SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

  • Home
  • Issues
  • 2018
  • No 2
  • Institutional planning theory as a general planning theory: state of the art and further development

INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING THEORY AS A GENERAL PLANNING THEORY: STATE OF THE ART AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 16 (no. 2),

The purpose of the article is to outline the basic features of the institutional theory of planning (ITP) and to justify its interpretation as a general planning theory. For this, we briefly describe the existing diversity of planning theories and the main achievements of the new institutional economics (NIE) in planning studies. From our point of view, ITP is a theory in which planning is described as the sequence of (inter-) actions of individuals – planners and stakeholders of immediate and final planning results – carried out under the influence of incentives formed in specific conditions of the internal and external institutional environment of the planning system. Proceeding from the importance of incentives for the planning success, we introduce the following types of planning situations: Self-planning, with the individual planning one’s own actions. Collective planning, with a group of individuals together forming a consensus during the discussion, determining the future actions of the group members. Planning on behalf of somebody, with a group of individuals entrusting other individuals (including the group members) to draw up the framework for action for the group members. Directive planning, with a group of individuals drawing up an action plan for another group members without the direct instructions from the latter ones. To illustrate this typology application, we show which institutional factors in different planning situations affect the planner’s incentives to ensure high quality plans. Based on the analysis, a conclusion is made on the possibility of building the general theory of planning on the basis of ITP.


Keywords: planning theory; new institutional economics; planner’s incentives

References:
  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
  • Alexander, E. (1992). A Transaction Cost Theory of Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(2), 190–200.
  • Alexander, E. R. (2002). Planning Rights: Toward Normative Criteria for Evaluating Plans. International Planning Studies, 7(3), 191–212.
  • Alexander, E. R. (2015). 70 Years’ Planning Theory: A Post-postmodernist Perspective. Scienze Regionali, 14(1), 5–18.
  • Alexander, E. R. (1998). Doing the ‘Impossible’: Notes for a General Theory of Planning. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 25(5), 667–680.
  • Alexander, E. R. (2007). Planning rights and their Implications. Planning Theory, 6(2), 112–126.
  • Alexander, E. R. (2007). Institutionalist Perspectives on Planning: Why? Where? How? pp. 37–59 / In: Verma N. (Ed.). Institutions and Planning: An Analogical Inquiry. Oxford: Elsevier.
  • Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77–99.
  • Bromley, D. W. (1989). Property Relations and Economic Development: The Other Land Reform. World Development, 17(6), 867–877.
  • Cheshire, P. and Sheppard, S. (2002). The welfare economics of land use planning. Journal of Urban Economics, 52(2), 242–269.
  • Connell, D. J. and Daoust-Filiatrault L.-A. (2017). Better Than Good: Three Dimensions of Plan Quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X17709501.
  • Connell, D. J. (2010). Schools of Planning Thought: Exploring Differences through Similarities. International Planning Studies, 15(4), 269–280.
  • Donaghy, K. P. and Hopkins, L. D. (2006). Coherentist Theories of Planning are Possible and Useful. Planning Theory, 5(2), 173–202.
  • Ellickson, R. C. (1977). Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules and Fines as Land Use Controls. University of Chicago Law Review, 40(4), 681–781.
  • Ellis, G. (2004). Discourses of objection: towards an understanding of third-party rights in planning. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 36(9), 1549–1570.
  • Faludi, A. (1973). Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Fawaz, M. and Moumtaz, N. (2017). Of property and planning: a brief introduction. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(3), 345–350.
  • Feldman, M. M. A. (1995). Regime and regulation in substantive planning theory. Planning Theory (Franco Angeli Series), 14, 65–94.
  • Fischel, W. (1978). A Property Rights Approach to Municipal Zoning. Land Economics, 54(1), 64–81.
  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing Power to Planning Research: One Researcher’s Praxis Story. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(4), 353–366.
  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(3), 283–306.
  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built – And what we can do about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3), 344–367.
  • Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday-Anchor.
  • Galloway, T. D. and Mahayni, R. G. (1977). Planning theory in retrospect: the process of paradigm change. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 43(1), 62–71.
  • Gollwitzer, P. M., Fujita, K. and Oettingen, G. (2004). Planning and the Implementation of Goals, pp. 211–228 / In: Baumeister, R. F. and Vohs, K. D. (Eds.) Handbook of selfregulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Goodspeed, R. (2016). The Death and Life of Collaborative Planning Theory. Urban Planning, 1(4), 1–5.
  • Guyadeen, D. (2018). Do Practicing Planners Value Plan Quality? Insights from a Survey of Planning Professionals in Ontario, Canada. Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(1), 21–32.
  • Guyadeen, D. and Seasons, M. (2016). Plan evaluation: Challenges and directions for future research. Planning Practice & Research, 31(2), 215–228.
  • Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.
  • Harris, B. (1997). The Theory of Planning and of its Profession. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 24(4), 483–489.
  • Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143–162.
  • Healey, P. and Williams, R. (1993). European planning systems: diversity and convergence. Urban Studies, 30(4–5), 701–720.
  • Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123.
  • Healey, P., McDougall, G. and Thomas, M. J. (Eds.) (1982). Planning theory: prospects for the 1980s. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Hefetz, A. and Warner, M. (2007). Beyond the market versus planning dichotomy: Understanding privatisation and its reverse in US cities. Local Government Studies, 4(33), 555–572.
  • Hohfeld, W. N. (1917). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal, 26(8), 710–770. DOI: 10.2307/786270.
  • Hudson, B. M., Galloway, T. D. and Kaufman, J. L. (1979). Comparison of current planning theories: counterparts and contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 4(45), 387–398.
  • Innes, J. and Booher, D. (1999). Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems – A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–23.
  • Janin Rivolin, U. (2012). Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: a Proposed Conceptualization and the Implications for Comparison. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 63–85.
  • Kim, A. M. (2012). The Evolution of the Institutional Approach in Planning, pp. 69–86 / In: Crane R. and Weber R. (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Klein, P. G. (2000). New Institutional Economics, pp. 456–489 / In: Bouckaert B. and De Geest G. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, vol. 1. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Klosterman, R. E. (1985). Arguments For and Against Planning. Town Planning Review, 56(1), 5–20.
  • Kostova, T., Roth, K. and Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional Theory in the Study of Multinational Corporations: A Critique and New Directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994–1006.
  • Kumar, A. (2011). Planning Rights: A Review and Discussion. Journal of Institute of Town Planners, 8(4), 21–30.
  • Lai, L. W. С. (2005). Neo-Institutional Economics and Planning Theory. Planning Theory, 4(1), 7–19.
  • Lai, L. W. C. (1994) The Economics of Land Use Zoning: A Literature Review and Analysis of the Work of Coase. Town Planning Review, 65(1), 77–98.
  • Lai, S.-K. and Han, H. (2014). Behavioral Planning Theory, pp. 265–272 / In: Wang J. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization. Hershey: IGI Global.
  • Lai, L. (2010). A model of planning by contract: integrating comprehensive state planning, freedom of contract, public participation and fidelity. Town Planning Review, 81(6), 647–674.
  • Lane, M. B. (2005). Public Participation in Planning: An Intellectual History. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283–299.
  • Lawrence, T. B. and Shadnam, M. (2008). Institutional Theory, pp. 2288–2293 / In: Donsbach W. (Ed.). The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Lee, D. B., Jr. (1981). Land Use Planning as a Response to Market Failure, pp. 149–164 / In: de Neufville J. I. (Ed.). The Land Use Policy Debate in the United States. Boston: Springer.
  • Legacy, C. (2017). Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Planning Theory, 16(4), 425–442.
  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of «Muddling Through». Public Administration Review, 2(19), 79–88.
  • Lord, A. (2014). Towards a non-theoretical understanding of planning. Planning Theory, 13(1), 26–43.
  • Lord, A., Mair, M., Sturzaker, J. and Jones, P. (2017). The planners’ dream goes wrong? Questioning citizen-centred planning. Local Government Studies, 43(3), 344–363.
  • Mandelbaum, S. J. (1979). A Complete General Theory of Planning Is Impossible. Policy Sciences, 11(1), 59–71.
  • Mandelbaum, S. J. (1985). The Institutional Focus of Planning Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 5(1), 3–9.
  • Metzger, J., Soneryd, L. and Hallström, K. T. (2017). ‘Power’ is that which remains to be explained: Dispelling the ominous dark matter of critical planning studies. Planning Theory, 16(2), 203–222.
  • Misra, S. K. and Puri, V. K. (1986). Economics of Development and Planning. Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing House.
  • Moulaert, F. (2005). Institutional economics and planning theory: a partnership between ostriches? Planning Theory, 4(1), 21–32.
  • Mukhija, V. (2005). Collective Action and Property Rights: A Planner’s Critical Look at the Dogma of Private Property. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 972–983.
  • Nelson, R. H. (1977). Zoning and Property Rights: An Analysis of the American System of Land Use Regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Othengrafen, F. (2014). The Concept of Planning Culture: Analysing How Planners Construct Practical Judgements in a Culturised Context. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3(2), 1–17.
  • Othengrafen, F. and Reimer, M. (2013). The Embeddedness of Planning in Cultural Contexts: Theoretical Foundations for the Analysis of Dynamic Planning Cultures. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 45(6), 1269–1284.
  • Oxley, M., Brown, T., Nadin, V., Qu, L., Tummers, L. and Fernández-Maldonado, A. M. (2009). Review of European Planning Systems. Leicester: De Montfort University.
  • Poulton, M. C. (1991). The Case for a Positive Theory of Planning. Part 1: What is Wrong with Planning Theory? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 18(2), 225–232.
  • Sager, T. (2001). Positive Theory of Planning: The Social Choice Approach. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 33(4), 629–647.
  • Sanyal, B. (Ed.) (2005). Comparative Planning Cultures. New York: Routledge.
  • Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Schloger, E. and Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249–262.
  • Schmidt, S. and Buehler, R. (2007). The planning process in the US and Germany: a comparative analysis. International Planning Studies, 12(1), 55–75.
  • Shvetsov, A. N. (2017). Strategic Planning In the Russian Way: the Triumph of the Centralized Bureaucratic Choice. EKO, 8, 114–127. (In Russian.)
  • Sorensen, A. (2017). New Institutionalism and Planning Theory, pp. 250–263 / In: Gunder, M., Madanipour, A. and Watson, V. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. New York: Routledge.
  • Tambovtsev, V. L. (2011). Types of Economic Action. Social Sciences, 42(2), 3–17.
  • Tambovtsev, V. L. (2014). Economics of Informal Institutions. Moscow: RG-Press. (In Russian.) Tambovtsev, V. L. (2015). Public Goods and Public Interests: Is There a Connection? Social Sciences, 46(2), 3–18. (In Russian.)
  • Tambovtsev, V. L. (2017). Planning and Opportunism. Voprocy Economiki, 1, 22–39.
  • Tasan-Kok, T. and Baeten, G. (Eds.) (2012). Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning: Cities, Policies, and Politics. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Taylor, Z. (2013). Rethinking planning culture: a new institutionalist approach. Town Planning Review, 84(6), 683–702.
  • Thomas, M. J. (1982). The procedural theory of A Faludi, pp. 13–25 / In: Paris, C. (Ed.) Critical Readings in Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Watson, V. (2016). Shifting Approaches to Planning Theory: Global North and South. Urban Planning, 1(4), 32–41.
  • Webster, C. (1998) Public Choice, Pigovian and Coasian Planning Theory. Urban Studies, 35(1), 53–75.
  • Webster, C., Adams, D., Pearce, B., Henneberry, J. and Ward, S. V. (2005). The New Institutional Economics and the evolution of modern urban planning: Insights, issues and lessons. Town Planning Review, 76(4), 455–484.
  • Yiftachel, O. (1989). Towards a New Typology of Urban Planning Theories. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 16(1), 23–39.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606