Entrepreneurship and enterprise skills: A missing element of planning education?

Introduction: Educating for evolving professional paradigms

Few would contest that planning and its professional practices and approaches have undergone profound change in the past half-century (e.g. Rodwin & Sanyal, 2000). The field's focus has moved beyond land use planning and infrastructure provision to areas such as community planning, regeneration and sustainability. In addition, a philosophical shift is noticeable as public sector planning gradually turns away from controlling the market towards a promarket, enterprise orientation, especially in Western industrialized democracies. For example, McGuirk and MacLaran (2001) observe that ‘entrepreneurially-minded’ city governments employ competitive business strategies in conjunction with public-private partnerships to facilitate urban renewal and regeneration. And, local authorities having to cope with delivering more complex planning tasks are resorting to increasingly subcontracting related tasks such as masterplan development, land use monitoring and GIS support as a means to cope. These developments, together with a rising acceptance that planning is a collaborative process that requires an active dialogue and consultation with the private sector and the public, are transforming planning and planners. The professional implications include a flourishing market of independent, private planning consultancies on one hand (Rodwin & Sanyal, 2000; Early, 2004; Johnston, 2004), and a host of new skills requirements.

The rich tradition of scholarly reflection and debate on the purpose and content of planning education (Frank, 2006) demonstrates educators' concern about providing appropriate skills and knowledge. The theoretical and ideological evolution of the planning agenda – partly driven by practice and partly shaped by academia and research is clearly reflected in planning curricula (Dalton, 2001). Most academics consider the inclusion of new relevant topics that address societal developments vital for ensuring professional relevance and student employability (e.g. Cuthbert, 1994a, 1994b). Recent changes to planners' roles, planning and indeed social and economic conditions have been perceived significant enough to spur proposals for a revised ‘core curriculum’ in the USA (Friedmann, 1996; Castells, 1998) and a comprehensive review of planning education in the UK (Royal Town Planning Institute – RTPI, 2003). Academy-led studies on the most relevant professional skills suggest that communication and writing skills remain relevant while analysis skills provision needs refocusing (Cuthbert, 1994a, 1994b; Wong, 1998; Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999; Alexander, 2001; Seltzer & Ozawa, 2002). Management and people skills have gained importance over technical skills not only in the private sector; they are identified as key competencies by various government reviews (Egan, 2004; Communities Scotland, 2004; Turok & Taylor, 2006) for the creation of sustainable communities and urban regeneration. There is an expectation that these skills will need to be provided, at least in part, through university (planning) courses (Bailey, 2005). Planners may also need new attitudes and knowledge. Success in planning may be linked to a willingness to explore new approaches for management and funding projects to overcome resource constraints and uphold public values in an increasingly competitive urban climate that pits one city's economy and success against another's. The emphasis on regulatory aspects of planning appears to be decreasing over calls for more leadership and vision, and Albrechts (2005), amongst others (Kunzmann, 1997; RTPI, 2004, p. 10), has argued that planners must learn to think (more) creatively.

Planning education providers, particularly in the UK, have been under considerable pressure to address ‘skills gaps’ identified by government (e.g. Egan, 2004) as well as implement professional body-endorsed changes such as the introduction of fast-track 12-month master programmes (replacing former two-year programmes). A predominantly inward-looking focus on skills deemed essential for the subject is thus understandable, but somewhat unfortunate and perhaps too limiting, as a broader view could provide new and exciting directions for planning and planning programmes. The recent entrepreneurship education initiative to foster entrepreneurship skills in and through higher education, for example, is a reaction to emergent economic and employment structures, which rely more and more on flexible and innovative businesses and high percentages of self-employment in future (Higher Education Academy, 2004). Policy-makers have stressed that entrepreneurship should not be confined to business students but should be offered to students from all subjects and with more planning work moving into the private sector, this is certainly relevant to planning. Nevertheless, entrepreneurship skills provision appears to have been largely ignored by planning academics. 1 There is little or no mentioning of entrepreneurship in the planning education literature (see Frank, 2006) with the exception of Yaro (2000, p. 89) perhaps, who suggests that planning schools may be missing out on a key opportunity to educate future civic sector leaders by not providing a curriculum that fosters and develops students' innovation and entrepreneurial competencies. Such a lack of entrepreneurial skills provision is likely to restrict students' employment options and by extension the influence of planning as a whole.

The objective of this article is to add to the current skills debate in planning. In particular, it seeks to address whether and perhaps more importantly what entrepreneurship skills and attitudes could contribute to the profile of the profession and whether it would be valuable to include such skills in the planning curriculum, i.e. whether entrepreneurship skills represent indeed a missing element in planner's education? First, the article briefly reviews government and educational policies as well as the meaning of entrepreneurship and the skills associated with it. Then, skills and competencies are related to planning tasks and particularities of the planning profession. The article concludes with potential advantages and disadvantages of incorporating subject specific entrepreneurial skills in planning curricula and proposes some approaches for teaching enterprise and entrepreneurship skills.

Higher education policy and entrepreneurship

For around 20 years, European and UK governments have promoted enterprise, innovation and entrepreneurship as vital ingredients of a healthy national economy, increased prosperity (e.g. Latham, 1999) and economic competitiveness (European Commission, 2003). However, as entrepreneurship is ‘first and foremost a mindset’ (European Commission, 2003, p. 5), an increase in business start-ups and entrepreneurial ventures can only be expected if a cultural setting has been created that relishes and values entrepreneurship (Latham, 1999). Creating this entrepreneurial culture requires both favourable economic conditions such as tax incentives and perhaps more importantly an awareness of the concept of entrepreneurship in its broadest sense amongst the population (European Commission, 2003). Research shows that individuals who are familiar with business start-up procedures are more likely to act on opportunities and aspirations than those who have no prior exposure to entrepreneurship ideas. Education about entrepreneurship together with skills has therefore an influential role to play in developing capacity and fostering an entrepreneurial culture (Higher Education Academy, 2004). The rationale behind the push for such education in higher education institutions considers graduates a part of the workforce that can and should contribute to the creation of knowledge-based as well as social enterprises. The latter are considered essential in addressing an increasing number of complex social and environmental issues (Small Business Service, 2005). In fact, all twenty-first century graduates are perceived ‘not only to be job-seekers, but also and above all to be job-creators’ (Miclea, 2004).

Entrepreneurship ideas have been incorporated in higher education at both the organizational level (Clark, 1998) as well as the programme level (Volkmann, 2004), accordingly. Many universities have broadened their mission to include outreach activities such as community service and knowledge transfer in the form of spin-offs and incubator enterprises. Collaboration between businesses, industry and universities is becoming more common, often triggering teaching innovations (e.g. work-based learning) as well as opening new funding streams. Formal degrees in entrepreneurship studies, typically hosted by a business school/faculty providing a mix of theoretical grounding in business management as well as training in practical aspects of entrepreneurship have proliferated since their inception in 1947 (Volkmann, 2004, p. 178).

Initiatives to widen access to entrepreneurship education beyond the business or economics student are a fairly new development, however. The adoption of business-like strategies to the operation of higher education institutions and the push for expansion of entrepreneurship skills education across all disciplines are not uncontested and have led to powerful critique and resistance at institutional, national and international forums. Teaching the concept and practice of enterprise and entrepreneurship with its capitalist, neoliberal connotations is not only alien to many subject areas, but may be seen as fundamentally ‘objectionable practice’ (Neary & Parker, 2004). As a result, the most common model to facilitate university-wide entrepreneurship education to date is through an independent unit responsible for training and support of entrepreneurial activities of all students (Anderseck, 2004). The approach avoids confrontation with subject tutors, who might resist engagement for ethical reasons or argue that entrepreneurship skills are marginal and distracting to the core of their respective field. It is thus quicker and easier to implement than the alternative model, which integrates entrepreneurship teaching in subject-specific curricula.

Here, Caird's (1990) as well as Kirby's (1989, 2005) observation is useful in that entrepreneurship education can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Kirby (1989, 2005) in particular points out, that policy guidance tends to be somewhat ambiguous as to whether the goal of entrepreneurship education is to support and increase the number of start-ups by students post graduation or whether it is to equip students with a set of skills, mindset and behaviour, that will give them the capacity to function effectively in the fast changing, competitive and entrepreneurial economy and labour markets of the twenty-first century (without necessarily starting up a business). Entrepreneurship competencies are likewise ambiguous comprising of a range of personal characteristics, attitudes and skills such as problem solving, leadership, communication, self-awareness and assessment skills as well as business and managerial competencies. Individual differences aside however, the bulk of scholars agrees that what makes an entrepreneur is a certain mix of knowledge, skills and traits consisting of: (a) awareness about enterprise and entrepreneurship, (b) business skills (start-up, accounting, writing a business plan etc.), and (c) creativity, imagination and a mindset that supports (personal) entrepreneurship activities in whatever form or shape. This mixture makes entrepreneurship education far from simple, and how to develop best the entrepreneurial skills package within the constraints of higher education structures remains unresolved. Kirby (2005) is adamant that pedagogically different approaches are required for different goals. Start-up support can easily be provided as an extracurricular activity, whereas the inculcation of students with confidence and entrepreneurial attitudes may require a closer link to the subject context and prima facie establishing relevance to the discipline.

Reflecting the complexity of entrepreneurship education, learning outcomes identified by the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE, 2006), whose expressed mission it is to ‘rais[e] the profile of entrepreneurship and the option of starting a business as a career choice amongst students and graduates’, embrace not only knowledge and skills but also values and attitudes ( Table 1). Column I of Table 1, in particular, focuses on attitudes as well as individual characteristics important to the potential of entrepreneurship. While business-specific aspects (column III, item F) fall into a knowledge category traditionally conveyed in higher education, other elements such as a propensity to seek opportunities and take initiatives (column I, item A) may be more difficult to instil in students through traditional pedagogies. Interestingly, some of the skills listed in categories A and D include generic skills that resonate with professional competencies required elsewhere such as negotiation skills or idea appraisal. Positively seen, these skills could be used to forge a link with a particular subject; negatively interpreted, however, it could lead educators to the false belief that entrepreneurship skills are either nothing special or that they are already covered in the curriculum. What is crucial is, as Rae (1997) asserts, that only the combination of knowledge and skills with the right attitude and confidence can turn a graduate into an entrepreneur.

Table 1. Entrepreneurship learning elements (adapted from NCGE, 2006)

Column I: Values, attitudes, approaches		Column II: Generic competencies		Column III: Business-related competencies
A. Entrepreneurial behaviour, attitude and characteristics	• opportunity seeking	D. Generic Entrepreneurship competencies	• find an idea	F. Minimum business know-how	• business plan development
	• initiative taking		• appraise an idea		• business growth planning
	• willingness to take ownership		• see problems as opportunities		• setting standards and performance criteria
	• commitment to see things through		• identify the key people to be influenced in any development		• product development
	• strong sense of autonomy		• assess business development needs		• gap and market analyses
	• intuitive decision making with limited information		• know where to get answers		• feasibility analysis
	• networking capacity		• emotional self awareness, and control of emotions		• identify and approach customers
	• strategic thinking ability		• see yourself and the business through the eyes of stakeholders and customers		• developing sales strategies
	• negotiation capacity				• appraise and learn from competition
	• selling/persuasive capacity				• selecting financial strategies
	• achievement orientation				• utilization of professional services management skills
	• willingness to take risks
B. Awareness of entrepreneurial life styles/approaches	• work under pressure	E. Managing (business) relationships	• identify all key stakeholders impacting upon any venture	G. Understanding process (stages) of setting up an organization	• the total process of setting up an organization from idea to survival and provide understanding of what challenges will arise at each stage
	• cope with loneliness, uncertainty and complexity		• understand the needs of all key stakeholders at the start-up and survival stage
	• learning by doing, copying, making things up, problem solving		• know how to educate stakeholders
	• managing interdependencies		• know how to learn from them
	• understanding benefits, disadvantages of entrepreneurship career vis-à-visemployee career		• know how best to build and manage the relationship
	• working flexibly, long hours
C. Entrepreneurial values	• sense of independence, self-belief
	• belief that rewards come with own effort/hard work
	• strong action orientation
	• belief in informal arrangements not bureaucracy
	• belief in individual and community not state

Planning, enterprise and entrepreneurship

Returning to the initial question whether and what planning and planners would gain from entrepreneurship skills and education, it has to be acknowledged that most educators and indeed practitioners, would not readily associate planning, meaning city, urban, rural, town and/or regional planning with entrepreneurship. For one, the relevance of entrepreneurship is dismissed on the basis that planning is a public sector activity whereas the locus of entrepreneurship is generally seen within the private sector. A second, related issue is a perceived incompatibility in values and goals. In the traditional (classical) view, entrepreneurs are risk-taking individuals who manage to transform an innovative idea into a profit-making business. They are ‘buccaneering, egotistical, profit seeking, business people, quite unlike the average public sector manager’ (Leadbeater & Goss, 1998, p. 15). Public sector work is typically not linked with profit making but the fair, equitable and inclusive provision of services and goods. In other words, the quintessential image of a planner is closer to that of a technician or analyst (Hawkins, 1998), who in advising communities seeks to shape the physical and non-physical environment in sustainable and equitable fashion. In pursuing policy and development for the benefit of the greater public good (e.g. Friedmann, 1987, pp. 271 – 342, 386 – 417), planners' attitudes, value set and temperament appears to be quite different from that of go-get entrepreneurs (Yaro, 2000). And, while planners often act as change agents helping to transform a place or community, this activity is not – like elsewhere – linked to concepts of entrepreneurialism. This professional self-image extends even to the increasing number of planners in the private sector or in self-employment who would rarely equate their private practice with entrepreneurship.

Yet, as discussed earlier, professional roles and practices are changing over time and it is useful to reevaluate the relationship, particularly, as there seem to be significant developments in terms of the interpretation of entrepreneurship. Walley and Taylor (2002), for example, point out that not only a range of different definitions exist of what constitutes an entrepreneur but that the association of entrepreneurialism with the private sector is less fixed than commonly assumed. The definition by Gibb (1987, p. 6) of an entrepreneur as an individual demonstrating a marked use of enterprising attributes such as ‘initiative, persuasive powers, moderate risk-taking, creativity, independence, problem-solving, need for achievement, imagination, leadership, hard work and internal locus of control’ is a case in point. It could be as easily a depiction of a business-owner/manager as that of a project leader. In the current literature entrepreneurialism has become increasingly associated with creativity, innovation and problem-solving rather than mere profit making; and modern definitions of the concept encompass self-employment as well as intrapreneurship (entrepreneurial behaviour within large organizations). Moreover, individuals developing innovative businesses that incorporate or assume social, civic and environmental responsibilities are classed variably as social, eco(logical), environmental, civic and artistic entrepreneurs (Leadbeater & Goss, 1998; Pastakia, 1998; Isaak, 2002; Schaper, 2002; Marsden & Smith, 2005).

Although these new classes of entrepreneurialism are not (yet) clearly and unequivocally defined (e.g. Walley & Taylor, 2002), they do offer interpretations of entrepreneurialism that differ substantially from the classical views. A thorough review of social entrepreneurship by Peredo and McLean (2006) reveals that this label alone combines a whole range of businesses and activities. At one end of the spectrum there are individuals or organizations that recognize and pursue new opportunities to create social value by continuously innovating and modifying existing processes and products without accepting barriers of limited resources. In extreme cases social goods and services may be delivered with no financial transactions. At the other end of the spectrum, social entrepreneurship is associated with a (social) enterprise that pursues a so called ‘double-bottom line’ creating both financial and social returns for investment. What distinguishes social entrepreneurship from other forms of entrepreneurialism is the goal of creating social value either exclusively or as a primary goal. Social entrepreneurship can be an individual as well as a collective activity involving groups, an organization or a community. Several authors (de Leeuw, 1999; Peel, 2005, p. 444) highlight the transformational qualities of social entrepreneurs who are seen as change agents and actors essential to policy initiation and implementation in health and neighbourhood planning. Ecopreneurs or environmental entrepreneurs (Isaak, 2002; Marsden & Smith, 2005) pursue a green, environmentally responsible or sustainability agenda by for instance creating new processes using less toxic materials, reducing resource use or developing new approaches to agrifood production. The proliferation of the use of the terminology in sectors such as health and neighbourhood planning or environmental activism may be perplexing. The fact is, however, that civic, not-for-profit organizations are becoming more organized and powerful and are increasingly ‘engaged in planning and advocacy work on issues once considered the exclusive domain of public sector planning’ (Yaro, 2000, p. 84), requiring creative and entrepreneurially disposed professionals to achieve change and improvement.

The parallel development, i.e. the expansion of entrepreneurialism into a wide range of areas including the civic and not-for-profit sector, and the transformation of the public sector (and planning) under the influence of new public management (Imrie, 1999), small(er) government, entrepreneurial and competitive city paradigms, and public-private partnerships puts into question an uncritical assumption of irrelevance or incompatibility of entrepreneurship ideas in respect to planning. On the contrary, developments indicate a convergence of sorts, in terms of working practices, values, attitudes and mindsets. Moreover, in the UK, planning has been criticized for being antidevelopment, defensive and reactive (ODPM, 2002). The injection of some entrepreneurial spirit may be useful to shed this reputation. Indeed the much discussed culture change in planning demands that planning provides vision, leadership and assumes a more proactive and entrepreneurial role in the development of cities, communities and the environment. This suggests it is not only opportune, but timely and necessary, to explore the value of entrepreneurship skills provision within planning degree programmes. New breeds of social and environmental entrepreneurs show that enterprise is not necessarily in conflict with equitable, social and environmental goals and progress and the work of some community planners today could easily be classed as entrepreneurial.

Planning practice and entrepreneurship skills

Planners find employment in a variety of roles and sectors, ranging from planning control to managing large development projects, from education to research. Naturally, responsibilities and skill needs vary depending on roles and career progression (Guzzetta & Bollens, 2003). While it thus may be difficult to make a general statement in how far planners would benefit from entrepreneurship skills and education, it is nevertheless easy to provide example situations where planners would benefit from entrepreneurship skills and enterprising behavioural traits.

A range of skills from the entrepreneurial gamut, such as networking, negotiation ( Table 1, column I, item A) or management ability (column III, item F) will no doubt benefit planners. Indeed, Hawkins (1998) has long advocated for planning education to incorporate basic management theory and skills. An awareness of general business concepts, including cost control and maximization of services/performance vis-à-vis tax revenue seems paramount today in both the public and private sector. While not all managers are entrepreneurs, management will benefit from entrepreneurial capacities such as the ability to innovate and provide leadership to implement change. Planning divisions may benefit greatly from intrapreneurial activities, meaning proactive staff members initiating innovative changes in administrative procedures to improve, for example, the efficiency of urban management. And, planners' insights into business thinking and enterprise also could prove useful in interactions and negotiations with business leaders in the community, whereas the ability to see opportunities and shape them into an outcome that benefits the stakeholder cum citizen (a normal duty of planners), constitutes a classic enterprising characteristic and skill. Isaak (2002) suggests that as green businesses represent key players in the transition of society to sustainability, the public sector should support ecopreneurship with appropriate strategies. It can thus be argued that planners need to understand issues around social and environmental entrepreneurship to help shape policies accordingly. The frequent complaint by (private) employers about the lack of ‘business sense’ of planning graduates indicates that an awareness, appreciation or empathy with entrepreneurial concepts would be highly valued by the sector.

Other skills valuable for planners may be those around idea development and appraisal combined with the view to see problems not as burden but as an opportunity to change and improve things ( Table I, column II, item D). In planning, the ability to develop innovative alternative settlement patterns and ways to organize urban and rural life together with the skill of gaining buy-in to implement these plans, for example, would certainly be much appreciated considering the challenges that need to be overcome in creating sustainable living environments. Yaro (2000) suggested that there are growing numbers of employment opportunities in the not-for-profit sector. Positions in neighbourhood planning, community development and environmental conservation for example require planning knowledge as well as significant entrepreneurial abilities to achieve socially oriented goals of change, sustainability or poverty reduction with limited resources. Entrepreneurship education includes for example, the fundraising and alliance-building skills necessary to operate in this area.

Finally, those planners working either as freelance consultants or running their own consultancy may perhaps derive the greatest benefits from entrepreneurship education. Although one could support the view that these individuals could acquire the requisite skills at a later stage, as self-employment tends to be a long-term goal, a study 2 of young, self-employed built environment graduates (including planners) revealed that knowledge about business start-up procedures can reduce barriers and time to self-employment and business creation. Early awareness of entrepreneurship lifestyles and calculated risk-taking, persuasion and other entrepreneurial traits appear to be useful if not required for a successful career in this setting.

Planning education and entrepreneurship teaching

Given the potential benefits to individuals combined with the fact that the discipline itself could gain from a more enterprising attitude of its professionals, it seems logical to expect that entrepreneurial skills are an integral part of twenty-first century planning education. Yet, judging from module titles offered by university-level planning degree programmes in the UK, 3 there seems to be little specific or explicit teaching of enterprise or entrepreneurship skills. Two optional modules by the Open University, titled ‘Enterprise and the Environment’ and ‘Creativity, Innovation and Change’, which are part of the curriculum for a distance learning Master in Town and Country Planning offered jointly by the University of the West of England, South Bank University London, Leeds Metropolitan University and the University of Dundee, are amongst the few notable exceptions. Furthermore, there may be provision of some relevant entrepreneurship skills under different labels. The rationale for this assumption makes sense, if one considers the widely assumed (yet incorrect) value mismatch between planning and entrepreneurialism, and the fact that the entrepreneurial jargon is largely alien to that of the planning profession and only starts to emerge under regimes of new public management and competitive urban governance. Various entries submitted to the Centre for Education in the Built Environment (CEBE) Prize for Excellence in Teaching and Learning for (Social) Entrepreneurship4 suggest as much. The award was developed specifically to encourage academics teaching in built environment subjects at UK universities to explore the issue of entrepreneurship at disciplinary level. The prize was for exemplary modules that support entrepreneurship skills and attitude development. Over two rounds of the competition (2004/05 and 2005/06) only three submissions from planning schools were received, most with no reference to entrepreneurship in their titles. This is another indication that the topic is currently not a fixed element in UK planning education curricula. On the positive side, however, the modules submitted were of good quality. Tutors skilfully linked subject-specific concerns with pedagogies that encouraged students to be independent, resourceful, enterprising and innovative. One module, for example, took the form of an urban design studio for a deprived rural community in Scotland, where students met with community representatives (to explore stakeholder needs), produced a design (idea creation) but then went on to also support fundraising and implementation of one of the designs (Higgins, 2005). Social commitment and effecting real change produced a sense of achievement in students, giving them confidence in being ‘civic entrepreneurs’ in the best sense. This was supported by the tutor's effort to make conceptual links to the language of entrepreneurship in teaching.

Some credit is due to the Royal Town Planning Institute's (2004) policy statement on initial planning education, which anticipates skills needs that are theoretically relevant for entrepreneurship. The statement lists as desirable professional skills for planning amongst others vision, imagination, management competency, creativity and team working; these resonate characteristics and traits specified for successful (civic) entrepreneurship. A comparison of skills and characteristics typically associated with entrepreneurs and those identified recently as desirable for planners shows indeed a substantial overlap. Figure 1 illustrates closely matching skills (black shading), conceptually similar skills (grey shading) and additional skills (white background). Obviously the mapping represents no one-to-one match, yet it shows that some of the generic entrepreneurship skills (see Table 1, column II) should clearly be part of the planning curriculum. Planning schools should take note that skills currently not listed in the desired learning outcomes for planning, including leadership, the ability to mobilize, management skills, flexibility and a propensity for opportunism, feature prominently in the recent studies on skill gaps and requirements for regeneration professionals and those involved in delivering sustainable communities (Communities Scotland, 2004; Egan, 2004).

Figure 1. Comparison of entrepreneurial skills/qualities and skills/qualities specified for planners. Sources: Skills/quality list derived from Leadbeater (1997) and NCGE Learning outcomes (2006) (note that entrepreneurship skills listed represent a subset of a wider list, which includes also basic business skills); Skills for Planners list derived from Royal Town Planning Institute (2004) and Planning Accreditation Board (2006) (again other skills required for the profession were excluded).

In sum, it appears that although a useful subset of requisite skills should be covered as per professional body guideline adherence to the guidelines alone will neither address the entrepreneurship agenda not the skills gaps identified by government. Following Rae's argument (1997), one might say that the elements currently not covered in the planning curriculum encapsulate perhaps the crucial attitudinal attributes that will turn a competent planning graduate into an enterprising one, or a technically competent planner into one that delivers change in terms of regenerating urban areas and making them more sustainable. What coverage of entrepreneurship skills and attitudes exists in practice is spotty, and implicit rather than explicit, and not connected to relevant entrepreneurial concepts and language.

Integrating entrepreneurship education in planning

One initial measure to increase the level of entrepreneurship skills teaching would be to make relevant learning outcomes more explicit and to contextualize them in respect to employability and entrepreneurship. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Research on developing visioning and creativity (Town Planning Network, 1999) revealed that if competencies are not stated explicitly as learning outcome and included in assessment criteria (for an urban design project, for example) they will not be addressed by students in full. Educators should expect similar things to hold for entrepreneurial skills. In other words, if entrepreneurial concepts and competencies are not incorporated explicitly it will be difficult for students to relate their learning to an enhanced entrepreneurial capacity. This is not to suggest planning educators adopt entrepreneurship jargon and language without scrutiny. Instead, it may be useful for planning to frame entrepreneurship in terms of social and environmental entrepreneurialism as these ideas promote values closely related to those of planning.

Second, Stubbs and Keeping (2002) show that teaching content and skills in combination represents but few issues. Planning knowledge can be acquired effectively via project work, while also contributing to the development of a wide range of (entrepreneurial) skills, including problem definition and problem solving, time management, flexibility and independent decision making. Projects, workshops or studios are familiar pedagogical tools in planning. They are effective not only in terms of promoting deep learning but their experiential, problem-based approach is also well suited to develop entrepreneurial attitudes. The less structure there is provided for a project, the greater the need for students to take responsibility. In projects that are conducted in teams, leadership is vital. Projects with actual clients, organized perhaps as a mock consultancy, are especially suited to introduce entrepreneurial issues. Depending on the project content and set-up, students may be required to organize meetings with a client, community group or developer and to deliver a professional report or plan as part of the assessment. Clients might be induced to provide small-scale sponsorship; this would allow for a ‘budget’ with which students then have to get a particular job done. Other approaches encourage students to raise funds to get their project built or realized. Alternatively, tutors may introduce a competitive element in that different student teams work on the same project with the most successful one being awarded a prize. Many of these suggestions are derived from actual modules submitted for the CEBE Prize for Teaching Excellence in Entrepreneurship or internationally known examples. Although for many educators, the main purpose of these modules is not the teaching of entrepreneurship skills but a deeply rooted interest in facilitating discourse and critical thinking about societal and environmental problems, they nevertheless recognize the traits and skills necessary to effect change and are keen to emphasize the value of such teaching in terms of planning practice. This subject-specific linkage is quite valuable as long as students are growing in confidence, and gain awareness of what they can achieve by commitment and work.

Third, awareness of entrepreneurship as one possible career could (and should) be included in the planning curriculum. This can be done without great modifications as part of modules typically offered in preparation for professional practice. One idea would be to expand the discussion on students' career ambitions to include the review profiles of planners 5 turned entrepreneurs or a seminar with (social) and environmental entrepreneurs. Alternatively, the issue of planning and planners as social/environmental change agents (also known as social entrepreneurs) could be explored in a research essay.

Finally, it needs to be acknowledged that the introduction of entrepreneurship education at the subject level requires departmental and university level support. A possible reason for the present paucity of discussion of entrepreneurship, skills and attitudes in the planning curriculum may be a lack of topical knowledge by teaching staff. The strain on educators to constantly provide more with less is creating stress and resistance to prepare new teaching materials. And although a range of generic resources are available through the Higher Education Academy, for example, and a number of centres of excellence in learning and teaching at English universities are exploring this issue, educators still will need training and find time to develop their own thinking and teaching around these materials.

Conclusion

The field of planning and planning education has evolved constantly to respond to changing societal needs and demands over time. Considering higher education policy guidance on widening access to entrepreneurship education, the goal of this article was to explore whether planning education should include and indeed could benefit from the incorporation of entrepreneurial skills teaching.

One key observation was that public sector planning is increasingly adopting new innovative and business-like approaches for management and administration. New foci in planning such as planners' role in delivering sustainable communities also have shifted skills needs toward leadership, visioning and enterprising competencies. Moreover, a growing number of planners find work in the private sector or as self-employed consultants. Job advertisements for junior positions by planning consultancies in the UK, for example, have increased by 3% over the last two years, whereas openings by local government dropped by 5% in the same period (Shaw et al., 2003). Overall, it seems that planning graduates in all kinds of employment situations could benefit from entrepreneurial knowledge and especially from management and leadership skills. Entrepreneurship learning could stimulate in students a greater drive for innovation and change within the field as well as open up new career opportunities in the civic sector.

Second, entrepreneurship concepts can but do not have to be in conflict with planning goals and values. On the contrary, newly emerging interpretations of entrepreneurship in the form of social or civic entrepreneurialism (Leadbeater, 1997, Leadbeater & Goss, 1998; Peredo & McLean, 2006) and ecopreneurialism (Pastakia, 1998) represent quite a close fit with ideals and values of planning. Environmental and social entrepreneurialism is highly compatible with the sustainable communities' agenda and inducing social, environmental change and betterment and a curriculum revolving around such themes may infuse new relevance and energy into the profession and raise its profile. There is an opportunity for planning to develop and shape a discipline specific, responsible interpretation and culture of entrepreneurialism, rather than leaving entrepreneurship education, and with it the formation of the future entrepreneurial culture, in the hands of business schools.

Although teaching entrepreneurship is complex, planning schools are in an advantageous position to incorporate the subject. While providers are currently not overtly engaged in teaching entrepreneurial skills, many practical skills (communication, team working, networking etc.) necessary for planners also support in theory the entrepreneurship agenda. Teaching pedagogies such as projects and service-learning activities are also well suited to foster entrepreneurial skills and character development. Hence, there is potential for embedding these skills in initial planning education. For this the implied nature of the provision needs to be overcome and more links to the wider entrepreneurship concepts need to be established. Moreover, there is a dearth in fostering relevant attitudinal characteristics such as leadership, self-efficacy, can-do attitude and risk taking, which are necessary entrepreneurial characteristics. This is despite reports identifying exactly those skills as lacking in the discipline, and perhaps future revisions of professional body guidance on the subject of skills could be more inclusive and explicit.

No doubt, the incorporation of entrepreneurship skills in planning curricula will require investment of time and resources by universities, schools and departments. However, the changes involved are likely to bear considerable long-term benefits for the field. Projects involving planning oriented entrepreneurialism and community involvement are likely to motivate students and provide the excitement many of them seek from a university education. The new focus on innovation and creativity together with aims in social and environmental improvement could prove an inspiring new agenda for the profession. Successful projects may get press coverage, which in turn could raise the profile of the profession and individual schools and support future recruitment into the field. One would thus hope that planning schools sooner rather than later consider and engage with the enterprise and entrepreneurship agenda when reviewing their curricula.

Acknowledgements

Ideas for this article were developed in the context of a Higher Education Academy project (http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/Enterprise.htm) with the objective to foster subject-specific enterprise and entrepreneurship teaching and learning in Built Environment courses in the UK (see also http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/entrepreneurship/index.php). A draft version of the article was presented at the World Planning Schools Congress in Mexico City, 13 – 16 July 2006, and the author would like to thank colleagues and referees for their encouragement and helpful comments in completing the article.

Notes

1. This neglect is not restricted to planning, but applies to almost all disciplines except business, management and the creative industries.

2. See Buckley's (n.d.) profiles of young entrepreneurs, what motivated them and their tips for fellow graduates.

3. However, many universities offer seminars on entrepreneurship and business start-ups outside the planning curriculum.

4. Details of the award and award recipient information can be found at http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/entrepreneurship/index.php.

5. A set of profiles of entrepreneurs with a background in built environment, planning and architecture are available from the Subject Centre for Education in the Built Environment in the UK (http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/entrepreneurship/profiles.php).