out? Incremental
trialized economies at the expense of weaker periph- planning is least explicit in this respect. T h e “science
eral areas. A planner who is primarily a methodologist of muddling through” is full of hidden agendas and
will likely be stuck on one or another of these levels bargaining processes which encourage participants to
of explanation. A planner who is grounded in sub- keep their motives and means to themselves. In
stantive theory, however, can press beyond the limits synoptic planning, there is far more emphasis on lay-
of particular methods to see problems in their ing everything out on the table, but the rules of the
entirety. game require that one deal with technical decisions
Most planning theories do not embody explicit on the basis of objective data. Corrections to the
world views on any particular subject. The issue thus bias of neutral ob-jectivity can be found, not within
raised is whether they are remiss in this respect or
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

the synoptic tradition itself, but in the parallel ap-

simply being open-minded and adaptable. A synoptic plications of other SITAR traditions.
planner or incrementalist or advocate planner might Etzioni (1968) has suggested a composite approach
argue that their methods serve equally well for most called “mixed scanning” which alternates between the
purposes-civilian as well as military applications, the synoptic approach to “fundamental” decisions and the
needs of the poor as well as the rich, the problems incrementalist manner of dealing with “bit” decisions
of neighborhoods and the problems of the world. (see also Faludi 1973a; Allison 1968).
Radical and transactive planners would tend to Transactive, advocacy, and radical planning each
argue, to the contrary, that no method is neutral, have specific procedures for pressing inquiry beyond
but that each has a characteristic bias toward one or the initial statement of a planning problem. Trans-
another group’s way of depicting reality. Objectivity active planning emphasizes dialogue and develop-
itself is a biased frame of reference, excluding those ment of trusting interpersonal relationships. Advocacy
qualities of experienced reality that can only be planning relies on the test of mobilizing people to
known subjectively, and must be validated on grounds challenge established procedures and institutions in
where social science is reluctant to tread. protecting their collective interests. Radical planning
T h e issue manifests itself, for example, in the use of calls for ideas to be tested in actions aimed at
predictions. Forecasting can consist of purely descrip- permanent change in social institutions and values.
tive analysis: extrapolation of trends, curve fitting, In contrast, synoptic planning refers to a more limited
probability envelopes, contingency models to accom- test of its adequacy in addressing problems: it creates
modate foreseeable variations in patterns. Alter- a series of feed-back channels to correct errors in
natively, forecasting can incorporate a strongly norm- calculations, but the scope and substance of feedback
ative element, designed to provoke corrective action are highly constrained. Like survey questionnaires,
on problems whose warning signs are feeble but feedback channels are narrowly focussed on the
urgent. This goes far beyond method, drawing on dimensions of outcomes defined a priori as important.
qualities of imagination, willingness to exercise moral Signals from unexpected quarters, carrying messages
interpretation of facts, and sensitivity to historical beyond the previous scope of understanding a prob-
dynamics. Most planners would admit that their craft lem, do not easily get through.
is one of art as well as science. Most are uncomfortable, There exist certain procedures of critical analysis
however, with depicting the future in the full rich- which might be included as optional components of
ness of subjective color and detail which they know the synoptic approach, that can be used to challenge
gives meaning to the present. Works like the Limits the hidden assumptions of rational comprehensive
to Growth, California Tomorrow, the Crash of ’79, The planning. One example is Richard Mason’s “dialectical
Year 2000, 1984, Looking Backwards, or The Shape of approach to strategy planning” (1969). Another is the
Things to Come all address the same issues that plan- synectics procedure, a structured method of brain-
ners deal with in the normal course of their profes- storming that encourages divergent thinking in prob-
sion. Yet planners are uncomfortable with the literary lem-solving.
method, which may be a valid and accurate means Beyond this, there is a growing literature in the

3 94 APA J O U R N A L
 area of “critical theory” dealing with ways of bring- the levels of information processing styles, value
ing to light the logic and psychology of thinking about premises, political sensitivities, and other founda-
social problems, with a view to correcting its natural tions of mutual understanding. Much planning ef-
limitations and biases. This literature spans the fort is spent on building u p this framework of com-
sociology of knowledge, the philosophy of science, the munication and problem definition, but perhaps there
effects of linguistic and cultural structures, the in- is a short-cut. An instrument to test basic attitudes
fluence of conceptual paradigms, and other matters toward alternative planning styles might provide a
relating to planning epistemology (Mannheim 1949; way of matching clients with congruent professional
Miller, Galanter, and Pribam 1960; Friedmann 1978; modus operandi from the outset.
Polanyi 1964; Churchman 1971; Bruyn 1970; Hudson This raises a related issue: how well do clients
1977). The majority of this writing, however, falls perceive differences in planning traditions? Are they
well beyond the scope of the synoptic tradition. aware they have a choice? Do they understand the
implications of their choice-for example, the rela-
Directions for future work tive strengths and weaknesses associated with dif-
ferent traditions? Could clients grasp the significance
Beyond the SITAR package of planning traditions, of evaluative criteria offered to compare traditions-
one can identify additional schools of thought-in- for example, different treatments of the public
dicative planning, bottom u p planning, ethnographic interest?
planning methods, social learning theory, compara- One strategy for eliciting client preferences and
tive epistemologies of planning, urban and regional testing their ability to perceive meaningful choices
planning, basic needs strategies, urban design, en- would be to initiate planning efforts with a “prelude”
vironmental planning, macroeconomic policy plan- stage, consisting of a few days of intensive work ex-
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

ning-the list goes on. A question this raises is whether posing clients to alternative modes of approaching
SITAR depicts a fair sample of current thinking in issues at hand. In a series of dry run exercises, repre-
planning theory. Readers can draw their own con- sentatives of different approaches could bring in
clusions. For purposes of this article, the main func- hypothetical data, solutions, feasibility considerations,
tion of SITAR is to pose key issues that emerge as and unresolved issues bearing on decisions to be
points of contention among the various planning made. The clients would get more than a review of
traditions. A different sample of comparative theories planning theory; the process would go a long way
might bring other issues to surface. toward clarifying their own objectives and substantive
Another question concerns the choice of evaluative policy options. At the same time, planners who par-
criteria used to describe and compare different plan- ticipated would get a fast education in the client’s own
ning traditions. T h e choice depends on one’s pro- view of issues, based on reactions to the presentations.
fessional personality. The selection process is a kind of It is not clear whether there exists a significant
Rorschach test of one’s own cognitive style, social market for this kind of prelude analysis. Funding
philosophy, and methodological predilections. In this agencies tend to operate with their own particular
sense, one could probably devise an instrument to style of planning, mainly the synoptic mode. Open-
measure personal planning styles based on indivi- ing up choices would tend to confound standard
duals’ preference ranking for an extended list of operating procedures, reduce the predictability of
possible criteria. outcomes, and weaken agency influence over de-
Particularly within the synoptic tradition, it is easy termination of results.
to overlook the importance of personal work style On the other hand, the feasibility and usefulness
and theoretical orientation in determining the com- of intensive short-term policy analysis-either as prel-
patibility between individual professionals and their ude or substitute for longterm planning efforts-is
clients. Planning is not simply the exercise of a relatively well established. “Compact policy assess-
technical capacity involving objective requirements of ment” exists in the form of a wide variety of quick
data, skills, procedures, and institutional mecha- and dirty procedures for problem formulation, proj-
nisms. Just as important is the social philosophy ect evaluation, decision making, assumptions analy-
shared by the planner, the sponsor, and the con- sis, and feasibility testing of proposals. Both in com-
stituency they are addressing. For some purposes, munity and organizational settings, there are various
it may be enough to assess objective needs and de- specialized methods for pooling judgment, fixing
liver solutions to a “target” community. In many points of consensus, and isolating areas of uncertainty
cases, however, it is necessary to understand prob- or disagreement for subsequent in-depth study (Hud-
lems through face-to-face interaction with those son 1979). The problem is not so much availability of
affected. In such situations, the planner’s effec- tools for compact policy assessment, but perception
tiveness depends on sharing implicit grounds of of the need for it. T h e SITAR package helps make
communication with both colleagues and clients on explicit the possibilities of choice between alternative

OCTOBER 1979 395

 styles and methods of planning. Practical choices, more general one. The real issue is whether any
however, will depend on effective procedures for planning style can be effective without parallel inputs
concisely presenting different approaches within the from other complementary and countervailing tradi-
specific problem-solving situations posed by individual tions. T h e synoptic planning tradition is more robust
clients. than others in the scope of problems it addresses and
Another question concerns the internal cohesive- the diversity of operating conditions it can tolerate.
ness of each planning tradition, and the balance But the approach has serious blind spots, which can
between each tradition and its counterparts. Some only be covered by recourse to other planning tradi-
combinations appear fairly complementary; others tions. T h e world is not all that clear or consistent in
may generate fruitful tension; a few might prove presenting problems to be solved. Having planners
fundamentally incompatible. Defining conditions that with the ability to mix approaches is the only way to
facilitate the use of different modes in tandem will assure that they can respond with sensitivity to the
require further study. diversity of problems and settings confronted, and
One must also determine whether each tradition to the complexity of any given situation.
functions as a self-contained paradigm-not just a The short list of planning theories just reviewed
theory, but a tight and impenetrable mesh of is more than anyone can feasibly apply in the course
conceptual models, language tools, methodologies, of daily professional practice. Nevertheless, it can pro-
and problem applications, together with its own vide a tool kit for many contingencies, and it can
professional community of believers. It can be argued serve as a locator map to understand better where
that a planning paradigm tends to create a determined other people are coming from.
set of procedures locked into a particular historical
environment of problems and solutions (Gallowayand Author’s note
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

Mahayni 1977). Yet there are reasons to think that Grateful acknowledgement is made to Drs. George Copa and
people have a certain latitude for choice among Jerome Moss, who commissioned an earlier version of this paper
for the Seminar o n Planning and Vocational Education at the
analytical paradigms (Hudson 1975). Allison (1968) Minnesota Research and Development Center, Department of
has shown that very different models of decision- Vocational and Technical Education, University of Minnesota
making can be used to interpret a single scenario of at Minneapolis, October 1978.
crisis management. Etzioni ( 1 973) has argued for a
“mixed scanning” approach that incorporates both Notes
synoptic and incremental planning modes. Historically,
advocacy, transactive, and radical planning practices 1. Procedural theories of planning refer to techniques and
have appeared on the scene as countervailing methods conceptual models that define the work of planners themselves.
to ongoing processes of synoptic planning, not with In contrast, substantive theories concern the nature of problems
the result of replacing the dominant paradigm, but of and social processes which lie outside the profession, to which
planners address themselves. Procedural theories would
introducing a broader perspective on issues and include principles of management and organizational develop-
another set of voices for articulating the public ment, communications skills for interacting with clients and
interest. Systematic evaluation of historical precedents communities, methods of data acquisition and analysis,
like these would help create more realistic strategies historical knowledge of planning, laws and local regulations
for getting diverse traditions to work together. Such defining professional practice, and conceptual tools of
sociology, economics, and other social sciences. Substantive
analysis would also help identify ways of encouraging theories, o n the other hand, refer to specific problems or public
clients to demand and exercise that option. policy sectors-for example, the nature of educational systems
and issues, rural development policies, theories of poverty,
future studies on energy policy, the politics of industrialized
Summary housing.
T h e main problem with this dichotomous classification is that
Planning has come a long way in the last half cen- the line between substantive and procedural theories is blurry;
tury. T h e Great Depression and World War I1 pro- procedures are often specialized in their application to
vided decisive boosts to synoptic planning-the man- particular substantive problem areas. Typically, in fact, a new
date for large-scale intervention in public affairs, a procedure is invented to deal with a particular problem.
new repertoire of methods, general acceptance of Nevertheless, planning evolves through the continual ap-
plication of old methods to new problems, and the discovery
deficit budgeting, and a firm belief that we can solve of new methods to deal with old problems. One of the dis-
enormous problems with a little application of fore- tinctive features of planning is this reciprocal feedback be-
sight and coordination in the public sector. In the last tween theory and practice, knowledge and action, conceptual
three decades, that promise has not been entirely ful- models and the real world.
filled-either in subsequent wars or in resolving major 2. Algorithms versus heuristics. An algorithm is a set procedure
for solving a known class of problems. It generally involves
social problems on the domestic front. quantitative methods, and by definition it is capable of arriving
This paper has tended to focus on shortcomings at an optimal solution, based on specification of an objective
of the synoptic tradition, yet the central problem is a function, resources, and constraints. Examples are linear pro-

3 96 APA J O U R N A L
 gramming and input-output analysis, operations research, and is seen as a science, emphasizing econometric models and other
trend projections. Most algorithms are backed u p by theories. algorithms for decision-making (Herbert Simon, Jan Tinber-
For example, the S-shaped curve used in making growth fore- gen, C. West Churchman, Jay Forrester).
casts reflects underlying premises about the nature of growth Organizational Development theory (Chester Barnard, Kurt
dynamics and the ceilings on expansion-a generalized pattern Lewin, Warren Bennis, Chris Argyris, Lawrence and Lorsch)
derived from statistics, general systems theory, and common centers on management of institutions involved in planning
sense. Algorithms also require characteristic skills, and pro- and implementation of plans. Emphasis is on awareness,
fessionals undertaking this kind of work can be clearly attitudes, behavior, and values that contribute to understand-
credentialled for degree of competence. Heuristic methods ing, personal development, learning, and growth of effective-
consist of more open-ended search procedures which apply ness over time. Whereas the rationalist approach is addressed to
to fuzzy problems, and which offer no optimal solutions but allocative planning (efficient distribution of resources among
only approximations or judgmental trade-offs. Quantitative possible uses), organizational theory has more to say about
methods usually play a less central role although they can innovative planning-situations which call for mobilization of
have important supporting functions, for example in gaming new resources, toward goals not strictly limited to considera-
and simulation procedures to explore scenarios of the future tions of economic efficiency, and requiring transformation of
policy situations. T h e result is not a specific solution, but better perceptions, values, and social structures to bring about needed
judgment about the sensitivity of outcomes to different action change (Friedmann 1973).
possibilities, or different environmental conditions Empirical studies of planning practice include literature on
Some organizational settings demand strict accountability urban planning (Cam’s study of Robert Moses, The Powerbroker,
to standard procedures, and thus rely on algorithms. (In some is a good example) and also on national planning, especially for
cases, the planner’s role is tojustify a particular project or policy lesser developed countries (works by Bertram Gross, Albert
dictated by prior reasons of ethics or politics, using selected Waterston, Albert Hirshman, Guy Benveniste). Also included
algorithms that d o not bring controversial issues into view.) are some good analyses of regional planning efforts in the U.S.,
Other organizations thrive on heuristics, for example those for example Selznick‘s study of the Tennessee Valley Authority,
engaged in future studies or trouble shooting, where neither in which he coined the term “cooptation,” or Me1 Webber’s
the problem nor the solution is well defined, and the client evaluation of BART in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of the
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

is more likely to be open-minded about surprise findings and best work has used the comparative case study approach, which
unorthodox recommendations for action. Some planners feel captures enough richness of local detail to avoid the pitfalls of
that the really interesting problems are those being en- reductionist models and grand abstractions, but which also
countered for the first time and those which are too “wicked” permits generalizations to be made, and lessons captured from
to be reduced to a standard algorithm. (Rittel and Webber past experience. Good examples of this are the studies of
1973; Friedmann 1978.) comparative strategies of non-formal education for rural
Heuristics and algorithms each have their distinctive uses, development (Ahmed and Coombs 1975; see also Coombs and
but most planning methods can serve either purpose. It is Ahmed 1974).
important for planners to clarify with their clients whether 4. See references to empirical studies of planning practice cited in
the goal is to solve a problem that is clear in everybody’s the preceding footnote, and the elaborated discussion in
minds, using prescribed techniques and predictable types of Friedmann and Hudson (1974).
answers or whether the task is to gain greater understanding
of the problem itself, critically challenging the assumptions
underlying past methods of problem-solving, keeping in play References
judgment and imagination, intuitive leaps and creative in-
sights, to challenge the “givens” of a situation rather than
accommodate them. The problem with algorithms and Ahmed, Manzoor, and Coombs, Philip. 1975. Education f o r rural
heuristics as a classification scheme is that they are very development: casestudies forplanners. New York: Praeger Publishers.
closely intertwined in specific planning procedures. Systems Alinsky, Saul D. 1972. Rules forradical\. New York: Vintage Books.
analysis, for example, has many elements of an algorithm, Allison, Graham T. 1968. Conceptual models and the Cuban missile
as in the use of sratistical models to estimate input-output or crisis: rational policy, organizational process, and bureaucratic
cause-effect or cost-effectiveness relationships among the politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
parts of a system. On the other hand, there are also heuristic Argyris, Chris. 1965. Organization and znnovation. Homewood, Ill.:
versions of systems analysis-the kind of procedure involving Irwin Dorsey.
boxes and arrows, or a matrix format to array policy objec- Argyris, Chris, and Schon, Donald. 1975. Theory in practice. San
tives against a list of strategy options, to gain a general Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
impression of how well action choices stack up against the Barnard, Chester I. 1938. Thefunctions of the executive. N e w York:
goals being sought. T h e Free Press.
3. Traditional divisions in planning literature refer to sources Bennis, Warren G. 1969. Organization development: its nature, oripns,
found in university-based planning programs, and reflected in and prospects. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
t h e A I P J o u r n a l . F r i e d m a n n a n d H u d s o n (1974) have Bennis, Warren G.; Benne, K. D.; and Chin, R. eds. 1976. The
distinguished four broad categories of writing in this field: planningof change, 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Philosophical Synthesis (Mannheim, Lindblom, Etzioni, Schon, Benveniste, Guy. 1972. The politics of expertise. Berkeley, California:
Friedmann, and others) attempts to locate planning within a T h e Glendessary Press.
larger framework of social and historical processes including: Bruyn, Severyn T . 1970. T h e new empiricists: the participant
epistemological issues (relating to theories of knowledge and its observer a n d phenomenologist, and T h e methodology of
limits); theories of social action and evolution; ideological participant observation, pp. 283-287 and 305-327. In Qualitative
contexts of planning; the tensionsireinforcements between methodology: firsthand inuoluement with the social world, ed., William
planning and democracy; psycho-social development of J. Filstead. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
communities; and social learning theory, which refers to society Bundy Report. New Y o r k City Mayor’s Advisory Panel on Decen-
as a whole taken as a learning system. tralization of the New York City Schools. 1967. Reconnection for
Rationalism (Synoptic Rationality) is mainly concerned with learning: a community school system f o r New York City. New York:
procedural (as opposed to substantive) theories. Policy making City of New York.

OCTOBER 1979 397

 Caiden, Naomi, and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1974. Planning and bud- systems. Los Angeles: UCLA Urban Planning Program (manu-
geting in poor countries. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publications. script).
Caro, Robert. 1975. The power broker-Robert Moses and the fall of Hudson, Barclay. 1979. Compact policy assessment and the delphi
Neui York. New York: Vintage Books. method: practical application of dialectical theory to educational
Churchman, Charles West. 1968. The systems approach. New York: planning and forecasting. Paper prepared for the Center for
Dell Publishing Company. Studies in Education and Development, Harvard University,
Churchman, Charles West. 197 I . Thr daign of inquiringsystems: basic Cambridge, Massachusetts (February).
concepts cf systrnu mid organization5. New York: Basic Books. Illich, Ivan. 1973. Tools f o r conviuialily. New York: Harper & Row.
Coombs, Philip, with Manzoor, Ahmed. 1974. Attacking rural Jantsch, Erich, ed. 1969. Perspectives of planning. Paris: Organization
poverty. Horo nonformal education can help. World BanWICED. for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Katz, Alfred, and Bender, Eugene. 1976. The strength in us. New
Davidoff, Paul. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal York: New Viewpoints.
of the American Institute of Planners 3 1, November: 331 -38. Kravitz, Alan S. 1970. Mandarinism: planning as a handmaiden to
E M , Jacques. 1954. The technologzcal society. New York: Vintage conservative politics. In Planning f o r politics: uneasy partnership,
Books, pub. 1964. eds., T. L. Beyle and G. T . Lathrop. New York: Odyssey Press.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1968. The active society: a theory of society and political Lawrence, Paul R.,and Lorsch, Jay W. 1967. Organization and en-
processes. New York: T h e Free Press. vironment: managing differentiation and integration. Boston:
Etzioni, Amitai. 1973. Mixed scanning. In A reader in planning Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration.
theory, ed. A. Faludi. New York: Pergamon Press. Lewin, Kurt. 1948. Resolving social conjicts: selected papers on group
Faber, Mike, and Seers, Dudley. eds. 1972. The crisis in planning. dynamics. New York: Harper and Bros.
Vol. I : The issue.\; Vol. 11: The experience. London: Chatto and Lichfield, N. 1970. Evaluation methodology of urban and regional
Windus for the Sussex University Press. plans: a review, Regzonal Studies 4: 151-165.
Faludi, Andreas, ed. 1973a. A reader in planning theory. New York: Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. T h e science of muddling through.
Pergamon Press. Public Administration Review 19: 79-88.
Faludi, Andreas. 1973b. Planning theory. New York: Pergamon Lindblom, Charles E. 1965. The intelligence of democracy. Decision
Press. making through mutual adjustment. New York: T h e Free Press.
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:23 04 June 2013

Forrester, Jay W. 1969. Urban clynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: Mannheim, Karl. 1949. Ideology and utopia. New York: Harcourt,
T h e MIT Press. Brace and Co.
Friedmann, John. 1973. Retracking Amrraca. A theory of transactive Mason, R. 0. 1969. A dialectical approach to strategic planning.
planning. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday-Anchor. Management Science 15: B-403-414.
Friedmann, John. 1978. T h e epistemology of social practice: a Meyerson, M., and Banfield, E. C. 1955. Politics, planning, and the
critique of’objective knowledge. Theory and Society 6, 1: 75-92. public interest. Glencoe, N.Y.: Free Press.
Friedmann, John, and Hudson, Barclay. 1974. Knowledge and Miller, George A,; Galanter, Eugene; and Pribam, Karl H. 1960.
action: a guide to planning theory. Journal of the Amrrican Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Henry Holt.
Institute of Planners 40, 1: 3-16. Mills, C. Wright. 1959. Thesociolog2calimagznation.London: Oxford.
Galloway, Thomas D., and Mahayni, Riad G. 1977. Planning theory Peattie, Lisa. 1968. Reflections on advocacy planning. Journal ofthe
in retrospect: the process of paradigm change.Journalof the Ameri- American Institute of Planner5 34, 2: 80-87.
can Institute of Planners 43, 1: 62-7 1. Polanyi, Michael. 1964. Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical
Goodman, Paul, and Goodman, Percival. 1960. Communitas. Means philosophy. New York: Harper Torch Books (orig. pub. 1958).
of livelihood and ways of life. Second Edition. New York: Vintage Rittel, Horst, W. J , , and Webber, Melvin M. 1973. Dilemmas in a
Books. general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155-169.
Goodman, Robert. 1971. After the planners. New York: Touchstone Schumacher, E. F. 1973.Smallis beautiful. New York: Harper& Row.
Books. Scott, A. J., and Roweis, S. I‘.1977. Urban planning in theory and
Gordon, David M. ed. 1971. Prob1em.s in political economy: a n urban practice: a reappraisal.EnvironmentandPlanning9, 1: 1097- 1120.
perspective. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company. Schon, Donald. 1971. Beyond the stable Atate. New York: Random
Grabow, Stephen, and Heskin, Allan. 1973. Foundations for a House.
radical concept of planning. Journal of the American Institute of Selznick, Philip. 1949. T V A and thegrass roots. Berkeley: University of
Planners 39:2: 106-14. Also “Comments” in J A I P 39:4 and J A I P California Press.
40:2. Simon, Herbert. 1957. Administrative behavior, 2nd ed. New York:
Gross, Bertram M. 1965. National planning: findings and fallacies. T h e Free Press.
Public Administration Reuiew 2 5:4: 263 - 2 7 3 . Tinbergen, J a n . 1964. Economic policy: principles and design.
Hampden-Turner, Charles. 1975. From poverty to dignitjl. Garden Amsterdam: North Holland.
City, N e w York: Anchor Books. Waterston, Albert. 1965. Deuelopment planning: lessons of experience.
Heskin, Allan. 1977. Crisis and response: an historical perspective Baltimore: T h e Johns Hopkins Press.
on advocacy planning. Urban Planning Program Working Paper, Wilson, James Q. 1968. City politic5 and public policy. New York:
DP-80. Los Angeles: Universiy of California at Los Angeles. John Wiley and Sons.
Hightower, Henry C. 1969. Planning theory in contemporary
professional education.Journal of the American Institute of Planners
35, 5: 326-329.
Hirschman, Albert 0. 1967. Development projects observed. Washing-
ton, D.C.: T h e Brookings Institution.
Horvat, Branko. 1972. Planning in Yugoslavia. In The crisis ofplan-
ning, Vol. 11. ed., Faber and Seers. London: Chatto and Windus
for the Sussex University Press.
Hudson, Barclay. 1975. Domains of evaluation. Social Policy 6, 3:
79-83.
Hudson, Barclay. 1977. Varieties of science: not by rationalism
alone; and Dialectical science: epistemology for evolutionary

398 APA JOURNAL