PLANNING THEORY Prospects for the 1980s Edited by 2 Patsy Healey, Glen McDougall & Michael J Thomas SS4ud NOWV5Ya4dPLANNING THEORY PROSPECTS FOR THE 1980sPergamon Urban and Regional Planning Advisory Committee DR DIAMOND, M.A., M.Sc. (Chairman), Reader in Regional Planning, London School of Economics GBROADBENT, B.Arch., Head of School of Architecture, Portsmouth Polytechnic GF CHADWICK, Ph.D., M.A., B.Sc. Tech., F.R.T.P.L, FLA, Pianning Consultant, Sometime Professor of Town and Country Planning, University of Newcastle upon Tyne AK F FALUDI, Dipl.-ing., Dr.techn., Professor of Planning Theory, University of Amsterdam JK FRIEND, M.A., Centre for Organisational and Operational Research, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London DCGILL, B.A. M.R.T.P.I., Director of Planning, Humberside County Council FRANK A HAIGHT, Ph.D., Professor of Statistics and Transportation, The Pennsylvania State University JB McLOUGHLIN, B.A., M.R.T.P.I., University of Salford KCROSSER, M.A., Ph.D., Director, Development Planning Unit, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College, London DNM STARKIE, B.Sc. (Econ.|, M.Sc. (Econ.), Professorial Research Fallow, Department of Economies, University of Adelaide PLANNING THEORY PROSPECTS FOR THE 1980s SELECTED PAPERS FROM A CONFERENCE HELD IN OXFORD, 2-4 APRIL 1981 Edited by PATSY HEALEY GLEN McDOUGALL and MICHAEL J THOMAS © PERGAMON PRESS ‘7°? OXFORD - NEW YORK - TORONTO - SYDNEY - PARIS - FRANKFURTUK. USA. CANADA AUSTRALIA FRANCE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford OX3 OBW, England Pergamon Press inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A. Pergamon Press Canada Ltd., Suite 104, 180 Consumers Rd., Willowdale, Ontario M2J 1P9, Canada Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., P.O, Box 544, Potts Point, N.S.W. 2011, Australia Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles, 75240 Paris, Cedex 05, France Pergamon Press GmbH, 6242 Kronberg-Taunus, Hammerweg 6, Federal Republic of Germany Copyright © 1982 Patsy Healey, Gien McDougall & Michael J. Thomas All Rights Reserved. Mo pact of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording ot otherwise, without permission in writing from the publishers. First edition 1982 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Planning Theory. - (Urban and regional planning series) 1. Regional planning — Congresses |, Healey, Patsy Il. McDougall, Glen lil, Thomas, Michael J. 361.61 HT391 ISBN 0-08-027449-8 tn order to make this volume available as economically and as rapidly as possible the authors’ typescripts have been reproduced in their original forms. This method unfor- tunately has its typographical limitations but it is hoped that they in no way distract the reader. Printed in Great Britain by A. Wheaton & Co. Ltd., Exeter ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We should like to thank all those who advised on the conference aims and organisation, who gave papers, or just came along, for their support and interest; Pergamon Press Ltd. for their support in publishing the Conference Proceedings and using the Conference as 2 venue for their cocktail party in celebration of ten yeare of the Urban and Regional Planning series; Aillinn Wilson for general editorial assistance; Carolin Tidbury of the Oxford Polytechnic Department of Town Planning Short Course Unit who helped enormously with detailed arrangements; and the Department itself for its general support.CONTENTS Chapter 1 chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chepter & Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 1 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Introduction Patey Healey, Glen McDougall and Michael J. Thomas, Oxford Polytechnic ‘Theoretical Debates in Planning: Towards a Coherent Dialogue : Conference Position Paper Patsy Healey, Glen McDougall and Michael J. Thomas, oxford Polytechnic Planning in the 33 Years after "1984" Bent Flyvbjerg and Verner C. Petersen, University of Aalborg and University of Aarhus, Denmark ‘The Theory of Town & Country Planning E.J, Reade, University of Manchester Critical Planning Theory - Review and Critique Ray Xemp, University of Wales Institute of Science & Technology, Cardiff Planning, Justice, and the Public Good Mary Wood, North London Polytechnic Three Paradigns of Planning Theory Andreas Faludi, University of Amsterdam, Holland ‘The New Decentralism ~ A Critique of the Territorial Approach Michael Hebbert, London School of Economics Politics and Planning: the Search for a Theory of Influence Robert M. Boyle, University of Strathclyde Much Ado About Nothing? —A Case Study of Planning and Power Andrew Blowers, Open University Decrementalism: The Practice of Cuts and the Theory of Planning Yerf Hearn, University of Bradford Understanding Land Use Planning. The contribution of recent developments in political economy and policy studies Patsy Healey, Oxford Polytechnic The Dialectics of Policy-making: Form and content Roy Darke, University of Sheffield Inner Cities: A Multi-Agency Planning and Implementation Process Murray Stewart and Jacky Underwood, University of Bristol vib Page 23 43 59 68 81 102 120 140 2eL 180 194vit chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Implementation Analysis in Urban and Regional Planning: Towards a Research Agenda Rachelle Alterman, Technion, Haifa, Israel Promotive Planning: ‘Towards an Apprcach to Planning for the Disadvantaged (Case Study: Soweto) John Muller, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa Theory and Practice: A Critique of the Political Economy Approach to Planning Glen McDougall, Oxford Polytechnic ‘Themes and Issues: ‘The Conference and Developments in “Planning Theory" in the 1980s Patsy Healey, Glen MeDougall and Michael J. Thomas, Oxford Polytechnic Papers Presented at the Conference Conference Participants Bibliography Name Index Subject Index Page 225 246 258 272 281 283 287 310 315amon Urban and Regional Planning Advisory Committee P LAN N | N G T H EO RY |AMOND, M.A., M.Sc. (Chairman), = ‘i der in Regional Planning, don School of Economics PROSPECTS FOR THE 1980s DADBENT, B.Arch., 3d of School of Architecture, tsmouth Polytechnic SELECTED PAPERS FROM A CONFERENCE HELD IN OXFORD, 2-4 APRIL 1981 HADWICK, Ph.O., M.A., B.Sc.Tech., F.R.T.P.I., FALA., nning Consultant, metime Professor of Town and Country Planning = Edited by versity of Newcastle upon Tyne FALUDI, Dipl.-Ing., Dr.techn., PATSY HEALEY sfessor of Planning Theory, GLEN McDOUGALL iversity of Amsterdam RIEND, M.A... and MICHAEL J THOMAS ntre for Organisational and Operational Research, vistock Institute of Human Relations, London SILL, B.A., M.R.T.PLL, Chapter 15 by rector of Planning, mberside County Council Rachelle Alterman NK AHAIGHT, Ph.0., pp. 225- 245: ofessor of Statistics and Transportation, = e Pennsylvania State University NALYSIS IN URBAN AND VIcLOUGHLIN, B.A., M.R.T.P.L., ING PLE . niversity of Salford mM LEMENTATION GIONAL PLAl ROSSER, M.A... Ph.D., rector, Development Planning Unit, Toward a Research Agenda ” srilett School of Architecture and Planning, niversity College, London MSTARKIE, 8.Sc. (Econ.], M.Sc. (Econ. }, ‘ofessorial Research Fellow, epartment of Economics, University of Adelaideinterpretation of the statefhs a systems, xistence of corporatist and pluralist Indeed the last thought repr! of theory to understanding tl that different theoretical p. ur main conclusion on the contribution e of Inner Cities policy. We consider ves can be used to explain the same phen~ omena at different levels of ity and abstraction. What is important therefore is less the choice of theory or theories (this will always be the consequence of personal preference) and more the attention paid to consisten- cy in the use of theories at different levels of explanation. CHAPTER 15 IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING Towards a Research Agenda RACHELLE ALTERMAN INTRODUCTION Until just a few years ago, one would have to begin a paper on implementation by bemoaning the unduly scant attention given to it as compared with the pam~ pering which the policymaking or planning process has enjoyed over the past two decades. ‘This is no longer the case. However, despite the blossoming of interest in the analysis of implementation among some planners,‘") this area has rot yet made for itself a significant niche in planning theory, as the virtual absence of Literature on the subject in planning journals (as distinct from general policy-science literature) would indicate, ‘The state of the art is at best only nascent, and is still embryonic in so far as the partic- ular questions of urban and regional planning are concerned. ‘The purpose of this paper is threefold: to raise some questions relating the development of implementation analysis to planning theory; to flap out the current state of the art of implementation analysis and to point out the extent to which it is useful for urban and regional planning; and finally, to point out some of the salient features of planning which should be taken into account in constructing an agenda for research that would be particul~ arly pertinent to the study of implementation in urban and regional planning. Hopefully, such research would help further our knowledge of the processes and conditions that would in the long run make planners better at what they are in essence made for: to, affect reality successfully so as to further Ovech work in the area of implementation analysis has appeared in the U.S.A., but not much of it has been directed especially to planning. In the U.K., some good work has recently been done which has specific- ally dealt with relevance to planning. See Healey, 1979; Barrett, 1980; Minay, 1979; McDougall, 1979; Lewis and Flynn, 1979. (cg the best of my knowledge, a leading journal such as the Journal of the anerican Planning Association (formerly JAIP) has had only two contribut~ ions on the subject in recent years: Alterman and Hill, 1978 and Coughlin and Plant, 1978. Prine a= me 225planning goals and policies. 1, ‘THE FOCUS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND PLANNING THEORY ‘The concern with implementation in urban and regional planning is not new. On the contrary, it can be shown that underlying many of the developments in planning thought,has been the urge to ensure better chances of successful implementation. However, what characterizes this history, and what dis- tinguishes it from the current concern with implementation analysis, is the fact that these developments were proposed as responses to a vague feeling of malaise atout the record of performance. Few systematic questions were asked about what the assumed implementation processes actually entail, what factors are likely to affect them, and how likely is a given proposal to improve them in practice. There was little attempt at theory-building, and even less at systematic empirical analysis. The various improvements and new styles were proposed in a prescriptive vein: adopt the remedy and the ailment will go away. But there was (and still is) little of a knowledge base to justify the proposals in terms of their relationship with implementation. The historic concern with implementation suffered from the same lack of art- iculation as other aspects of planning theory, and has been prone to the sane tendency to go after changing fashions. Often, not enough time and persp- ective were allowed for evaluation before a new style was proposed. As with many other developments in planning theory, maturing of the systematic con~ cern with implementation has had to await inputs from outside the urban and regional planning field, in this case, from the blossoming field of policy Gone example is the history of the master plan (See Haar, 1956). Starting in the 50's, this popular mode of planning was criticized for being obliv- ious to the needs of implementation, for being static, end-state oriented, and unrealistic about the process of implementation (Kaplan, 1965; Faludi 1973). The alternatives or improvements proposed were motivated by the desire to improve the record of implementation. In the U.S.A., there was much concern about reducing the time range and about tying long-term planning to ongoing decision-making: the “middle-range planning bridge" (Robinson, 1965) and “continuous planning" (Branch, 1970: 11-18) were proposed, and concepts such as PPBS sought to tie planning to the ‘real’ decisions made in budgeting (Robinson, 1972: 311-314). Meanwhile in the U.K. similar concern with implementation was expressed in the Planning Advisory Group' Report which re-evaluated the British development plans. The structure plan was proposed, calling for flexibility in plan-making style and partial detachment from planning controls, on the assumption, among other things, that these would improve implementation. The imp- ressive development of ‘monitoring methods in the U.x. in the past decade (Haynes, 1975; Rose, 1979) is also an expression of concern with inptov- ing implementation. Another example is the debate which took place in the U.S. in the 40's regarding the appropriate place for planning in local government. Walker (1941) criticized the prevalent planning conm~ ission mode as too remote from the 'real' decisions. Disappointment with the record of implementation of traditional planning was also behind the more recent proposal that the planner serve as ad-hoc 'policy-advisor! to the decision-maker. nis tendency is noted by Healey, McDougall and Thomas, 1981 in their Position Paper for the Conference on Planning Theory in the 1980's - held in Oxford, U.k., April 1981. science and policy analysis. ‘There too, implementation analysis is a very recent concern, having emerged as an articulated area of interest only in the past few years (Berman, 1978). Whatever the reasons for its emergence af this time to a popular and ‘legitimate’ academic concern in policy science,” this concern seems to be encountering fertile ground among planners, faced with increasing evidence of failure to affect reality (as argued by Kaplan, 19657 Siegan, 1972 and many others) and being tormented by obstacles and threats to their very professional existence (Healey, McDougall and Thomas, 1981). ‘These feelings are shared by planners in many countries. Despite the frequ- ent divergence of interests in planning thoughts between North America on the one hand and the U.K. and Zurope on the other hand, the recent interest in implementation analysis seems to be shared by planners and policy analysts in many countries and the emerging state of the art is an international effort indeed. ‘The study of implementation is viewed by some (Healey, McDougall and Thomas, 1981) as being an offshoot of the procedural, or rational comprehensive plan- ning theory. This theory has been characterized as being ‘contentless' and ‘contextless’, assumed to apply to any policy-making area, regardlegg,of sub- stantive content. It has of late been the target of much criticism” and alternative theories of planning, this time emphasizing substantive concerns (such as ‘political economy’ or ‘social planning’), have been proposed instead. However, it is as yet premature to judge to what ‘persuasion’ implementation analysis will belong: to the procedural view of planning, or to one of the ‘contentful' views. That would depend on the direction of research and theory- building: will it seek general answers, "answers for all seasons"; or will it attempt to deal with the particular problems and contexts typically en- countered in planning. This paper views the latter alternative as preferable, ‘land hopes to make some contribution in pointing out questions for research that are particularly relevant to urban and regional planning. 2. WHAT IS IMPLEMENTATION? The study of implementation may be likened to the study of policy-making. Before the policy-making process was put on the table for analysis, it was viewed as a 'black-box': the decision-maker's brain was where the enigmatic process occurred. After many years of dissection, analysis and sometimes wishful plastic surgery, some understanding of the black box was achieved. Similarly, until recently the implementation process was regarded as a black- box where something is supposed to occur to make reality out of policy (as noted by Smith, 1973: Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973; Berman, 1978). Today, (S) come claim it has to do with the disappointment with the ambitious social programs of the 60's in the U.S. (Berman, 1978). Others claim it is related to the disappointment from the reformist zeal and the delays associated with public participation (Stone, 1980). It probably also has to do with the countless evaluation studies undertaken in the U.S., most of which somehow succeeded in pronouncing sentences of failure = probably partly because the wrong questions were asked (see Carnon, Hill, Alterman, 1981). (8)1m the conference on Planning Theory in the 1980's held at Oxford, U.K., the procedural theory was pronounced dead (Healey, McDougall, Thomas, 1981}; and in workshop discussions). In the U.S.A., this approach has not fared much better (see for example the comments by Hemmens, 1980), although a ceremonious burial would probably be premature.ee implementation analysis seeks to open this box in order to gain understanding of the processes occuring within it and the factors affecting them, so that the prospects of more effective implementation would be enhanced. 2.1 Is Implementation a ‘Separate Stage’? As has been argued by Healey (1979), Barrett (1980) and Lewis and Flynn (1979), much of the Literature on implenentation seems to imply that implen- entation is a distinct step coming after policy. This view seems to be in- dicated by the oft-repeated concept of the ‘missing link’ between policy and results (see for example Hargrove, 1975; Alexander, 1979). Healey (1979) has convincingly shown that this view is a vestige of the rational-compreh- ensive model of decision-making and as such, suffers from the sane ailments of not recognizing the iterative nature of policy-making, of assuming a sequ- ential and optimizing relationship, and of believing that once made, a policy is "there" as a static enduring entity. Barrett (1980), from a U.K. perspec- bive, has further argued that this view is also a vestige of the defunct ‘top- down’ approach to organizations, with which many American analysts(’) have been afflicted as a result of having focused on federal legislation. These arguments are, of course, quite correct: policy is not static and stable; it is not always made at the top and implemented by the lower echel- ons; and implementation and policymaking are usually interlocked, with occ- urtences during the implementation process having an effect on policy. while one can agree wholeheartedly with these criticisms, one may disagree with the conclusions which these authors seem to reach: that the concept of "implen- entation” is not a useful one, and that it is grtificial and misleading (Healey; 1979) p.11; Lewis and Flynn, 1979).'°) What seems to concern these authors is that many decisions are made ad hoc, disregarding existing policy, and help to create new policy piecemeal. But this process does not pull the rug from under the concept of the implementation process. On the contrary, it is precisely questions as to how this process is carried out and why, that are of interest to implementation analysts (Hambleton, 1981). 2.2 The Implementation Process Clarified: As is often the case, the solution to the above debate would be forthcoming if concepts and terms were defined and used more rigorously. This is only symptomatic of the current state of the art. We shall attempt only a partial definition and will point out some aspects of the concept of implementation which may help place further analysis and theory on the track. The implementation process is here viewed as the process by which decisions taken by various actors enhance or weaken the chances that intervention will ‘be undertaken in | accordance with the policy-of-reference. (zor example, see Bardach's (1977) criticism of this implied view in Derthick's (1972) work (pp.46-55). ‘\yowever, I suspect that these conclusions are drawn only halfheartedly. This energes from the fact that these same authors subsequently go on to focus on what is nothing else but the implementation process, whether called so explicitly (as in the case of Barrett's contribution) or imp- Licitly (as in the case of Healey, and of Lewis s Flynn). 229 ‘This definition differs from other definitions") on several counts: First, it takes a relative point of view, the point of view of the particular policy-of-reference.. It is claimed that there is no such thing as the imple- mentation process in a given policy context. Rather, implementation is a relative term (Stone, 1980, p.25). To talk about an implementation process usefully, one must state what is the policy of reference and what are the persons, groups or agencies of reference from whose point of view implement- ation is described and assessed. One policy's implementation is another policy's deviations, and one group's success in implementation is anotlter group's failure. Simple as this view is, it has not been adequately re~ cognized in current literature, which usually talks of the implementation process. implicitly, it usually takes the point of view of the program in- itiators, often only the upper-level decision, ppkers, with their point of view assumed to be expressed in legislation. Recognition of the relative nature of the implementation process would take much of the sting out of the (Svan Meter and Van Horn (1975) define implementation as "those actions by public or private individuals (or groups) that are directed at the achiev- ement of objectives in prior policy decisions" (p.447). Berman (1978) defines it as "the carrying out of an authoritative decision". Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980) also see implementation as "the carrying out of a basic policy decision" (for some reason they say it is usually contained in a statute (p.540), Stone (1980) views implementation as "that con- crete activity that comes about as follow-through to a previously set goal" (p.14). Pressman and Wildavsky see implementation as “a process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions geared to achiev~ ing then" (p.XV) . go itlustrate:. a national policy of some government ministry, say for curbing the size of major urban areas, views the plans and policies of other government ministries, of the local authorities in question and of the various other public and private local actors, as potential decision-points whereby its implementation could be furthered or hin- dered. If a city approves a plan that allows a greater population size than recommended, that constitutes deviation from the national policy's point of view; however, from the city's point of view the approval of its policy is a success, and subsequent decisions which help further it, are the implementation of its policy (and constitute deviations from the national policy). This relative perspective holds not only in a situation of 'national' and 'local' levels but in any context of interplay of agencies aad groups. For example, another central or regional agency may have developed a policy calling for larger cities and thus the local decision is viewed as furthering the process of in- plesentation of its policy. ao) Dost theoretical contributions assume one point of view for the analy- sis and a single course of implementation (for example, William, 1975; Mountjoy and O'Toole, 1979; Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1980; Nixon, 1980). One contribution (Berman, 1978) recommends that analysis be undertaken from two points of view: the federal government (in the U.S.) and local government, noting the relative nature of the analysis. These points of view he terms "macro" and "micro". However, there are many other possible points of view which are of interest within federal government and outside it - for example, the view of guideline - writers (Rabinovite, Pressman and Rein), and there is no justification for using suca terms for two points of view among many.‘separate stage’ debate and would help to disentangle attempts to sort out the frequent “what~is-the-implementation-of-what™ questions (Barrett, 1980) and related criticism. The "top-to-bottom" or “bottoms-up" debate will also turn out to be less important. Second, the above definition takes into account not only decisions that further the policy in question but also those that do not further it, since after all it is the latter that are often the focus of interest in implement- atien analysis and are indicative of problematic areas. and third, it takes @ probabilistic point of view - i.e., it talks of increasing or decreasing the chaices for intervention in accordance with the plan rather than talking, as is usually done, of actions and decisions that further the policy in a deterministic fashion. This latter point is important because during the process there is often no assurance of the final outcome, nor is there always knowledge on the part of those making decisions whether indeed they will there- by further implementation (Williams, 1975, pp.542-3). Tt will be noted that our definition of the implementation process sees it first and forenost as a process of decision-making leading to intervention in the system planned, and not solely as the actual intervention or delivery. Tt is the process of decisions that holds the main interest for implementation analysis because it is there that diversions delays, slippages and other 'mis- haps may occur. There has been some debate in the literature over whether implementation anal- ysis should also include analysis of the outqages or impacts of intervention as well (see also Dunshire, 1978, pp.17-18). Most of the recent frame- works proposed for analysing implementation tend to leave questions of im- pact outside their scope of interest. This author takes an intermediate point of view. On the one hand, the analysis of social, psychological or environmental impacts is clearly a different ball-game than analysis of the decision-making process in implementation, requiring different theory and different tools. The task of analysing impacts has been the major focus of the long established and well developed field of impact evaluation in the social sciences, which has over the years developed extensive social- experimental and other techniques for this very purpose. But on the other hand, that field too is in grave crisis, having been accused of providing answers long after they are useful and of ignoring the processes whereby impacts were obtained (Wholey, 1979; Carmon, Hill and Alterman, 1981). In (12) sone authors, such as Montjoy and O'Toole (1979, p.45) specifically Limit their proposed theory of policy implementation to a discussion of the decision leading to outputs, and are not concerned with the future evaluation of impacts. Others, such as Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980) (see also William, 1975, and Berman,1978) expand their model of the implementation process to include not only outputs, but also "actual’ impacts of policy outputs" and even "perceived impacts", but they nevertheless focus their framework on the process leading to outputs. Most of the recent frameworks proposed for analysing implementation tehd to leave questions of impact outside their scope of interest. It is true, as William (1975) argues, that sometimes outputs and inputs cannot be distinguished analytically, especially where complex policies {such as typical of urban and regional planning) are concerned. But very often they can be. To take a somewhat extreme example, an urban plan may have an impact, such as on land values, before it is implen- ented in any way, and sometimes before it is approved! recent years some evaluation researchers have becone much more interested in analyzing the implementation process, and what is sometimes called "process evaluation" has been gaining favour (wWholey, 1979; Rossi, Freeman and Wright, 1979). The new field of implementation analysis and the mature field of eval~ uation research have thus been drawn closer together, and could well benefit from an integrated approach. This means that from the point of view of imp~ lementation analysis, questions of actual and perceived impacts should not be shut off (see Hambleton, 1981, p.26). After all, it is often the perception of success or failure of the impacts of a housing program, of a public tran~ sportation program or of a downzoning decision. that provide the major impetus for subsequent decisions in the implementation process. |. APPROACHES IN IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS: STATE OF THE ART Current work in the broad area of implementation analysis can be classified into the following types: 1. theoretical-deseriptive: theoretical contributions intended to aid in the description of implementation processes and in their understanding, usually using some metaphor or analogy. 2. descriptive-narrative: empirical work based on case~studies describing the course of implementation. 3. theoretical-analytic and 'implementability assessment theoretical work intended to present a set of factors, or a checklist, to aid in the prior assessment of chances of successful implementation. 4. empirical-analytic: empirical work often using statistical techniques, attempting to identify factors that enter the implementation process and that can explain its progress. 5. prescriptive: “how to contributions providing clues for achieving better success at implementation. 6. evaluation studies: empirical work that is often both descriptive and analytic, commissioned by some agency in order to evaluate the success of some program and the reasons for success or failure - whether ex post or during the process of implementation. Theoretical-descriptive Some very good theoretical work has aimed at contributing to our understand~ ing of implementation processes by providing ways of describing the underlying complex forces. Much of the work by Bardach (1977), Barrett (1980) and some aspects of Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) fall in this category. The state of art in this approach may be called "metaphoric": these contrib- butions have resorted to the use of metaphors or analogies to provide us with a deeper perspective of the complexity of implementation processes. Bardach has provided us with the games metaphor, conceiving of implementation as a series of loosely-related games where the actors try to get the most out of the implementation process. The rich metaphor and many metaphors of specific ‘ganes' that may be played by aqigis\) provide us with an understanding of the dynamics of implementation. Barrett (1980) has proposed three alter- native perspectives for looking at implementation: the implementation pro~ cess as a bargaining process with a complex network of negotiations and con- promise among groups; the implementation process as an “action-response'Process which focusses on the actors themselves rather than on the policy, and on the complex occurrences and reactions to them; and implementation as the "politics of policy" which focusses on organizational and political per- ceptions and inter-relationships. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973). in their landmark work, provide another metaphor for understanding implementation: they see it as a chain of decisions at ‘cle- arance.points' with the task being to forge the connections between the elem= ents in the chain. ‘They go on to analyze this concept in probability terms, each clearance point having a probability of agreement, and the outcome being the cumulative conditional probabilities. This conceptualization enables them to show how the odds are stacked well against successful implementation. Another type of metaphor used in implementation analysis is the systems met- aphor, whereby the implementation process is conceived of as a control sys~ tem with subsystem, implementation being defined as the fulfilment of a set of system functions (Alexander, Alterman and Law-Yone, 1979; Weiss and Rein, 1970). Nakamura and Smallwood (1980, p.21-28) use the systems concept to identify three types of "functional policy environments": policy formulat- ion, policy implementation and policy evaluation. By focusing on the elements of these systems and the linkages among them, they hope to aid in understand ing implementation. In the current state of art, these types of contributions are extremely useful, Providing us with ways of conceptualizing and understanding the complexities of implementation processes. However, it is doubtful that a descriptive fra~ Rework can be proposed that would be appropriate for all of implementation contexts. There is much room yet for developing such concepts further, this time directed at particular substantive areas. The particular modes of imp- iementation and other features of urban and regional planning (see below) des- erve special attention from planners, and there is room for further developing concepts such as these and tailoring them to the special attributes of plan- ning contexts. Descr iptive-narrative In this category fall many case-studies describing and analyzing the implem- entation process of a given policy or program. Case studies are a traditional tool among political scientists, and in the past some of these have contained very good descriptions of what may in retrospect be called "implementation". Some classics dealing with urban problems are Meyerson and Banfield (1955), and Altshuler (1965). These studies have narrated the course of events and attempted to bring out the salient political and social factors. In recent years, one can identify a new generation of case studies, this tine focussing on implementation more specifically and nore soberly, attempting to analyse the procésses and the factors impinging upon it. Often such stud- ies have been undertaken as part of a commissioned evaluation study. Among these one can cite the important work by Derthick (1972) about the U.S. fed- eral new-towns-in-town program, the landmark book Sy Pressman and Wildavsky _—_— 13), A : [3)onese include games to divert resources ("easy money", the "budget game” and others), games played in order to deflec: goals (such as "piling on" and "up for grabs") and games leading to delay and dissipation of en- ergies in the program ("not our problem", “odd man out", etc.). 14) 6 The game metaphor has also been applied to the analysis of implenentat- ion in the Israeli planning system (Alexander, Alterman and Law Yone,1979). (1973) on a federal employment program and the perceptive work by Alexander (1975) on a local program in the U.S. The value of such studies, considerable though it - 7 furnishing ve vith ximized to the full after heor: bstantive examples, can only be maximiz : : foundations for implementation analysis in various contexts are more advanced Theoretical-analytic and "implementability assessment": tributions to implementation analysis in rec- ide us with theoretical frameworks for ident~ ors that may influence the implenentation proc~ they Many of the more ambitious co: ent years have sought to prov: ifying and analyzing the fact i cer Mla Tes outcomes. Because these franevorks analyse factors which, i help predict its outcome a hypothesize, can explain the process and can hel ts | pier these contributions may also be called ee iilia 3 5 "Toole, 1979). Such frame (Williams, 1975; Montjoy and O'Toole, a n be cla ifi 2 4 systematic frameworks fied into two types: the more ambitious and sy " seek to provide a comprehensive set of hypothesized factors, and clain to be i tributions structing a "theory"; .and the more modest con! s talk forms of a "check-list” to help policymakers and analysts in considering implementability. ‘The framework proposed by Van Meter and Van Horn i the sist ieehee ec i iti 1 frameworks. f the first of the more ambitious conceptual e a Gnd Naznanian (1980) note, this framework is nore applicable to ent i i i rams, also payi £ social services than to analyzing regulative prog s g : Sttention to the attributes of the policy itself in structuring the implenen Furthermore, they note, this framework has “essentially sooxphouy getes sily operationalized" anorphoug, gategories rather than variables that can be ea: (p-540)« In their own conceptual framework, Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980) set out to i i i ded as variables srehensive set of factors, this time wort s a. Their framework is indeed more sophis~ ded into three groups: those pertaining ; those dealing with the ability of the policy ("statute") to structure implementation, and those encompassing | ae statutory variables affecting implementation, such as. socio-economic ‘cont ions, public support, etc. The authors hope that their framework wit) 9 serve as the theoretical basis for undertaking research of the enpiricat- analytic type. This franevork is the most comprehensive we have, and, if | used as a checklist, provides a compact way of looking at implenentability: A useful aspect of the framework for urban planners is that the aut! presen! potentially amenable to measurement. ticated, providing 17 variables divii to the "tractability of the problem” Canis franework includes @ twondimensional classification of policies in terns of degree of change on the one hand, and degree of goals Their model of the implementation process has the other. Six conponen policy resources; policy standards and objectives; six components: ° : interorganizational communications and enforcement activities; a acteristics of the implementation agencies; economic, social ana ee and the disposition of the implementors. among these factors is supposed to lead to the A less articulated framework is by Smith itical conditions; interrelationships outcome, "performance". (3973). Qoney also criticize the ¢ramework proposed by Rein and Rabinovitz (1977) for being too general.direct us to look at the "tractability" of the problem to start with, and the inherent attributes of the plan or policy. Also useful is the fact that the model can apply to interorganizational implementation problems and not just to intra-organizational ones. However, the model faces the danger of being over-reaching in that it is presented as a general theory applicable to all or most substantive policy areas. Other frameworks do not seek to encompass the implementation process as a whole, but focus on some part of it. One early framework is by Bunker (1972). A more recent one is by Montjoy and O'Toole (1979). ‘This model is proposed as a comprehensive "theory of policy implementation" whereby implementabil- ity of policies can be assessed, but in fact it focusses only on two charact~ eristics of the policy. Although this framework is less comprehensive than the ones by Van Meter-Van Horn and by Sabatier-Mazmanian, it does pro- vide some initial insights. Contributions of the second type are in the form of ‘checklists’ rather than ‘theories’. Presumably, their authors are more skeptical about the possibility of constructing theories. But their aim is similar: to contri~ bute to our understanding of implementation processes, thus allowing decision- makers to assess implementability in the hope of thereby improving implement- ation. Chase (1979) specifically sets out to focus on the many obstacles that might be encountered in the implementation of social service delivery Programs. Taking the point of view of the manager who seeks to assess imp- lementability a priori, he provides a rich set of 44 "factors for consider- ation". Another checklist has been proposed by Lichfield and Darin-Drabkin (1980, p.32-40), specifically for assessing implementability in urban and regional planning. This checklist is especially useful for planners in that it asks many questions about aspects of the policy or plan and how it was prepared. Finally, the checklist provided by Bardach (1977) in the last chapter of his excellent book deserves mention. There, Bardach provides guidelines for what he calls “writing an implementation scenario", which is in effect a partial checklist for assessing implementability. These works constitute a significant advancement in our conceptualization of the implementation process. Some may criticize the over-ambitiousness of these frameworks purporting to provide a “theory” (Barrett, 1980; Healey, 1979). The present author too is skeptical about our capacity to construct the theory of the implementation process, in a context-free manner. However, the goal of such frameworks, especially those presented as ‘checklists’, is an important and legitimate one: to provide policy-makers with some guide- lines to aid in the assessment of implementability. These over-reaching beginnings could provide a stimulus for more contextual analysis, empirical- analytic work and theoretical development oriented specifically to urban and regional planning contexts. In recent years there has also been some empirical work carried out which O76 consists of two dimensions: provision of new resources and deoree Of vagueness or specificity in the policy (ambiguously called "des- cription of expected activity"). The resulting matrix is divided into four types of mandates. The subsequent analysis attempts to chart out the hypothesized course of implementation in each of these four proto- types. has sought to identify factors that can empirically be shown to influence the implementation process or its outputs. Many of these studies have used rigorous statistical tools for testing hypotheses. A few have dealt with subjects in the field of urban planning or environmental regulation, using statistical analysis. Among these can be mentioned the work by Rosenbaum (1980) who has studied the characteristics of statutes regulating wetland areas in the U.S.A., the study by Alterman and Hill (1978) who have sought to identify factors that influence the degree of implementation of a statut- ory urban plan in Israel, the analysis by Alterman (1980) of decisions made by a planning commission and the variables that are associated with adherence to the plan's guidelines, and the study of factors in the implementation of a plan in Sacramento, California (Coughlin and Plant, 1978). And finally, two works using more ‘soft ware’ techniques in their review of a variety of case-studies are by Alexander (1979) and Montjoy and O'Toole (1979). The theoretical frameworks mentioned earlier being as recent as they are, most published empirical studies have not been able to avail themselves of the benefit of these theoretical models (a notable exception being Bullock (1980) who has applied the Sabatier-Mazmanian framework). But in some sense, this is not to be regretted. Empirical studies of necessity focus on some given area of policy, thus they can avoid the danger of ranging far and wide and of hoping to discover universal ‘laws'. It would be well for theory to draw upon empirical studies, especially context-directed theory, and hope~ fully, through a dialectic relationship, empirical studies will be able to contribute to the understanding of implementation processes more rigorously. In the field of urban and regional planning, it would be helpful if such studies would focus on variables of special interest to planners, derived from the particular attributes of planning, as developed below. Prescriptive "how to" contributions: Handbooks in planning have traditionally devoted some room to chapters entit- led "implementation". These chapters would not contain the types of questions in implementation analysis reviewed above. Rather, they would contain various prescriptions of how to implement plans, how to create appropriate institut- ionsshow to relate to more detailed planning, how to tie-up with budgeting, or how to undertake updating and review. In addition, such works might con- tain a description of various means of intervention, often of a statutory or econonic nature. These are important items of information indeed, and are receiving renewed and well-merited focus from researchers focussing on plan- ning controls, on monitoring, etc. . But they do not relate to the types of issues raised in implementation analysis. They rarely mention the dynamic political or institutional contexts whereby these tools are applied and they @o not discuss the possible impediments to their application and the condit~ ions whereby their attainment might be furthered. A new breed of "how to" contribution may be identified in recent literature. ‘These take a more sophisticated view of the ingredients that should go into successful implementation, and reflect an astute recognition of political processes. One such work is a short paper by Thorburn (1979), a British planner, who registers his thoughts about "how to encourage conmitment", drawn from his own experience. Bardach (1977) has some prescriptive elements in his book, where suggestions are provided as countermeasures for some of the problems that may be encountered in the implementation process. And Lichfield and Darin-Drabkin (1980) include some "how to", prescriptive elem- ents in their model of implementation. These kinds of contributions are not to be undervalued, despite the tactPeete that often their theoretical and empirical basis remains unstated. ‘The curr- ent state of the art could be much advanced by such input, especially from successful 'implementors' in the field. After all, somehow things do get one and sone policies do get carried out. Theorists, analysts and research- ers should not be expected to provide the answers without the belp of those who actually implement - planners, administrators, managers. ‘The chall- enge-to researchers lies in creating the proper forum and in asking the right questions'so that the great potential held in the diffused knowledge from planning practice could be tapped and retrieved systematically. Evaluation studies: Much of the impetus for undertaking analysis of implementation processes has come from agencies requesting evaluation of some program. The relationship between implementation analysis and evaluation studies has already been men- tioned, where we noted the trend whereby these two areas are being drawn closer together. Studies focussing on evaluation of the implementation proc- ess and its outcomes have in recent years become very prevalent in the U.S.A. and the U.K. Examples in the former country include the works by Derthick (1972), by Alexander (1975), and the evaluations carried out in the Model Cities Program. In the U.K. one can cite the evaluation of the Community Land Scheme (Barrett, Boddy and Stewart, 1978). The term ex post evaluation is not very well entrenched in urban and regional planning. In planning, 'yg,rather use the terms "monitoring and review" for retrospective accounts. However, ever since evaluation studies have attempted to be more “process oriented” (see Wholey, 1979), the questions Posed by these two approaches have come to overlap to a great extent. In the future we are likely to see a strengthening of the merger between the new field of implementation analysis and the veteran enterprises of evaluation research and monitoring (see Carmon, Hill and Alterman, 1981). The implicat- ions for planning are that we should aim at supplementing the traditional questions asked in monitoring and review with questions asked in implementat- ion analysis. ‘Thus in addition to the measurement of ongoing outputs and im- pacts and the consideration of these vis-a-vis the evolving goals and polic- ies, we would do well to include questions about the dynamics of the implem- entation process and factors affecting its course. This would enable an introspective view of the workings of the planning agency itself, and of its relationship with its environment. It would thereby make it possible to understand the process of implementation on an on-going basis in order to achieve better performance. 18) ans « Jonis is one of the conclusions reached in a conference devoted to implementation in urban planning organized by the OECD and held at Milton Keynes, U.K., July 1979, See General Rapporteur's comments by Francine Rabinovitz. as) : Ever since evaluation studies have attempted to be more “process oriented", the difference in terms has become more a matter of dis ciplinary tradition than of indicating a real difference in approaches. The emphasis on monitoring and review in planning is attuned to the on= going nature of the planning function; while the concept of evaluation has been usually applied to the case of social programs which are born at some definite date and can be terminated at another, having defin- ite outputs in the interim. QUESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING I£ implementation analysis is to be useful for planning, the types of quest~ ions and issues that are of specific concern to planners should be pointed out in order to serve as a basis for building an agenda for research. Toward this goal, this section presents some preliminary thoughts about questions for implementation analysis that emerge from the relevant features of urban and regional planning. Some initial recommendations will be made about the type of approaches from among those surveyed above that would be appropriate for analysing questions derived from the various features of planning. gon (20) 4.1) Yodes of Planning and Modes of Implementation '*°) Actually, with few exceptions, 71) the Literature on implementation talks of policy as a monolithic term,paying Little regard to whether different types of policy and policy contexts imply differing conceptions of what implement- ation is and how it is expected to proceed. Perhaps more so than other areas of policymaking, urban and regional planning has always been characterized by @ variety of modes of planning and by some awareness that adoption of one or other of these modes has implications for how the implementation process is conceived (see also Minay, 1979; and Flynn, 1979; Lichfield and Darin-prabkin, 1980, p.40-43). Lewis Planning theory offers many conceptions of planning and even more ways of classifying them. 1 shall mention but a few, basing myself partly on the classification proposed by Friedmann (1973) and partly on others (Hudson, 1979): 1. Control (regulative) planning 2. Initiatory planning 3. Policy planning 4, Qransactive planning and advocacy planning 5. Radical planning 6. Utopian planning Bach mode of planning implies a different picture of implementation and a different criterion for assessing success or failure. Control (regulative) planning: planning is undertaken by authorized agencies of government, often in centralized fashion. Planning authority is usually statutory and uses legal and administrative sanctions and controls. This mode of planning is typical of statutory land use planning. Here, the implementation process is viewed, first and foremost, as a process of compliance by both government agencies under authority, and by private individuals. The agency must establish a mechanism of enforcement. Breach (20); owe credit for’ some of these ideas to my colleague and associate in teaching planning theory, Professor Morris Hill. (2D notable exceptions are Nixon (1978), who talks about a variety of "styles of intervention" and Minay (1979), Lewis and Flynn (1979) who specifically talk about nodes of implementation in planning.of compliance entails sanctions and penalties. The actors being regulated are told specifically what are the permitted bounds of action; they are, in a sense, placed on a tight rope. But what is often not fully realized by agencies opting for the promise of such powerful controls, is that at the same time they too are placed on a tight rope, bounded by rules of administ- rative law, the requirements of natural justice, and sometimes also burdened by personal penal responsibility on the decision-makers. Yet to achieve the desired intervention, the agency is dependent on a diffused public which can only be caught in the ‘web’ of the regulation if and when it chooses to act in a specific way - say, to build a house. The history of land use planning is the story of attempting to turn such ‘negative’ regulations into nore "positive controls ~ for example, through timing controls. This picture of the implementation process should be of interest to impler Entation analysts, who might wish to see what jggenious ways of circunvention have been paved around the stringent controls. initiatory planning (project planning): planning here is undertaken by a pub- lic or private agency that has the resources for implementing its plan. This mode calls for the creation of sone new project (such as a building, an eng- ineering project, or a social project). The mode of implementation is perhaps more readily understood in this type of planning than in the others. The agency in question initiates the process, allocates the resources, and has considerable control over timing. It may, of course, be dependent on other agencies (and other plans) for licensing or other clearance, but it has much more direct control over the implementation Process than in other modes of planning. Contrary to control planning, for example, it is not dependent on a diffuse set of actors for achieving the desired outputs - although of course it may be quite dependent on their be- haviour for achieving the desired impacts. But despite its relative clarity, we should not make the mistake of believing that this mode of planning nec- essarily implies an easier implementation process than other modes; this only Seems so because of the more direct relationship between policy inputs and the visible outputs, but it depends on the organizational scale, on degree of commitment, on resources, etc. Here too implementation is in danger of "slip- ping between the cracks", of dissipating, or of being aborted, and much of current literature in implementation analysis focussing on intra-organisat- ional processes and on management in fact deals with this mode of implement- ation. Policy Planning (or the French ‘indicative planning’ planning policy is formulated as statements about what the agency considers desirable. These are expected to guide the agency's own decisions, as well as to constitute recommendations for actions by other agencies and private individuals. ‘Phe picture of the implementation process is quite different from the case of control planning, Full compliance is not to be expected, and failure to comply in full should not be regarded as failure of implementation. This implementation process depends for its results not on (or not only on) san- ctions and controls, but rather on attempting to make policies that would draw various interests together. If the policy is off the mark, its life expectancy is low. The planner's role in implementation is based on co- (22) 5oe an analysis of implementation in a control mode of planning see Alexander, Alterman and Law-Yone (1979). ordination among agencies, on active promotion of the policies promulgated, and on recruitment of political and economic support. The French have dev~ eloped a variant of this concept as their ‘indicative planning’ where periodic economic policies are publicized by government (see also Lichfield and Darin~ Drabkin, 1980, pp.40-41.) If private bodies calculate their economic decis- ions according to these policies they are likely to benefit. Transactive planning and advocacy planning: Planning is viewed as a process of give and take among semi-autonomous groups, each formulating its own goals and policies. In the case of transactive planning, there may not be any "higher authority’ which resolves transactions into a single official policy. While in the classic conception of advocacy planning (Davidoff, 1965), the alternative plans are brought before the planning agency which acts as an adjudicator. How is the implementation process pictured in these modes of planning? It certainly does not have a single trajectory, nor can it be judged a success from any Single point of view. Rather, the implementation process is relat~ ive to the points of view of each of the participating groups. The relativ- ity of the implementation process is here built into the definition of plan- ning, each group judging the process by the degree to which its own goals are being achieved. The role of the planner as implementor here is to promote his or her group's interests by negotiating, bargaining, making adjustments, recruiting support, fighting in the courts, etc. Radical planning: this mode of planning is as yet less defined than the other modes (see Hudson, 1979), containing a variety of streams. Generally it calls for radical restructuring of social and economic institutions. The implementation process here might draw upon any of the other modes des- cribed above, but in addition it would probably base itself more on political and social re-organization and political change. Utopian planning ~ ‘future thought': under this tradition, concepts are brought forth about a better way of life. ‘The planning might be quite det- ailed, but it is not commissioned by any agency with the intention of implen- entation. This has undoubtedly been an important tradition in urban planning, sometimes leading to the realization of concepts earlier thought "vtopian’ We could say that utopian planning is by definition “not for implementation". But ve could also say that its implementation is in feeding ideas, in widen- ing the range of possibilities, in influencing other plans to some extent. Some have recently argued (Perloff, 1980) that what planning today needs is more such inputs. 4.2 Specific Features of Planning and Their Implications for Research Urban and regional planning is a broad field and often eludes definition. But it does possess certain features which may distinguish it from other areas of public policy and which bear implications for the types of approa— ches that would be appropriate in carrying out research and building theory pertaining to implementation. The following features will be discussed (see also Lewis and Flynn, 1979): 1. A mixture of modes of implementation. 2. A complexity of policies on a variety of levels. 3. An emphasis on the attributes of policies. 4. The multiplicity of agencies involved.5. System interdependencies. 6. Sensitivity of issues and public exposure. 7, ‘The comparative aspects of land use planning. 8. The planning profession. Table 1 presents, in general and preliminary terms, the relationship between these features and the types of approaches to implementation analysis that were discussed above. A mixture of modes of implementation: Typically, implementation in planning is a mixture of more than one of the Modes outlined above. Thus for example, although the control mode is the Prevalent mode in land use planning, it is usually not the only one. Side by side with the controls we may find aspects of initiatory planning (such as construction of public facilities or an urban renewal project), some elements of policy planning (such as a policy calling for the promotion of business services in outlying ares), and aspects of transactive, advocacy, or other participatory planning. Bach mode of planning implies a different mode of implementation. We as yet have very little systematic empirical knowledge about the implem- entation processes in these various modes, and less yet about the implications of the mixture of modes. This attribute of planning deserves to be focussed on using several of the approaches discussed above. First and foremost, it deserves preliminary. theoretical attention, likely of the descriptive type, but possibly also of the analytic type. In addition, some of the distinct- ions among the modes could probably be operationalized and the empirical~ analytic approach could help us gain systematic knowledge about the relation- ship between modes of implementation and their outcomes. Application of the narrative approach may also yield some insights. And finally, much knowledge derived from experience undoubtedly exists on ‘the professional line and we could thus well benefit from some systematic input of the prescriptive “how to” type. A complexity of policies on a variety of level: Contrary to many other areas of policy where a statute is the major, often the only, jJvel' of expressing policy on which implementation analysts tend to focus, “"" planners have always recognized that planning policy may be expressed simultaneously on several levels on the policy-planning-programming chain (see Alexander, 1979): “policy plans" may be formulated side by side with master plans, which usually coexist with local or detailed plans, which often thrive alongside discretionary ad-hoc policy about granting permits, etc. These inhabit the policy terrain side by side with shorter term dev— elopment plans, budgetary policy, sectoral departmental policies etc. All these state policy in different ways, have differing time ranges, and en-\ tail different modes of implementation. (23) tn agdition, the plan may serve asa bid for resources from government, as a tool for coordination, as a political manifesto (Thorburn, 1979), or as a means of raising land values and thereby increasing tax revenues to " the local authority. & (yajor contributions to theory such as Bardach (1977) and Sabatier and | Mazmanian (1980) talk as if almost all policy were expressed in a statute. Evaluation Mt Mt rr Wt Wt Prescrip- tive Mh Wt MWh Ms Empirical- analytic 4 wee Ms MW Mh may be suitable ‘Theoretical- 3 Mh MS ee Mh Wt analytic roaches to Research Descriptive- narrative 2 “Mt “at very suitable Approaches ‘Theoretical- descriptive 1 Ve fae ee Features of Planning and Aj policies Multiplicity of agencies modes Emphasis attributes of policies system inter- dependence Public sensi- tivity aspects ‘the planning profession TABLE Features Mixture of Complexity of ComparativeTo advance our knowledge of the implications of this feature for the implen- entation process, the existing theoretical models would have to be further developed to deal with it. In empirical research there would probably have to be greater reliance in the near future on the,descriptive case-study ape- roach than on the empirical-analytic approach. ‘> An emphasis on the attributes of policie: As noted in our discussion of the state of the art, questions pertaining to the attributes of policies are usually not dealt with systematically in Lit- erature on implementation analysis; perhaps they are not considered import~ ant enough outside planning. However, the urban planning tradition has always had a keen sensitivity for the attributes of policies and their presumed rel- ationship with implementation. This has perhaps stemmed from the traditional emphasis on plans which are visible, publicly exposed and relatively stable dor iments usually containing a variety of types of policies. Belief in the y~ -ortance of how plans are formulated has been a leitmotif of planning his- ”. cy, triggering major changes in planning legislation and planning systens. Some of the most useful questions for planning practice can be posed in this area. Yet our current knowledge base is no better than intuitive. Questions about the attributes of policies relevant here include the degree of flexibility as against degree of specificity desirable in policy statenents; the desirable time-range; the type of tie-up with shorter-range; the degree of interdependence among policy-areas (the issue of comprehensiveness); and the manner of communication (how goals and policies are worded; the desirab- ility of using precise maps, etc.). Questions such as these could be operat~ ionalized. ‘They are therefore especially suitable for application of the analytic approach. Theoretical-analytic contributions could help in class~ ifying relevant attributes of policies and in proposing hypotheses for res~ earch. while enpizical-analytic research could be used to test these, (2)) there is also room for the descriptive approach and for prescriptive cont~ ibutions. Multiplicity of agencies involved: Planning policy usually depends for its implementation on a variety of agen- cies and bodies: national, regional, local, public, private, voluntary - what have you. Often,a very sensitive constellation of clearances and supports must exist before a policy can get off the ground. Thus theoret- ical and empirical contributions focussing on the relationship between the implementation process and inter-organizational co-ordination, administrative Linkages and public-private co-operation should be especially welcomed by (25) Alexander (1979) attempts the analytic approach, but his conclusions ate very tentative. - '°) sor some of these changes see fn.3. (27) The present author has undertaken empirical research where selected at- tributes of the policy in question were operationalized. The findings show that degree of flexibility is related to degree of adherence to the plan (Alterman & Hill, 1978). Rosenbaum (1980) has operationalized some of the attributes of statutes and related them to implementation. (26) = planners. (28) tn view of the difficulties in operationalizing the complex set of variables, the descriptive approaches in both theory-building and em- pirical research would probably be more suitable than the analytic approaches, in that they would attempt to encompass the entire context. However, there might also be some room for analytic studies of limited scope, focussing on a selected set of variables. Much benefit could also be drawn from prescript~ ions based on the experience of 'implementors', if tapped systematically. System Interdependencies: Undoubtedly, all programs calling for intervention into sécial and economic areas must be concerned with how the proposal affects other related areas. But urban and regional planning has made the ‘concern with interdependent systems its declared specialty. Perhaps this concern stems from the spatial dimension which defines complex internal and external relationships, thereby making planning always ‘comprehensive to a greater or lesser degree. ‘This attribute presents a difficult challenge for those seeking to develop theory and undertake research concerning implementation of planning policies. Tt would not be enough to use a single variable to denote the substantive context; rather, a combination of a policy-related variable regarding degree of comprehensive concern along with variables standing for various system contexts and relationships would have to be developed. Clearly, there is much room yet for theoretical contributions both of the descriptive and of the analytic type that would help identify the salient contextual factors. Meanwhile, in empirical research we would probably have to rely largely on the descriptive-narrative approach. Sensitivity of issues and public exposure: Insofar as planning deals with controlling the use of private land, it is concerned with a subject which has always had a special sensitive position in law and society. As a result, planning in all Western countries has dev~ eloped a tradition of placing various restrictions before policy-makers and of requiring special measures for the exposure of policies to public scrutiny. Planning policies have always been especially sensitive to inputs from the public before a plan is made and especially during the process of implement- ation, In the past decade the requirement of public exposure has been fur- ther developed into participatory planning. Therefore in developing theoty and research, special attention should be payed to the role of the various publics, the interrelationships among them, the "games" structured by the implementation process, etc. Contributions of both the theoretical~ descriptive and the analytic approach should be welcomed. Suitable appro- aches to empirical research include the descriptive-narrative (case-study) approach, whereby the complexities of influences of the various publics could be exposed, and to a lesser extent the empirical-analytic approach where selected variables pertaining to some specific part of the implement~ ation process could be operationalized. Some benefit could also be gained from prescriptions based on professional experience (28)yo¢ much work has yet been done relating various coordination mechan- iene specifically to the record of implementation. Some exceptions are Lazin (1980) who studied administrative linkages in welfare policy in Israel, Alexander (1980) who did a comparative analysis of several mod- els of coordination on a range of case-studies, and Hesse and Prunte (2979) who studied district plans in Germany.The comparative aspects of land use planning: It is an interesting fact that landuse planning is almost a universal funct- ion of local or national governments. There are also sone surprising simil- arities in mechanisms - at least as they are structured formally. O£ course, this may be the story of whether the cup is half full or half empty, and one could just. as easily focus on the differences as well - and there are of course many significant differences. This feature has been mentioned in order to point out that in the study of implementation processes in planning we potentially have a unique opportunity for comparative research. There may well be Some room for taking similar modes of planning and controls and of seeing how their implementation processes differ across socio-economic, admin= istrative and organizational contexts (Healey, 1977). Of course, one ‘should Proceed with great caution, as befitting the problems raised by comparative research. The planning profession I shall end this discussion of the features of planning with a professionally immodest claim. Urban and regional planning has a profession that is actively concerned both with the policymaking and with the implementation of policies across a wide range of levels, issues and contexts. In other areas of public policy, there is usually much greater division anong groups of professionals during the policymaking-implementation-delivery process. Rarely does a sin- gle profession encompass this full span. Does this unique several-in-one Profession, trained especially to encompass policymaking, programing, admin- istration, management and intervention, have any implications for how implem- entation proceeds and how successful it is likely to be? This is an intrigu- ing question that leads us to a direction of theorizing and of research not yet mentioned: the focus on the role of the profession and professional training in influencing the way implementation processes in urban and regional Planning are structured and how they proceed in fact. CONCLUSION Whatever direction planning theory may take in the future, the concern with improving the record of implementation is likely to be there as it has almost always been throughout planning's turbulent history. In recent years, this concern has crystallized into a more systematic focus on implementation pro- cesses, in an attempt to learn what are the factors associated with the lik- ely success or failure in the implementation of planning policies. Planners are not alone in devoting attention to implementation. Policy science has in recent years produced a considerable amount of, theoretical and empirical works directed specifically at implementation. This paper has sought to evaluate the literature emerging from general policy science ih terms of its relevance to planning. The review of the state of the art leads to the conclusion that if the field of urban and regional planning is to ben- efit from implementation analysis, there is much room yet for developing theory and empirical research directed specifically at the types of problems and contexts faced by planners. ee In its latter part, this paper has sought to provide some initial directions for such zesearch and theory-building, based on the particular features of implementation processes in urban and regional planning. The profile of planning that emerges from these features is of a complex and multi-faceted enterprise, This should make implementation analysis in planning both a Gifficult and a challenging task. But difficult as it aay be, this task is a worthwhile one in that it answers a vital, even an urgent, need. If planning is to persevere as a public function and as a profession, it would have to take better and more systematic stock of its capacity to do what it is in essence made for: to affect reality successfully so as to further planning goals and policies. And that is what implementation analysis is all about. Acknowledgements I am grateful to my colleague Professor Morris Hill who has made helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.266 R. STONEMAN Croom Helm, London EB, TEYMUR Greater London Council N. TEYMUR Polytechnic of the South Bank Michael THOMAS Oxford Polytechnic Andrew THORNLEY Polytechnic of Central London G. TSEKOURAS University of Dundee Jacky UNDERWOOD School of Advanced Urban Studies, Bristol BIBLIOGRAPHY James WELLS (S) Queen's University, Belfast R.B. WHITTLE Southampton College of Higher Education | Abrams, P. (1968). The Origins of British Sociology. The University of { Petter WIBERG Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh D. WILLIAMS (S) Newcastle University Mary WOOD Polytechnic of North London Chicago Press, Chicago/London. Ackoff, R.L. (1974). Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. John Wiley. Adey, G., and D. Frisby, (Bds.), (1976). The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. Heinemann, London. Alexander, E.) with R.M. Beckley (1975). Going It Alone? A Case Study of planning and Implementation at the Local Level. U.S. Department ‘Of Housing and Urban Development. Alexander, E., with R.M, Beckley (1979). “Policy-Planning-Implementation: the ‘Missing Link'® in New Trends in Urban Planning. In Dan Seon (Ed.), Pergamon, 1979. Mexander, E., with R.M. Beckley (1980), "Slum Rehabilitation in Israel: the Administration Institutional Context". Working Paper No. 2: Interorganizational Coordination: Framework for Comparative Case Analysis. The Samuel Neenan Institute, Technion, Israel. Alexander, E-y R. Alterman, H. Law-Yone (1979). Urban Plan Implementation: an Evaluation of the Israeli Statutory Planning System. Final Report, Ford Foundation grant, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Technion, Israel. Alexander, J.C. (1980). "Core Solidarity, Ethnic Outgroup and Social Differentiation". In J. Dofny and A. Akiwowo (1980), National and Ethnic Movements. Sage, Beverley Hills. Algie, H. (1975). Social Values, Objectives and Action. Kogan Page. Alonso, L.F., and M, Hebbert (forthcoming). “Regional Planning in Spain ‘and the Transition to Democracy". In R. Hudson, and J. Lewis Regional Planning in Europe. Pion, London. Alterman, R. (1980). “Decision-making in Urban Plan Implementation: Does the Dog Hag the Tail or the Tail Wag the Dog?". Urban Law and Policy, 3, No. 1, 41-58. Alterman, R. (1980). "A Method for Monitoring Land Use Planning Implemen- tation: A Case Study of an Israeli Statutory Plan". Paper presented at the Workshop on Strategic Planning, Delft, Holland, April 1980. Alterman, R., and M. Hill (1978). "Implementation of Urban Land Use Plans”. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44, No. 3, July: 274-285. Althuser, A. (1965). The City Planning Pr Ithica, N.Y. Althuser, A (1965). "The goals of comprehensive planning". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, August. Also in A. Faludi (Ed.) (1973)- A Reader in Planning Theory. Pergamon, Oxford. 193-209 Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx. Allen Lane, London Althusser, L., and E. Balibar (1970). Reading Capital. New Left Books, London. ambrose, P.s 2nd B. Colenutt (1973). The Property Machine. Penguin Harmondsworth. Mike YATES University of Manchester Arturo YEP-ABANTO (S) University of Edinburgh Athina YIANNAKOU (S) London School of Economics Wolf 2WIRNER Kingston Polytechnic (8) denotes “student” ss. Cornell University Press, 287288 Argyris, C. (1952). Interpersonal Competence and Organisation Effectiveness Tavistock, London. Argytis, C., and.D.A. Schon (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Prof- essional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Bachrach, P., and M.S. Baratz. “Two faces of power". American Political Science Review, 56, Also in F. Castles with others (Eds.) (1971) Decision, Organization and Society, Penguin, Harmondsworth. pp. 376-88. Bachrach, P.» and M.S. Baratz (1970). Power and Poverty, Theory and Practice. Backwell, J., and P. Dickens (1979). ‘Town Planning, Mass Loyalty and the Restructuring of Capital: The Origins of the 1947 Planning Legislation Revisited. University of Sussex, Urban and Regional Studies Working Paper No. 11. Bailey, J. (1979). Ideas and Intervention: Social Theory for Practice. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Banks, G.T. (1979). "Programme budgeting in the DHSS". In T.A. Noth (Ed.} Planning for Welfare, Social Policy and the Expenditure Process. Basil Blackwell and Martin Robertson, Oxford. Barber, B.R. (1975). "Justifying Justice: Problems of Psychology, Politics and Measurement in Rawls". InN. Daniels, (Ed.), Reading Ravis, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. . Barbancho, A.G. (1979). Disparidades Regionales y Ordenacion del Territorio. Editorial Ariel, Barcelona. Bardach, E. (1977). The Implementation Game: How a Bill Becomes Law. N.I,T. Press. Barnett, S. (1906). “Science and city suburb". In I.E. Hand (Ed.), Science in Public Affairs, London, pp. 45-74. Barrett, S.M. (1980). "Perspectives on Implementation". Paper presented for the Social Science Research Council on Central-Local Govern= ment Relationships, INLOGOV, University of Birmingham, U.K. March 14-16. Barrett, S.M., M. Boddy and M. Stewart (1978). Implementation of the Community band Scheme. School for Advanced Urban Studies, Bristol, U.K. Occasional Paper No. 3. Barrett, S., and C. Fudge (Eds.) (1981 forthcoming). Policy and Action. Methuen. Bater, H.H. (1979). The Soviet City: Ideal and Reality. Arnold, London. Batley, R. (1980). “The Political Significance of Administrative Allocat~ ion". Papers in Urban and Regional Studies. 4 pp. Batley, R., and J. Edwards (1978). The Politics of Positive Discrimination. ‘Tavistock. Bayley, G. (1979). Local Government: Is it Manageable? Pergamon, Oxford. Bedfordshire County Council (1967). Bedfordshire Brickfield. October. Bedfordshire County Council (1977). County Structure Plan. Bedfordshire County Council (1978). Minerals: Appraisal and Issues, March. Bedfordshire County Council (1979). Pollution in the Marston Vale. January. Bell, D. (1967). The End of Ideology. The Free Press, New York. - Bell, D. (1974). The Coming of Postwindustrial Society. Heinemann, London. Bennington, J. (1975). Local Government Becomes Big Business. COP Final Report: Part 2, Background Working Paper, No. 7, CDP Information and Intelligence Unit, London. Benson, J.K. (1975). "The interorganisational network on political economy Ramin. Sci. Quarterly, 20, 229-249. Berman, P, (1978). "The study of macro- and micro-implementation". Public Policy, 26, No. 2 (Spring) 157-184. Bernstein, R.J. (1978). The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. Blackwell, Oxford. palu, P. (1964). Exchange and Pover in Social Life. Wiley, New York. Block-Palsen, J., H.A. Frandsen, and M. Thing (1979). Plan-okonomi 09 folkefront. Dansk Universitets Presse, Copenhagen. Blowers, A- (1980). The Limits of Power: The Politics of Local Planning Policy. Pergamon, Oxford. Blowers, A. (1981). Much Ado About Nothing: A Case Study of Planning and Power. Paper prepared for this present conference. Boaden, N.T. (1970). Urban Policy-Making. Cambridge University Press, London. Boardman, P. (1978). The Worlds of Patrick Geddes. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Bochel, J.M., and D.T. Denver (1976). The Scottish Local Elections 1974. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh. Boguslaw, R. (1965). The New Utopians: A Study of System Design and Social Change. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Bolan, R.S. (1969). "Community decision behaviour: the culture of planning". 3. Amer. Inst. Planners, 35, 301-310. Bolan, R.S. (1980). “The practitioner as theorist: the phenomenology of the professional episode". J. Aner. Plan. Assoc., 46 (3) 261-274 Bolan, R.S., and R.L. Nuttall (1975). Urban Planning and Politics. Lexington Books. Booker, C. (1977). "Physical planning: another illusion shattered”. National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review, February, 56-64. Booth, D., and M, Jaffe (1978). "Generation and evaluation in structure planning". Town Planning Review, 49 445-458. Booth, T.A. (1979). "Forward planning of local authority Social services". In T.A. Booth (Ed.), Planning for Welfare, Social Policy and the Expenditure Process. Basil Blackwell and Martin Robertson, Oxford. Bosanquet, N. (1980). "Grim Reality". New Society, 52 (913) 17-18. Bottonore, T.B. (1966). Elites and Society. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Boyce, D.E., N. Day and C. McDonald (1970). Metropolitan Plan Making. Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia. Boyle, R.M. (1980). “EIPs: Scottish practice reviewed". JRIPI, 66 (3) 73-16. Boyle, R.M., J.M. Brand and D.M. Malone (1980). Planning Publicity and Consultation: a research report. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. . Branch, M. (1970). City Planning and Aerial Information. Harvard City ‘Planning Studies, No. 17, Harvard University Press. Branford, V. (1914). Interpretations and Forecasts. Duckworth, London. Braybrooke, D. and C.E. Lindblom (1963). A Strategy for Decision. Free Press, New York. Breugel, I. (1975). "The Marxist Theory of Rent and the Contemporary City". Political Economy and the Housing Question. Political Economy of Housing Workshop. Broadbent, T-A. (1975). An Attempt to Apply Marx's Theocy of Ground Rent to the Modern Urban Economy. C.E.S. Research Paper 17, London. Broadbent, TA. (1977). Planning and Profit in the Urban Economy. Methuen, London. Brookfield, H. (1980). "Urban Bias, Rural Bias and the Regional D: In A.D, Hirsham and others. Brothwood Report. (1960). Reort on Atmospheric Pollution in the Brick-works Valley, Bedfordshire County Council, Health Department, October - Brough, A., M.A. Parry and C.P. Whittingham (1978). "The influence of aerial pollution on crop growth". Chemistry and Industry, 21 January, pp. 51-53. Brox, 0. (1966). Hva_skjer i Nordnorge? Pax Forlag, Oslo. Brox, 0. (1971). Gengrativ planlaegning. Noréplan, Stockholm. Brox, 0. (1972). Strukturfascicmen och andra essaer. Verdandi Debatt, Lund. ension".Brysom, J.M. and A.L. Delbecq (1979). “A contingent approach to. strateg: ‘and tactics in project planning". J. Amer. Plan. Assoc. 45 tern Budge, I. (1965), "Electors' attitudes towards local government, a surve; a oe constituency". Political Studies, 13 (3), 386-92. i ie, T. and others (2972). Political Statification and Democracy. MicMillan, Bullock, C.S. IIT (1980). “The office for civil rights’ implementation of Desegregation programs in public schools", Policy Studies Journal, oe No. 4 (Sumner special issue). wapitte JB. (1967), Barty Politics in English Local Government. Longmans, Bunker, D.R. (1972). "Policy science perspectives on implementation proc- esses", Policy Sciences, 3, 71-8. Burchell, R.W. and G. Sternlieb (1978). Planning Theory in the 1980s. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. Burns, W. (1979). The Plan Making Process. Town and Country Planning Sumner School, Report of Proceedings, p.79-81. Burns, T. and G.M. Stalker (1961). The Management of Innovation. Tavistock London. : Burrell, G. and G. Morgan (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational ‘Analysis. Heinemann, London. Burton, D. and M.B. Morphy (1980). Planning, austerity and the democratic ‘prospect. Kapitalistate, 8, 67-97. Burton, J.W. (1967). Systems, States, Rules and Diplomacy. Cambridge ee Unsvensity press, Casbridge. amhis, M. . Planning Theory and Philosophy. Tavi Campbell, R. (1980). "The economic case for Bese cctael an R, Mitchinson (1980) The Roots of Nationalism. Edinburgh. Cardoso, F.H. (1980). “The originality of the copy: ECLA and the idea of development". In A.D. Hirschman and others (1980). carnon, N., M. Hill and R. Alterman (1981), Multi-Groups Integrated Eval tation: a Synthesis of Approaches to the Evaluation of Braod-Ain Peosrana Working Paper, Samuel Neenan institute, Technion, rael. carr, R. (1980). Modern Spain. University Press, Oxford. Castells, M. (1973). he Urban Question. MacMillan, London. Castells, M. (1978). City, Class and Power. MacMillan, London. Castells, M. and Godard (1973). Nonopolville - 1'Enterprise, 1'Btat Livrbain. Moiton, Paris. . Castells, M: (1976). Theoretical propositions for an experimental study of urban social movements. In C.G. Pickvance (G8.) Urban Sociology. critical Essays, Tavistock, London. Castells, M. (1977). "Towards a political urban sociology". In M. Harloe, (Ed.), Captive Cities: Studies in the Political Economy of Cities and Regions. Wiley, London. cawson, A. (1977). Envixonmental Planning and the Politics of Corporatisn. university of Sussex, Urban and Regional Studies Working Paper, No.7- Centre for Environmental Studies (1975). Aspects of Structure Planning ‘in Britain. CES Research Paper so. 20. London. centre for Environmental Studies (1970). The LOGIMP Experiment. Information Paper No. 25. London. Chambliss, W.J. (1979). "Contradictions and conflicts in law creation". In Research in Law and Society, 2, 3-27. Chase, G. (1979). “Implementing a human services program: how hard will it be?", Public Policy, 27, No. 4, 385-435. child, J. (1969). British Management Thought. Allen and Unwin, London. Child, J, (1973). "Strategies of control and organizational behaviour". Administrative Science Quarterly, (March). Glementa; B. (o7e) Fold ticet 20meet en Fra eee err cae Government Studies, 2 (2), 39-52.” clowara, K-he; and FoF. Piven (1974). The Politics of turmoil. New York. cockburn, C. (1977). ‘The Local State. Pluto Press, London- Collins, C.A. (1978). "Considerations on the social background and motivat~ ieia Ge councillors". Policy and Politics, § (4), 425-447. collins, N., C.R. Hinings and K. Walsh (1978). “he officer and the council- ioc in Local Government”. Public Administration Sulletiny 28, 34-50, committee on Inquiry in Local Government Finance (1976). Reporty ‘cmnd.6453+ HMSO, London. connerton, P. (1980). The Tragedy of Enlightenment. university Press, cambridge. corringan, P. and P. Leonard (1978). Social Work Practice under Capitalism. MacMillan, London. Coughlin, R.E., and?. Plant (1978). “Successful phan implementation: the growth phasing program of Sacramento County" « Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44, No« 4, 412~423- cers (Central Policy Review Staff) (1977), Relations Betveen Central Govern ment and Local Authorities. HMSO, London. crener and Warner (1979 a and b) ‘The environnental assessment of the existing and proposed brickworks in the Marston Vale, Bedfordshire’. = 1979a General Appraisal. ~ 1979b Main Report. Prepared for Bedfordshire County Council by Cremer and Warner, Consulting Engineers and Scientists. crenson, M.A. (1971). ‘The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: —A study of Non- ‘Decisionmaking in the Cities. The Johns Hopkins Presse Baltimore. crosiard, -hcR. (1967)- The Future of Socialisa. Jonathan Cape) London. eee, R, (1975). ‘The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister. Volume one. _Min~ iter of Housing 1964-66. Hamish Hamilton and Jonathan Cape,London. CSE State Apparatus and Expenditure Group, (1979). Strugale over the State. CSE, London. cullingvorth, J.B. (1975). Reconstruction and Lané Use Planning, 1939-1947. HMSO, London. pahl, 2-A. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Pover_in an American City. ‘yale University Press, New Haven. bakin, AJ. (1979). Feedback from Tomorrow. Pion, London Darke, R. (1979). "Public participation and state powers the case of South Yorkshire”. Policy and Politics, 7 (4) 337-355- parke, Re (1980), “Joint review of J. Bailey (1980). Tdeas and Interventions oP camnis (1979), Planning theory and Philosophy". ints J. urb. and Reg. Res. 4 (3), 429-431- parke, R. and R-A. Walker (Eds.) (1977). Local Government and_the Public. Leonard Hill, London- pavidoff, P. and T.A. Reiner (1962). "A choice theory of planning". Journal ve the anerican Institute of Planners, 28, May. Also in As Faludi (ed.) (1973) A Reader_in Planning Theory, Perganon,Oxfordy pp.11-39. pavidoff, P. (1965). “Advocacy and pluralism in planning”. Jnl. Am. Inst. Plan. 31, November. pavidofé, P. (1978). "The redistributive function ia planning: creating greater equity among citizens of communities’. 7p R.W. Burchell ore G. Sternlieb, Planning Theory in the 1980s (Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick~ ‘pp-69-72. pavies, 3.6. (1972). The Evangelistic Bureaucrat: A Study of a Planning ‘Guercise in Newcastle upon Tyne. Tavistock, London. pearlove, 3 (1973). ‘The Politics of Policy in Local Government. Cambridge University Press, London. Pantheon,Dearlove, J. (1979).. The Reorganisation of British Local Government Old Qrthodoxies and a Political Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Denman, D. (1980)... Land in a Free Society. Centre for Policy studies,-London, Dennis, N. (1970). People and Planners. Faber and Faber, Londone jie Dennis, N. (1972). Public Participation and Planners’ Blight, Faber, London. Denyer, C.H., and I.E. Hand. (1906). "Science and physical development In I.E. Hand (Ed.), Science and Public Affairs. London. ppsl=44- Department of the Environment, (1980). Air Pollution in the Bedfordshire Brickfields. Report by Directorate of Noise, Clean Air and.waste. Derthick, M. (1972). New Towns in Town. The Urban Institute. Derthick, M. (1974). Between State and Nation: Regional or. anisat ions fof the U.S. Brookings Institute, Washington D.C. Dewey, J., and J.H. Tufts (1932). Ethics. Henry Holt, New York. Dickinson, R.E. (1974). Regional Concept: _the Anglo-American Leaders. London. Donnison, D. (1980). The Good City. Heinemann, London. R.Thompson and J. Thornley (1975). Drake, M., B. McLoughlin, Aspects of Structure Planning. CES Research Paper 20, Centre for Environ= mental Studies. eee, Drucker, P. (1954). The Practice of Management. Harper, New York. ee Druet, P.P., P. Kemp and G. Thill (1980). Heninod et teknologisk demokrati. Lindhardt og Ringhof, Copenhagen. Dunkerley, H.B., A.A. Walters, J.M. Courtney, W.A. Doebele, D.C. Sharp and M.D. Rivkin (1978). Urban Land Policies and Opportunities. World Bank, New York. Dunleavy, P.J. (1980). Urban Political Analysis. MacMillan, London. Dunleavy, P.J. (1977). "Protest. Quiescence in urban politics. A critique of some pluralist and structuralist myths. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1, No.2. ‘ Dunsire, A. (1973). Administration: The Word and the Science. Martin Robertson, London. Dunshire, A. (1978). The Executive Process. Vol. 1: Implementation in a Bureaucracy. Martin Robertson, Oxford. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Duckworth, London. Dyckman, J.W. (1966). “Social planning, social planners and planned societies". Jnl. Am. Inst. Plan., 32 66-76. Dyckman, J.W. (1978). "Three crises of American Planning". and G. Sternlieb. pp.279-296. Eagleton, T. (1980). “How.the critical revolution started rolling". Higher Education Supplement No. 411, p.9. Edelman, M. (1977). Political Language. Words that succeed and policies that fail. Academic Press, New York. Edwards, G.C.III. (1980). Implementing Public Policy. Quarterly Press, Washington D.C. Edwards, M. (1980). "Notes for the analysis of land use planning". Proceedings of the Pirst Bartlett Summer School 1979. University College, London. Elkin, S. (1974)... Politics and Land Use Planning. Press, London. Ellman, M. (1978). "The fundamental problems of socialist planning". Oxford Economic Papers, 30 249-262. Emery, P. and E Trist (1965). "The causal texture of organisational, envir- onments". Human Relations, 18 21-32. Engels, F. (1962, Ist edition 1844). The condition of the Working Class _in England ~ Preface to the English Sdition. In Frederick Engels Selected Works in two volumes. Moskow. Esser, J., F. Naschold, and W. Vath (1972). Gesellschaftsplanung und Welt- dynamik. In J. Esser, F. Naschold and W. Vath (Eds.), Gesellsch- aftsplanung in kapitalistischen und sozialistischen systemen. Bertelsmann, Guterstok. In R.W.Burchell Times Congressional Cambridge University Etzioni, A. (1967). "Mixed-scanning: a ‘third’ approach to decision- making". Public Administration Review, December. Also in A, Faludi (£4.) (1973), A Reader in Planning Theory. Pergamon Oxford. Etzioni, A. (1968). The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes. The Free Press, New York. "Economics and planning". In J. Forbes (Ed.) Studies Evans, A.W. (1974) Scottish Academic Press, in Social Science and Planning. Edinb urgh. pp.81-99. Bversley, D.E.C., and M. Moody (1976). ‘The Growth of Planning Research Since the Early 1960s. SSRC, London. Expertgruppen for Regional Utredningsverksamhet, ERU (1974). Ortsbundna lemnadsvilkar. Statens Offentliga Utredningar, Stockholn. Fagence, M. (1977). Citizen Participation in Planning. Pergamon, Oxford. Faludi, A. (1973a). A Reader in Planning Theory. Pergamon, Oxford. Faludi, A. (1973b). Planning Theory. Perganon, Oxford Faludi, A, (1978b). "The experiences of sociologists in their collaboration with planners". In Essays in Planning Theory and Education, pp. 103-118. Faludi, A, (1978a). "The "specialist" versus ‘generalist’ conflict 1963- 1965". In Essays in Planning Theory and Education. Pergamon, Oxford. pp.27-48. Fay, B. (1975). Social Theory and Political Practice. Allen and Unwin. Fernandez, T.R. (Ed.) (1977). Las Autonomias Regionales: aspectos politicos yjuridicos. Instituto Nacional de Prospectia, Madrid. Fesler, I. (1965). “Approaches to the understanding of decentralisation". Journal of Politics, 27, 3, 536-566 Firn, J.R., and D. Maclennan (1979). "Devolution: the changing political economy of regional policy". In D. Maclennan and J.B. Parr Regional Policy. Martin Robertson, Oxford. Fishman, R. (1977). Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century. New York. Floyd, J. (1977). "Creation of planning ideology: fads and fashions from high rise to local plans". Built Environment, 3, 155-160. Plynn, R. (1979). Urban Managers in Local Government Planning. Final Report to SSRC. Flynn, R, (1979). “Managing Consensus: in Planning". CES Conference: Urban Change and Conflict, Nottingham, Basic Books, The Infrastructure of Policy-making Plyvbjerg, B. (1979). "Evaluering i samfundsplanlaegningen". Tidsskriftet for Kritisk Geografi og Samfundsplanlaegning, nr. 6. Geografisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet. Flyvbjerg, B., and J.C. Tonboe (1979). ningen". Byplan, No.4. Flyvbjerg, B., and V.C, Petersen (1981). Towards a materialistic concept of planning. Mimeographed paper, Geografisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet. Foley, D.C..(1960). "British town planning: one ideology or three?" British Journal of Sociology, 11, reprinted as pp.69-93 of A. Faludi, (Ed.) (1973), A Reader in Planning Theory, Pergamon, Oxford. Foley,:D.L. (1964). “An approach to metropolitan spatial structure". In M.M. Webber with others, Explorations into Urban Structure. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Forester, J. (n.cs). Extending Marx: Practice before Praxis in Habermas* Critical Theory. Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning (Mimeo 9 pp.) “Vilkarlige levevilkar i planlaeg- Prope 00Keee Forester, J. (1979). “Questioning and shaping attention as planning strategy: toward a critical theory of planning". Department of City and Regional Planning, Working Paper 7. Cornell University, Ithica, New York. Forester, J. (1980a). “Critical theory and planning practice". Journal of the American Planning Association, 46, 275-286... Forester, J. (1960b). "Critical reason and political power in project review activity. Serving freedom in planning and public administration". Paper given to the National Conference of the American Society for Public Administration, April 13-16, 1980. (Mimeo 33 pp.) Foster, C.D. (1973). "Planning and the market". In P. Cowan (Ed.), The Future of Planning. pp.132-165. . Heinemann, London. Freddi, G. (1980). "Regional devolution, administrative decentralisation and bureaucratic performance in Italy". Policy and Politics, 8.4, 383-398. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Friedmann, J. (1969). “Notes on societal action". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 311-318. Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: a theory of transactive planning. Anchor Press/Doubleday, New York. Friedmann, J., and B. Hudson (1974). "Knowledge and action: a guide to planning theory". Jnl. Am. Inst. Plan., 40 (1) January. Friedmann, J., and M. Douglas (1978). "Agropolitan Development". In P. Lo and K. Salih (Eds.) (1978), Growth Poles and Regional Development Policy: -Asian Experiences and Alternative Strategies. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Friedmann, J., N. Gardels, and A. Pennink (1980). “The politics of space: five centuries of regional development in Mexico". International . Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 4, 3, 319-349. Friedmann, J. (1978). “Innovation: flexible response and social learning: a problem in the theory of meta-planning". In R. Burchell and G. Sternlieb, (Eds.), Planning Theory in the 1980s. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick. Friedmann, J. (1979). "On the contradiction between city and countryside". In H. Folmer and J. Oosterhaven, (Eds.) Spatial Inequalities and Regional Developnent. Nijhoff, The Hague. Friedmann, J., and W. Alonso, (Bds.) (1975). Regional Policy: Readings in ‘Theory and Application. Friedmann, J., and W. Alonso, (Eds.) (1964). Regional. Development and Planning. 5 Friedmann, J-, and C. Weaver (1979). Tercitory and, Function - The Evolution of Regional Planning. Arnold, London. Friedmann, J. and R. Wolff (1976). The Urban Transition: Comparative Studies of Newly industrialised societies. London. Friend, J.K., and W.N. Jessop (1969). Local Government and Strategic Choice. Tavistock, London. . Friend, J.K., M. Norris and K. Carter (1978). Regional Planning and Policy Change. Department of the Environment, London. Friend, J.K., J.t. Power and C.J.u, Yewlett (1974). Public Planning: The Intercorporate Dimension. Tavistock, London. Friend, J. (1980). “Planning in a multi-organisational context": | Town Planning Review, 51 (3) 261-269. E Friend, J. (1976). "Planners and organisational. boundaries". Policy and Politics 5, 25-46. : Frisby, P. (1972). “The popper-advano controversy"....In Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 2, pp. 105-119. Galloway, T.D., and R.G. Mahayni (1977). “Planning theory in retrospect+ ‘the process of paradigm change". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 43, 1, 62-71. (1968). People and Plans. New York, Basic Books, 1972. {Abridged edition - Penguin, Harmondsworth). Garcia, Delgado, J.L. (Ed.) (1979). La Economia Asturiana ante 1a Autonomia Regional. Confederacion Espanol de Cajas de Ahorros. Geddes, M. (1980). "The role of the state in regional development. The iighlands and Islands Development Board". Paper to the Development Studies Annual Conference. University College of Swansea. Geddes, P. (1509). "Note on town planning". In Sociological Reviews 2 80-84. Geddes, P. (1926). "The making of our coal future". Sociological Review, 18, July 178-85. George, V., and P. Wilding. (1976) Ideology and Social Welfare. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Geras, N. (1972). Marx and the Critique of Political Economy. In R.Blackburn (Ed.), Ideology in Social Science. Giddens, A. (1976). The New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson, London. Gillingvater, D., and D, Hart (1978). The Regional Planning Process. Saxon House, Farnborough, Hants. Gimenez, A. and others (1978). La descentralizacion fiscal frente a la Grisis economica - aspectos economicos de las elecciones municipales Yde 1as autonomias regionales. Blume Ediciones, Madrid. Ginsburg, N. (1979). Class, Capital and Social Policy. MacMillan, London- Glass, R. (1959). "The Evaluation of planning: some sociological consider~ ations". International Social Science Journal, 11, 3; reprinted : in A. Faludi (Ed.) (1973) A Reader in Planning Theory, Pergamon, oxford. Glass, R. (1977). “Verbal pollution: review of M. Castells 'The Urban Question’, and M. Harloe (Ed.) ‘Captive Cities’. New Society, 29th Sept. 667-669. Glazer, N. (1974). “The schools of the minor professions". Minerva, 12, 3 (July) 346-364. Glennerster, H. (1979). "The determinants of public expenditure". In T.A. Booth (&d.), Planning for Welfare, Social Policy and the Expendit~ ure Process. Basil Blackwell and Martin Robertson, Oxford. Glennerster, H. (1980). "Prime cuts: public expenditure and social Services planning in a hostile.environment".. Policy and Politics, 8 (4), 367-382. Godschalk, DR. (£d.), (1974). Planning America: Learning from Turbulence. American Institute of Planners, Washington D.C. Goldsmith, M. (1980). "The changing system of English Local Government”. In J. Lagroye and V. Wright (Eds.), Local Government in Britain and France. Allen and Unwin, London. Goodman, R. (1971). After the Planners. Simon and Schuster, New York. Goodin, R.E. (1976). The Politics of Rational Man. John Wiley, London. Gorz, A. (1979). Qkologiog frihed. Politisk Revy, Viborg. Gorz, A. (1980). Abschied vom Proletariat. Europaische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main. cottmarn, J. (Ed.) (1980). Centre and Periphery. Sage, Farnborough. Gough, I. (1979). The Political Economy of the Welfare State. MacMillan, Gans, H, London. ‘ Gouldner, A.W. (1976)... The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology. MacMillan, London. Gourevitch, P. (1978)..,."Reforming the Napoleonic State - the creation of regional governments in France and Italy". In S. Tarrow and others (2980) .296 Grabow, S. and A. Heskin (1973). “Foundations for a radical concept of planning". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39, 2, 106-114. eo es Gramsci, A, (1971). Prison Notebooks. Lawrence and Wishart, London. Green, D.G. (1980). “Inside local government: a study of a ruling Labour group". Local Government Studies, 6, 1, 33-49. Greenwood, R., and C.R. Hinings (1977). “The study of Local Government: towards an organisational analysis". Public Administration Bulletin, 23, 2-14. Greenwood, R. and C.R. Hinings (1976). "Contingency theory and public bureaucracies". Policy and Politics, 5, 159-180. Gyford, J. (1976). Local Politics in Britain. Croom Helm, London. Gyfora, J. (1978). Town Planning and the Practice of Politics. Discussion Paper No. 29, University College of London, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning. Haar, C.M. (1956). "The content of the general plan: a glance at history". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 21, 66-70. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Heinemann, London. Habermas, J. (1971). Toward a Rational Society. Heinemann, London. Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and Practice. Heinemann, London. Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation Crisis. Heinemann, London. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Heinemann, London. Habermas, J. (1973). ‘Technick und Wissenschaft als "Ideologie". Subrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Hadden, S. (1980). “Controlled decentralisation and policy implementation". In M. Grindle (Ed.) (1980), Politics and Policy Implementation in the Third World Hague, C. (1976). A Materialist Analysis of Planning Education. Paper prepared for the Planning Theory Workshop of the Education for Planning Association, Polytechnic of Central London. Hall, P. (1981). "Issues for the eighties". The Planner, 67, ly 4-5. Hall, P., R. Thomas, H. Gracey and R. Drewett (1973). The Containment of Urban England. PEP, London. : Hambleton, R. (1978). Policy Planning and Local Government. Hutchinson, London. Hambleton; R., M. Stewart and J. Underwood (1980). Inner Cities: Manage- ment and Resources. SAUS Working Paper 13. Hambleton, R. (1981). “Policy planning systems and implementation: some implications for planning theory". Paper presented at the confer- ence on Planning Theory in the 1980's, held at Oxford Polytechnic, U.K. April. Hambleton, R. (1981). “Implementing inner city policy". Policy and Politics, al. Hampton, W. (1970). Democracy and Community. Oxford University Press, London. : Hargrove, 2.C. (1975). The Missing Link: “the study of the Implementation of Social Policy, The Urban Institute, Washington. Harloe, M. (19) ntroduction". In M. Harloe (Ed.), Captive Cities. Wiley, London. Harris, N. (1972). Competition and the Corporate Society. Methuen, London. Harrison, A.J. (1977). Economics and Land Use Planning. “London. Hartman, C.W. (1978). "Social planning and the political planner". In R. Burchell and G. Stenlieb (Fds.), Planning Theory in the 1980s. University of New Jersey, Rutgers. Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. Arnold, London. Harvey, D. (1974). Class Monopoly Rent, Finance Capital and the Urban Revolution. Regional Studies, Vol. 8. Harvey, D. (1980). "On Planning the Ideology of Planning." In R. Burchell ‘and G. Sternlieb (Eds.). Hayek, FeA. (1976a). The Road to Serfdom. Routledge and Kegan, London. First published 1944. Hayek, F.A. (1976). Individualism and Economic Order. Routledge and Kegan, London. First published 1949. Haynes, P.A. (1974). “Toward a concept of monitoring", own Planning Review, January 6-29. Heald, D. (1979). The Scottish Rate Support Grant. Paper at PSA Conference on Scottish/English Local Government, University of Strathclyde. Healey, P. (1976). "The Content of a Planning Theory Course", in Oxford Polytechnic. Seminar Papers: The Content of a Planning Theory Course. Oxford Working Paper No. 25, Oxford. Polytechnic. Healey, P. (1977). "A Comparative Analysis of Government Land Use Policies". Unpublished paper. Healey, P. (1979). "On implementation: some thoughts on the issues raised by planners’ current interest in implementation". In Implenentat- ion - Views from an Ivory Tower. Dept. of Town Planning Working Paper No. 43, pp. 2-15, Oxford Polytechnic. Healey, P., G. McDougall, and M.J. Thomas (1981). "Theoretical Debates in i Towards a Coherent Dialogue". Position paper for Planning Theory in the 1980s Conference, Oxford. Healey, P., and J. Underwood (1979). Professional Ideals and Planning Progress in Planning, 9 (2). Pergamon, Oxford. Healy, R.J. (1969). Emergency and Disaster Planning. Wiley, New York. Hearn, J. (1980). "Welfare ideology and the justification of cuts". Bulletin on Social Policy, No. 7, 43-50. Hearn, J., and P. Hitch (1977). "The cuts game". Society for Academic ‘Gaming and Similation in Education and Training Journal, 7, (1), 3-8. Hearn, J., and I. Roberts (1976). "Planning under difficulties: the move to decrementalisn". In K. Jones (Ed.), The Yearbook of Social Policy in Britain 1975. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Hearn, J. (1981). “Decrementalism: the Practice of Cuts and the Theory of Planning". Paper for the Planning Theory Conference, Oxford. Hebbert, M. (1976). "Four approaches to the planning theory syllabus". In P. Healey, M. Hebbert and S. Hopkins (Eds.), The Content of a Planning Theory Course, Dept. of Town Planning Working Paper No. 25, Oxford Polytechnic. pp.160-168. Hebbert, M. (1977). The Evaluation of British Town and Country Planning. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Reading. Heberle, R. (1943). "Regionalism: some critical observations". Social Forces, 21, 280-266. Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology. Harper and Row, New York. Held, D. (1980). Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Hutchinson, London. Henmens, G.C. (1980), "New directions in planning theory: introduction” Journal of the American Planning Association, 46, 3, 259-260. Henmens, G.C. and B. Stiftel (1980). “Review essay: sources for the renewal of planning theory". Journal of the American Planning Association, 46, 3, 341-345. Hennock, E.P. (1973). Fit and Proper Persons. Edward Arnold, London. Heraud, B.J. (1973). "Professionalism,radicalism and social change". In P. Halmos (Ed.), Professionalisation and Social Change. Soc. Rev. Monograph No. 20, University of Keele. pp. 85-102. Hesse, J. and V.A. Prunte (1979). “Implementation of district plans in Germany". Paper presented at the OECD conference on Improving Implementation in Urban Management, Milton Keynes, U.K. July-Hicks, J-R. (1939). “The foundations of welfare economics". Economic Journal 44. Hill, D.M. (1979). "Evaluation in policy-making: the case of structure planning". Public Administration Bulletin, 30, 23-46. Hill, M.J. and others (1979). "Implementation and the Central-Local Relat- ionship". In Central-Local Government Relationships, SSRC. Hjern, B., and D.O. Porter (1981). “Implementation structure: a new unit of administrative analysis". Organization Studies, No. 1. Hirsch, F. (1977). Social Limits to Growth. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Hirschmann, A.D. and others (1980). Toward a New Strategy of Development. Pergamon Press, New York. Hirson, B. (1979). "Year of fire, year of ash, the Soweto revolt: roots of a revolution?" Zed Press, London. MSO (1972). Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1972. HMSO, London. Hoffmeyer, B., and E. Olsen (1962). Okonomisk velfaerdsteori. In E. Hoff- meyer, Velfaerdsteori og velfaerdsstat. Berlingske, Copenhagen. Hogwood, B. (1979). The tartan fringe: quangos and other assorted animals in Scotland. studies in Public Policy, 34. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Holland, S. (Ed.) (1978). Beyond Capitalist Planning. Blackwell, Oxford. Holloway, J. and S. Picciotto (1978). State and Capital. A Marxist Debate. Edward Arnold, London. Holloway, J. and S. Picciotto (1978). “Introduction: towards a materialist theory of the state". In Holloway and Picciotto (Eds.) State and Capital. Edward Arnold, London. Howe,E. and J. Kaufman (1979). “The ethics of contemporary American planners". J. Amer. Plan. Assoc. 45, (3), 243-255. Hudson, B.M, (1979). "Comparison of current planning theories: counterparts ‘and contradictions. J. Amer. Plan. Assoc., 45 (4). Huxley, A. (1977). Brave New World. Granada Publishing, London. Huxley, A. (1965). Brave New World Revisited. Harper and Row, New York. Tor, (1978). The Future of Regional Reports. SDD, Edinburgh. Isard, W. (1979). *Notes on the origins, development and future of regional science". Regional Science Association Papers, 43, 9-22. Jackson, R.J. (1976). "Crisis management and policy-making: an exploration ‘Of theory and practice". In R. Rose (Ed.), The Dynamics of Public Policy: A Comparative Analysis. Sage, London. gJavaloys, J. (1978). La Autonomia Regional, solucion o problema? Baitiones ECI, Madrid. Jay, A. (1970). Management and Machiavelli...Penguin, Harmondsworth. Johansson, S. (1970). Om levnadsnivaundersokningen. Liber, Stockholm. Jones, G.W. (1969). Borough Politics. MacMillan, London. Jones, G.W. (1975). “Varieties of local politics". Local Government Studies, 2, (2)- Jones, G.¥. and A. Northon (Bds.), (1978).° Political Leadership in Local ‘Authorities.. INLOGOV, Birmingham. ¥ gones, P. (1979). Socialist Politics and the Conditions of Denocratic Rules? Notes on Marxism and Strategies of Democratisation. Tn A. Hunt (Ea.), Marxism and Democracy. Journal of the American Institute of Planners (1925) Architecture and Broad Planning. June issue, Papers by Munford, Bigger, Unwin. Kahn, A.J. (1966). Theory and Practice of Social Planning. Russel Sage Foundation, New York. Kalba, K. (1974). "Post~industrial planning: a review forward". SIP Journal, 40, °(3), May. Kaldor, N. (1934). "Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility". Economic Journal, 49. Kane-Berman, J. (1978). Soweto: Black Revolt, Whité Action. Ravan Press, Johannesburg. Kaplan, M. (1973). Urban Planning in the 1960's: A Design for Irrelevancy. Praeger, New York. Keating, K. (1979): The Scottish Office - Some Issues for Discussion. Paper at PSA Conference on Scottish/English Local Government. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Keith-Lucas, B., and P.G. Richards (1978). A History of Local Government in the Twentieth Century. Allen and Unwin, Longon. Kellas, J.G. (1980). "Political science and Scottish politics". Br. J. of Pol. Sev, 10, (3), 365-379. Kemp, R. (1980). "Planning, legitimation, and the development of nuclear energy". International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 4, 350-371. Kemp. R. (forthcoming). “Planning, public hearings and the politics of dis~ course". In J. Forester (Ed.), Critical Theory and Public Policy. Kennedy, I. (1980). "Reith Lectures". ‘The Listener, November 6 - December a. Keynes, J.M. (1926). ‘The End of Laissez-faire. Hogarth Press, London. Keynes, J.M. (1954). General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. MacMillan, London, First published 1936. Kirk, G. (1980). Urban Planning in a Capitalist Society. Croom Helm, London. Kogan, M. and van der Eyken (Eds.) (1973). County Hall: the Role of the Chief Education Officer. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Kreiger, J. (1979). "British colliery closure programmes in the north east: from paradox to contradiction". In I.G. Cullen (Ed.), Analysis and Decision in Regional Policy. Pion, London. Krieger, M. (1974). “Some new directions for planning theories". Jnl. Am. Inst. Plan., 40, (3), 156-163. Korsch, (1935). “Why T ama Marxist". Marxist Quarterly. Kuenzlen, M. (1922). Playing Urban Games: the Systems Approach to Planning. Boston ~ in press. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago Univ- ersity Press. Kuklinski, A. (Ed.) (1975). Regional Development and Planning: Internat~ ional Perspectives. Sijthoff, Leyden. Lamarche, F. (1976). “Property development and the economic foundations of the urban question". In C. Pickvance (Ed.). Larson, J.S. (1980). Why Government Programs Fail: Improving Policy Imp- lementation. Praeger, New York. Lazon, F. (1980). The Effect of Administrative Linkages on Implementation: Welfare Policy in Israel". Unpublished paper. Lebas, B. (1980). "Some comments on a decade of Marxist urban and regional research in France". Housing, Construction and the State. Pol- itical Economy of Housing Workshop. Lee, J.M. (1963). Social Leaders and Public Policy. Oxford University Press, London. Lefeber; Li (1975). "National planning and regional decentralisation". In ~" Nuklinski (Ba.), Regional Development and Planning, Sithoff, Leyden. Leigh, A. (1974). "A 10-year look into the Future". The Observer, 6 October. Lenin, Y.I. (1974)<- "Staten och revolutionen". In V.I. Lenin, Valda Verk. Arbetarkulturs Forlag, Stockholm. Leung, H.L, (1979)- Redistribution of Land Values: A Re-examination of the 1947 Scheme. Dept. of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Lewin, W. (1967). Planhushaliningsdebatten. Almgvist and Wiksell, Stockholm. Lewis, J. and R. Flynn (1979). “The Implementation of Urban and Regional Planning Policies". Policy and Politics, Vol. 7 (2) PP. 123-142.eae Lewis, J. and B. Melville (1978). "The politics of epistemology in regional science". In P.W.J. Batey (Ed.), Theory and Method in Urban and Regional Analysis. Pion, London. Lewontin, R., and R. Levins (1976). “The problem of Lysenkoism". In H. Rose and S. Rose (Eds.), The Radicalisation of Science. MacMillan. Lichfield, N. (1979). “A framework for plan implementation". Paper present~ ‘ed at the OECD Conference on Improving Implementation in Urban Management, Milton Keynes, U.K., July. Lichfield, N., and H. Darin-Drabkin (1980). Land Policy in Planning. George Allen and Unwin, London. Lindblom, C.E. (1965). The Intelligence of Democracy. Free Press, New York. Lindblom, C.E. (1973). “The science of muddling through". In A. Faludi (Ed.), A Reader in Planning Theory. Pergamon, Oxford. pp. 151-169. Lippman, W. (1937). The Good Society. Little, Brown & Co., Boston. London Brick Company, (1980). Brickworks Redevelopment Plan. Assessment and Implications of the Cremer and Warner Report. London Edinburgh Weekend Return Group, (1979). In and Against the State. Pluto, London. , T. (1969). The End of Liberalism. Norton, New York. Low: Lubove, R. (1963). Community Planning in the 1920s. University of Pittsburgh. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. MacMillan, London. Lyédon, D.W.C, (1980. "Scottish planning in practice - 2: influences and comparisons". JRTPI, 66, (3), 66~67. MacDonnell, K. (2978). "Ideology, crisis and the cuts". Capital and Class, 4 34-69. Mackay, D. (Ed.), (1977). Scotland 1980: The Economics of Self-Government. Edinburgh. MacLennan, D., and J.B. Parr (Bds.), (1979). Regional Policy, Past Exper~ ience and New Directions. Martin Robertson, London. McAuslan, P. (1980). The Ideologies of Planning Law. Pergamon, Oxford. McAuslan, J.P.W.B., and R.G. Bevan, (1977). “The influence of officers and councillors on procedures in planning". Local Government Studies, 3, (3), 7-22. McConaghy, D. (1981). "Planning in the critical decade". RTPI, $7. (1), 8-0. McDougall, G. (1979). "State, capital and land: the history of town planning revisited". International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 3, No.1. McDougall, G. (1979). "Ideas out of work: the case of procedural planning theory". SIP Conference Paper. McDougall, G. (1979). “Social planning implementation: the need for theor- etical practice". In Implementation: Views from an Ivory Tower, oxford Polytechnic, W.P. No. 43, pp. 20-29. Mackay, D.I. (Bd.), (1979). Scotland: The Framework for Change. Paul Harris, Edinburgh. vy and A.W. Cox (1979). The Politics of Urban Change. Croom Helm, London. ae 5 MacKenzie, W.J-M., (1961). "Theories of local government". Greater London papers, No. 2, London School of Economics and Political Science. McKeown, ¥. (1980a). "The epistemiological foundation of the urban sociology Of Manuel Castells: a critique". Scottish Journal of Socioloay, 4, 1 (anuary), 27-36. McKeown, K. (1980b). “"The urban sociology of Manuel Castells: a critical examination of the central concepts". Economic and Social Review, LL, 4 (July), 257-280. McLoughlin, J.B. (1965). "The planning profession: new directions". Jnl. Town Plan. Inst.» 51). 6, 258-61. © Magee, B. (1978). Hen of Ideas, BBC, London. Mckay, D. Mannheim, K. (1940). Man_and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. Kegan Paul, London. Manning, Did. (1968). The Mind of Jeremy Bentham. Longmans, London. Manor, ¥., and G. Sheffer (1977). "Can planning be salvaged?" Public Administration, 55, Summer. Marcuse, H. (1968). One-dimensional Man. Sphere Books, London. Marx, K. (1970). Capital. Lawrence and Wishart, London. Masser, I. (1980). “Some dilemmas of urban planing". Town_and Regional Planning Working Paper No. 22, University of Sheffield. Masser, I. (1980)- “The limits to planning". ‘own Planning Review, 51, - 39649. Massey, D.W. (1980). “Inter-organisational relationships: a postscript". ‘Town Planning Review, 51, (3), 337-338. Massey, D., and A. Catalano (1978). Capital and Land: Landownership by Capital in Great Britain. Edward Arnold, London. Masuch, M. (forthcoming). Kritiek der Planung. Mayer, R., R. Moroney and R. Morris (1974). Centrally Planned Change: a re-examination of theory and experience. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Merrett, S. (1979). State Housing in Britain. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Meyer, N.I., K.H. Petersen and V. Sorensen (1978). Opror fra midten. Gyldendal, Copenhagen. Mertins, H., and B. Gross, (Eds.) (1971). “Changing styles of planning in post-industrial America - a symposiun". Public Administration Review, 31, 3, 253-399. Meyerson, M., and E.C. Banfield (1955). Politics, Planning and the Public Interest - The Case of Public Housing in Chicago. The Free Press of Glencoe, Glencoe. Ill. Michael, D. (1973). On Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn: The Social Psychology of Changing Toward Future-responsive Societal Learning. Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Michael, D. (1974). "Speculations on future planning process theory". In D. Godschalk (Ed.), Planning in America: Learning from Tur~ bulence. American Institute of Planners, Washington D.C. Midwinter, A.P. (1978). “The implementation of the Paterson Report in Scottish local government’ Local Government Studies, 4, (1) 23-38. Midwinter, A.F. (1978a). “Policy planning units in Scottish local govern- ment”. Public Administration Bulletin, 28, 73-90. Midwinter, A.P. (1979). The Scottish Office and Local Authority Financial Planning. Paper at PSA Conference on Scottish/English Local Government, University of Strathclyde. Minay, C. (1979). “Four types of planning implementation". In Implementation: Views from an Ivory Tower. Dept. of Town Planning W.P. No. 43, pp. 42-57, Oxford Polytechnic. Minhas, B.S. (1980). "The current development debate". In A.D. Hirschman, and others (1980). Mises, R. von (1968). Positivism. Dover Publications, New York. Mishen, £.J. (1960), "A survey of welfare economics". The Economic Journal, LEX. Mitchinson, R. (Ed.),(1980). ‘The Roots of Nationalism. John Donald, Edinburgh. Mollenkopf, J. (1975). "The postwar politics of urban development". Politics and Society, 5. Monahan, 3. (1976). "Up against the planners in Covent Garden". In P. Hain (B4.), Community Politics. John Calder, London. Montjoy, R., and L.J. O'Toole Jr. (1979). "Toward a theory of policy implem- entation, an ‘organization perspective". Public Administration Review, September-October. pp. 465-476.302 Moore, T.R. (1978). “Why allow planners to do what they do? A justification from economic theory". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, (October), 387-398. Moore, N., and S. Leach (1979). “An interaction approach to county/district relationships". Policy and Politics, 7, (3), 271-297. Morley, D., M. Proudfoot and T. Burns (1980). Making Cities Work. . Croom Helm, London. Muchnick, D.A. (1970). Urban Renewal in Liverpool: A Study of the Politics ‘of Redevelopment. Occasional Papers on ‘Social Administration, No. 33. Bell, London. Muller, J.G. (1980a). "Planning for people". Proceedings of Planning for People Conference held by the South African Institute of Town and Regional Planners (Pretoria). Muller, J.G. (1980b). “Public involvement in the planning process: premises, problems and possibilities". Proceedings of The Decade Ahead Symposium of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers, (Johannesburg) « Music, V. (1974). “The response of Yugoslav urban planning to development of the country". In A.A. Brown and others (1974), Urban and Social Economics in Market and Planned Economies. Praeger, New. York. Vol. 1, Chapter 15. Myrdal, G. (1965). Beyond the Welfare State. Gerald Duckworth and Co., London. Manetti, R.¥., and R. Leonardi (1979). "Neighbourhoods and the implementat~ ion of city plans". Geoforum, 10, 363-88. Nakamura, R.T. and, P.Smallwood (1980). The Politics of Policy Implementation. St. Martin's Press, New York. Nath, S.K. (1973). A Perspective of Welfare Economics. MacMillan, London. Nevin, E. (Gd.), (1978). The Economics of Devolution. Proceedings of Section F of the British ‘Association Cardiff, University of Wales Press. Newby, H., C. Bell, D. Rose, and P. Saunders (1978). Property, Paternalism and Power: Class and Control in Rural England. Hutchinson, London. Newman, P. (1980). "The formation of the 1947 town planning system: problems of Marxist explanation”. Papers in Urban and Regional Studies, 4. Newton, K. (1976) ~ ‘Second City Politics: Democratic Process and Decision Making in Birmingham. Oxford University Press, London. Niskanen, i. (1971); Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Aldine Atherton, Chicago. Nexon, J. (1980). "The importance of communication in the implementation of government policy at local level". Policy and Politics, 8, No.2, 127-144. Nolen, G. (1934). “Regional planning”. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 13, 205-8. norges Offentlige Udredninger, (1976). Levedarundersokelsen, sluttrapport. Forbruker- og Administrasjonsdepar tenentet, Oslo. Norman, P. (1975). “Managerialism: a review of recent work". In Proceedings of the Conference on Urban Change and Conflict. Conference paper Nos 14, Centre for Environmental Studies, London. norman, P. (1975). Housing Allocation Procedures in Slum Clearance Areas ~ ‘A Comparison of Departmental Styles. Discussion paper in Social Research No. il, University of Glasgow. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. Blackwell, Oxford. o'connor, J. (1973). The Fiscal Crisis of the State. St. James’ Press, New York. Odum, Hu, and HAE. Moore (1938). American Regionalism: A Cultural-historical Approach to National Integration. Henry Holt and Co-, New York. Offe, C. (1974). “Structural problems of the Capitalist state". In K. von Beyne (Ed.), German Political Studies, Vol. 1. Sage, London. Ofte, c. (1975). “The theory of the capitalist state and the problem of policy formation". In L.N. Lindberg, R. Alford, C. Crouch and ©. offe, (Eds.), Stress and Contradiction in Modern Capitalism. D.C. Heath, Lexington. olives; J. (1976). "The struggle against urban renewal in the Cite d'Aliarte”. In‘C. Pickvance (Ed.), 1976. O'Riordan, T. (1976): Environmentalism. Pion, London. Orwell, G. (1980. Nineteen Bighty-four. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Osterul, 0. (1975). Samfunnsplanleqging og politisk system. Gyldendal, Oslo. Page, E. (1978). “Why should central-local relationships in Scotland be ‘different to those in England?” Public Administration Bulletin, 28, 51-72. Pahl, R.B. (1970). Whose City?. Longmans, London. Pahl, RE. (1977). "Managers, technical experts and the state". In M. Harloe, (Ed.); Pp. 46-60. Pahl, R.E. (1977). "Collective consumption and the state in capitalist and socialist societies". In R. Scase, Industrial Society and Control. Allen and Unwin, London. panitch, b. (1980). "The state and the future of socialism". Capital and Glass, 11, 121-137. parker, H. (1965): "The history of compensation and betterment since 1900". InP. Hall, (Bd.), Land Values. Street and Maxwell, London. pp. 53-72. peattie, L-R. (1968). “Reflections on advocacy planning". Journal Am. Inst. Plann, 34, (2). Peattie, L-R. (1978). "Politics, planning and categories bridging the gap"~ ‘In R.W. Burchell and G. Sternlieb, (Eds.). pp. 83-94. Pennance, F.G. (1967). Housing, Town Planning and the Land Commission. Institute of Economic Affairs (Hobart Paper No. 40), London. Perloff, H. (1980). Planning the post-industrial city. American Institute of Planners Press. Perlofé, #. (1957). Education for Planning: City, State and Regional. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore. Peschek, D., and J. Brand (1966). “Policies and politics in secondary ‘ducation". Greater London Papers, No. 11. London School of Economics and Political Science. : Petersen, G. (1971). Perspektivplanlaegning 1970-85. Schultz Forlag, Copenhagen. Petersen, G. (1973). Perspektivplan-redegorelse 1972-87. Statens ‘Trykningskontor, Copenhagen. Petersen, G. (1979). “Demokrati og vaekst". In I. Christensen, N.I. Meyer, and 0. Thyssen (Eds.),, Vaekst. Gyldendal, Copenhagen. Petersen, V.C. (1980). “Dialektik og udialektik". Tidsskrift for Kritisk Geografi og Samfundsplanlaegning, No. 7. Geografisk Institut, Barhus Universitet. : Petersen, V.C. (forthcoming). zur metatheorie der gesellschaftsplanung” Materialen und Manuskripte, Universitat Bremen. Peterson, P. (1978). “Redistributive policies and patterns of citizen participation in local politics in the USA". In J. Sharpe (1979) ch. 4. Pettersson, L:G. (1975). Hushallens inkomst och konsumtions forhallanden. Bart 1. .Sociclogiska Institutionen, Unea Universitet. pfautz, HH. (1967). Charles Booth on the City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago-London. Pickvance, C.G. (1977). "Physical planning and market forces in development”. National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review, August, pp. 41-50.304 Pickvance, C. (Ed.), (1976). Urban Sociology: Critical Essays. Tavistock, London. : Pickvance, C. (1977). "Marxist approaches to the study of urban politics: divergence amongst some recent French studies". International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1, No. 2. Pigou, A.C. (1932). ‘The Economics of Welfare. MacMillan, London. Planning Advisory Group, (1965). The Future of Development Plans. Great Britain Ministry of Housing and Local Government. HMSO, London. Polsby, NeW. (1963). Community Power and Political Theory. Yale University Press, New Haven. Popper, K-R. (1969). The Poverty of Historicism. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Power, J.M. (1971). Planning: Magic and Technique. Institute for Operat- ional Research, London. Pressman, J.b., and A. Wildavsky (1973). Implementation: How Great Expect- lations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland: A Saga of the Economic Development Administration. University of California Press, Berkeley. Presthus, R. (1971). “Pluralism and elitism". In F. Castles and others (Bds.) Decisions, Organizations and Society. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Pp. 331-339. Preteceille, E. (1973). La Production des Grandes Ensembles. Mouton, Paris. Prost, R. (1976). "Teaching planning theory". Planning Outlook, 15, 30-49. Purdon, .B. (1946). How Should We Rebuild London?". Dent, London. Quade, E.S., (Ed.), (1964). Analysis for Military Decisions. Rand McNally, ‘Chicago. Rabinovitz, F.J., J. Pressman, and M. Rein (1976). “Guidelines: a plethora of forms, authors and functions". Policy Sciences, 7, 399-416. Rabinovitz, F. (1979). “General rapporteur's comments”. OECD Conference on Improving Implementation in Urban Management, Milton Keynes, U.K. (suly) Rallings, C-S- (1976). “Correlates of influence in local government: an exploratory investigation". Br. Jnl. of Pol. Sc., 6, 356-364. Randall, J.N. (1980). "Central Clydeside - a case study of one conurbation". In G.c. Cameron (Ed.), The Future of British Conurbations: Policies and Prescriptions for Change. Longman, London. pp. 101-124. Ratcliffe, J. (1976). Land Policy: An Exploration of the Nature of Land in Society. Hutchinson, London. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press, London. Reade, E.J. (1976). “Education and planners’ ideology: cause for alarm". Town and Country Planning, 44, (11), 491-494. Reade, £.J, (1980). Town Planning and the 'Corporatism Thesis’. S.1.P. Paper 10. Reade, E.J. (1981a). Practical Work in Town Planning Education. Oxford Working Paper forthcoming. Oxford Polytechnic. : Reade, E.J. (1981b). The Theory of Town and Country Planning. Oxford Theory Conference Paper. Rees, A.M., and T. Smith (1964). Town Councillors. Acton Society Trust, London. Rein, M., and P. Rabinovitz (1977). Implementation: a Theoretical Persp- ective. Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard. Working Paper No. 43. Rex, J., and B. Moore (1967). Race, Community and Conflict. Oxford Univ— ersity Press, London. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1975). “The lost world of British local politics". Local Government Studies, 1, (1), 39-45. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1975a). The Councillor and Urban Deprivation. A report to the Home Office, INLOGOV, Birmingham. 305 Rhodes, R. (1978). "Regional policy and a ‘Europe of Regions'*. In b. Gillingwater and D. Hart (Eds.). rhodes, R-A.W. (1979)+. "Research into central-Local relations: a framework for analysis". In G.W. Jones (Ed.), Central-Local Government Relationships. Social Science Research Council, London. Rhodes; R-A.W. (1979a)- Public Administration and Policy Analysis: Recent Developments in Britain and America. Saxon House, Farnborough. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1980a); "Some myths in central-local relations". Town Planning Review, SL, (3), 270-285. RIPA/PSI (1980). Party Politics in Local Government: Officers end Members: ‘Policy Studies Institute and Royal Institute of Public Administra- tion, London. Rittel, J., and M. Webber (1973). "Dilenmas in’a general theory of planning’. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-59. Robinson, J. (1962)+ Beononic Philosophy. Penguin, Harmondsworth. sepineon, I, (1965). "Beyond the middle-range planning bridge". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 4, 304-312. robinson, F. (ed.), (1972). Decision-making in Urban Planning: an Introd- uetion to New Methodologies. Sage Publications, Beverley Hill, california. Rokkan, S. (1980). "Territories, centres and peripheries". In J. Gottmanny (z4.), (1980), Ch.4. Ronge, V. and G. Schmieg (1973). Restriktionen politischer planung- Athenaum Fischer, Frankfurt om Main. Rose, E.A. (1979). "Monitoring and review in the planning process: | sone practical problems". D. Soen (Ed.), New Trends in Urban Planning. Pergamon, Oxford. Rosenbaum, N. (1980). "Statutory structure and policy implementation: the case of wetlands regulation". Policy Studies Journal, 8, No.4, (Summer special issue), 575-596. possi, Pel, HE. Freeman and S.R. Weight (1979). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sage, Beverley Hill, California. Rowbotham, 8+, L. Segal and H. Wainwright (1979). Beyond the Fragments. Merlin, London. noweis, S.T., and A.J. Scott (1978). "The urban land question". In K. Cox (e4.), Urbanisation and Conflict in Market Societies. Methuen, London. a Royal Town Planning Institute, (1976). Planning and the Future, & discuss ion paper, November. Royal Town Planning Institute, (1980). Public Participation: an Issues Report. Royal Tem Planning Institute, London. gabatier, Po and D. Maxmanian (1980). "The implementation of public policy: a framework for analysis". Policy Studies Journal, 8, No.4, (summer - special issue No.2), 538-559. Saunders, P. (1979). "Community power urban managerialism and the ‘local state'", Centre for Environmental Studies, Urban Change ang Conflict conference, Nottingham. Saunders, P. (1960). Urban Politics: A Sociological Interpretation. Penguin, Harmondsworth. schmidt, B.1. (1968). Offentlig administration og planlaegning. Gyldendaly Copenhagen. schon, D.A. (1971). Beyond the Stable State. Random House, New York. Schulz, A. (1979). Local Politics and Nation States. California Clio Press, California. Schulze, G. and others, (1972). Richtig entscheiden - wirksam kontrollieren. ‘Staatsverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Berlin. Scott, A. (1980). The Urban Land Nexus and the State. Pion, London.306 Scott, A., and S.T. Roweis (1977). "Urban planning in theory and practice! : a reappraisal". Environment and Planning, 9, 1097-111.. Scottish Development Department, (1976). own and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) (Scotland). Regulation §.I. No. 1995. SDD, Edinburgh. Scottish Development Department (1976a). Circular No. 28/1976. Development Plans, SDD, Edinburgh. Scottish Development Department (1961). Strathclyde Region Structure Plan: Modifications. SDD, Edinburgh. “ Seers, D. (1980). "The congruence of Marxism and other neo-classical doct- + rines". In A.D. Hirschman and others (1980). Segal, N.S. (1979). "The limits and means of ‘self-reliant’ regional econ- omic growth". .In D. MacLennan and J.B. Parr, (Eds.) (1979). Senior, D. (1973). “Scotland: Strathclyde shows the way". Town and Country Planning Association, 42, (3), 169. cs Sharpe, L.J. (Ed.) (1979). Decentralist Trends in Western Democracies. Sage, London. Shoufield, A. (1965). Modern Capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford. skjei, 5.S. (1976). “Urban problems and the theoretical justification of ™ urban planning". Urban Affairs Quarterly, 11, 1 (March) 323-344, Siegan, B.H. (1972). Land Use Without Zoning. Lexington Books, Toronto. Simmie, J.M. (1974). Citizens in Conflict: The Sociology of Town Planning. Hutchinson, London. Simon, H.A. (1957, 1st edition 1947). Administrative Behavior. MacMillan, London. : smith, D.L. (1974). “The progress and style of structure planning in England: © some observations". Local Government Studies, 21-34. 5 Smith, T.B. (1973). "The policy implementation process". Policy Sciences, 4; 197-209. Speer, A. (1969). Exinnerungen. Propylaen, Berlin. ¢ Socialforskningsinstituttet, (1978). Fordelingen af levekarene. Publication ~ No. 82, Taknisk Forlag, Copenhagen. Solesbury, W. (1974). Policy in Urban Planning: Structure Plans. Programmes _ and Local Plans. Pergamon, Oxford. : Solesbury, W., (1975). “Ideas about structure plans: past present and 2g future". Town Planning Review, 46, (3), 245-254. solesbury, W., (1976). “The environmental agenda". Public Administration, Winter. Stankiewicz, W.J. (1980). Approaches to Democracy: Philosophy of Govern ment at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Edward Arnold, London. Stanyer, J. (1976). Understanding Local Government. Fontana, Glasgow. Stanyer, J., and B. Smith (1976). Administering Britain. Fontana, Glasgow. Steiner, G.¥. (1966). Social Insecurity: The Politics of Welfare. Rand McNally, Chicago. Steiss, A.W. (1973). "Fundamental trends in the planning process model in the United States". Planning Outlook, 13, 9-25. “ Stewart, J.M.W. (1973). “Markets, choice and urban planning". Town Planning Review, 44, 3, 203-330. Stewart, J.M.W. (1974). “Market strategy: a constructive approach". of the Royal Town Planning Institute, 60 (September /October) 827-829. Steyn, J.H. (1977). "The role of the private sector in planning and develop- ment". Proceedings of a conference Planning and Development in= Southern Africa of the South African Institute of Town and Regional. Planners. (Stellenbosch) BS Stohr, W., and F. Todtling (1979). “Spatial equity: some anti-theses ton |)” current regional development doctrine". In H. Folmier and J. Oosters, haven (Bds.), Spatial Inequalities and Regional Development. eee ig ae eee 307 Stone, C.N. (1980). “The implementation of social programs: two’ perspectives". Journal of Social Issues, 36, No. 4, 13-34. Strathclyde Regional Council, (1976). Strathclyde Regional Report. SRC, Glasgow. Strathclyde Regional Council, (1978). Policy Review Group on Departmental Structures, Report. SRC, Glasgow. Strathclyde Regional Council, (1979), Structure of the Chief Executive's Office, Report. SRC, Glasgow. Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations, Values, Contexts, Processes and Social Order. Jossey-Bass. . (1980). “Development ideas in historical perspective". In A.D. Hirschman and others (1980). Styles, B. (1974). “Practice review: structure plan ideologies". The Planner, 60, 795-798. Sumner, C. (1979). Reading Ideologies. Academic, London. Tarrow, S., P.J. Katzenstein, and L. Gratiano (Eds.), (1978). Territorial Policies in Industrial Nations. Praeger Books. Taubman, W. (1973). Governing Soviet Cities: Bureaucratic Politics and Urban Development in the USSR. Praeger, New York. Taylor, N. (1980). “Planning theory and the philosophy of planning". Urban Studies, 17, 159-172. Therborn, G. (1970). "A critique of the Frankfurt School". New Left Review, 63, 65-96. Thomas, A.H. (1979). An Analysis of Changes in Planning Education, 1965- 1975. Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, University College, London. ‘Thomas, M. (1979). "The procedural planning theory of A. Faludi". Planning Outlook, 22, (2), 72-77. Thompson, E.P. (1978). The Poverty of Theory. Merlin, London. Thorburn, A. (1979). "How to encourage commitment?". Paper delivered at the OECD Conference on Improving Implementation in Urban Management, Milton Keynes, July. Thornley, A. (1981). Thatcherism and Town Planning. Conference paper. Tidball, MK. (1976). “Planning = the realities of life in social services". Social Work Service, No. 9, 50-52. Tingsten, H. (1955). "Stability and vitality in Swedish democracy". Political Quarterly, 2, ldo-151. Tingsten, H. (1966). Fran ideer til idyll - den lyckliga demokratin. P.A. Norstedt, Stockholm. Torrance, E.P. (1954). "The behavior of small groups under stress conditions of survival". American Sociological Review, 19, 751-755. Townsend, P. (1975). “Sociology and social policy". In P. Townsend (Ed.), Sociology and Social Policy. Penguin, Harmondsworth. pp. 1-28. Tribe, L.. (1972). “Policy science: analysis or ideology?" Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2, No. 1. Trist, E. (1979). "New directions of hope: recent innovations interconnect- ing organisational, industrial, community and personal development". Regional Studies, 13, 439-51. Turner, C. (1977). "Progress in metropolitan structure planning". The Planner, 63, 175-178. Urban Foundation, (1980) Soweto. (The Urban Foundation (Transvaal Region), Johannesburg). Underwood, J. (1980). Town Planners in Search of a Role. Occasional Paper No. 6, School for Advanced Urban Studies, Bristol. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Public Affairs, (1969). Toward a Social Report. Washington D.C. n Utting, B. (1975). "Social work: where people are resources", New Society, Bly (646), 453-455. Streeten,Vaizey, J. °{Bd.), (1975). Economic Sovereignty and Regional Policy. Gill and MacMillan, London. van Gunsturen, H.R. (1976). "Constructing a city in speech: planning as political theory". In B. Barry (Ed.), Power and Political Theory: Some European Perspectives. Wiley, London. van Meter, D.S., and C.E. Van Horn (1975). “The policy implementation process: a conceptual framework". Administration and Society, 6, No.4, Feb- ruary, 445-488. Vickets, G. (1966). "The regulation of political systems". Unpublished ab- stract of lecture delivered at LSE, November 22, 1966. walker, R.A. (1941). The Planning Function in Urban Government. of Chicago Press. Wannop, U. (1980). “Scottish planning in practice - 1: four distinctive University characteristics". ‘The Planner, 66, (3), 64-65. Ward, C. (1980). "Using. Heseltine's moratorium". New Society, 4th December, 471-472. darren, B, (1980). Imperialism, Pioneer of Capitalism. New Left Books, London, Waterson, A. (1965). Development Planning: Lessons of Experience. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Weaver, C. (1978). "Regional theory and regionalism: the regional question". Geoforum, 9. Weaver, C. (1980). “The limits of economism: towards a political approach to regional development planning". Paper prepared for the British Regional Science Association Conference, London, September 1980. To be published in R. Hudson, and J. Lewis (forthcoming), Regional Planning in Europe. Pion, London, Webb, K., and E, Hall (1978). "Explanations on the rise of political nation- alism in Scotland". Studies in Public Policy, No. 15. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Webber, M.M. (1969). “Planning in an environment of change. planning". Town Planning Review, 39, 277-295. Webber, M. (1973). “Planning in an environment of change". worth (Ed.), Problems of an Urban Society, Vol.3. Change. Allen and Unwin, London. Webber, HM. (1978). "A difference paradigm for planning". and G. Sternlieb, (Eds.). pp. 151-163. Weiss, R.S., and M. Rein (1970). "The evaluation of broad-aim programs: experimental design, its difficulties and an alternative". Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, No.1, 97-109. Westergaard, J.-H. (1964). "Land use planning since 1951: the legislative and administrative framework in England and Wales". Town Planning Review, 35, 219-237. Westergaard, J., and H. Resler (1975). Heinemann, London. Wholey, 3.S. (1979). Evaluation: Promise and Performance. The Urban Inst~ itute, Washington D.C. fe wiener, A. (1978). Magnificent Myth: Patterns of Control in Post-Industkial towards rethinking II: Permissive In J.B.Culling- Planning for In R.W.Burchell, Glass in a Capitalist Society. Society. Pergamon, Oxford. Wildavsky, A. (1964). The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Little Brown, Boston. Wildavsky, A, (1973). "If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing”. Journal of Policy Sciences, 4y No. 2, 127-53. Wilensky, H.b. (1975). The Welfare State and Equality. California Press, Berkeley. Williams, P. (1976). Crisis Management. Martin Robertson, London. Williams, P. (1978). “Urban managerialism: a concept of relevance?” 20, (4), 236-240. University of Area, Williams, R.° (1978).. Keywords. Soom fee ” Villians, W. (1975). "Implementation analysis and assessment". analysis, 1, 531-566. : : with, t. (1351): "The limitations of regionalisn”. In MeWaJensel (ea), + De vegionalism in Anerica. University of Wisconsin Pressy Madison. Wood, B. (1980). nisation of focal Authorities. In ‘The Political Orga RIPA/PSI, pP- 16-22: i : woodiwiss, T. (1978). "Critical theory and the capitalist state". ‘and Society, 7, 175-192. : . Woolmer, Ke (1977). "the role of the professional planner” ‘Town_and Country Planning Sumner School. Report of Proceedings, PP: 103. Working Party (1973). New Scottish Local_Authorities: Organisation ané ot es. HMSO, Edinburgh. tena elses, New Left Books, London. ae ise ight, £.0. (1978). Class, Crisis and the State. | t Book neiah ; eplanning and controlling public expenditure". In T/A: — soothe. {ea.); Planning for Welfare, Social Policy snd the Expendit- seer process.” Basil Blackwell and Martin Robertson, Oxford. Wright, M. (2a.), (1980). Public Spending Decisions: Growth and Restra: in the 1970s. Allen and Unwin, London. =o wright, V. (979)+ _"Regionalisation under the French Republic”. + (1979). Ch.5. . reabseys teflections on the end of ideology". In C.2. Waxman (ed.), The End of Ideoloay Debate. Simon and Schustet « New York: young, K. (1975). Essays on the Study of Urban politics: MacMillan, London- Young, K. (1980). “The dynamics of decentralisation’ » Tm, Nissel, with Sthers, The Welfare State: Diversity and Decentralisation- Studies Institute, Discussion Paper 2. y: therbank Press, Milngavie. ung, R.G. (1977). The Search for Democracy. Hee seetken, F. (1958). Videnskab og velfaerd. Gas Forlag, Copenhagen. Zietlin, I.M. (1973). Re=thinking Sociology. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey- Policy Econom} In LJ. Wrong, D.