Waves of planning: a framework for studying the evolution of planning systems and empirical insights from Serbia and Montenegro

Abstract

With increasing internationalization of urban planning throughout the twentieth century and in the past several decades in particular, planning ideas and practices have been exported from a few, and imported in many countries. However, this ‘trade’ happens without clear expectations about the ensuing dynamics between the internal context and external influences. This paper attempts to enhance understanding of how planning systems evolve and which factors affect them. The conceptual frameworks and typologies used to characterize planning systems and their determinants are reviewed. Building on previous work, an integrated framework is proposed that captures the process, factors and outcomes of urban planning systems. The history of planning in Serbia and Montenegro is used to illustrate how a planning system evolves under changing circumstances and influences and to demonstrate the complexity of such process. The case study is not intended to provide a detailed historical account of the country’s planning trajectory, but to highlight the applicability of elements of the framework in a real setting. In particular, the focus is on conditions of imposition versus voluntary adoption of planning ideas as a way of examining the interaction between the local context and imported models, as well as the implications of such interaction. The article concludes with several pointers about the necessary research on the nature of planning exports and imports and their effects on the resultant urban systems, processes, environments and quality of life.

Notes

1. A. Faludi, Patterns of Doctrinal Development. Journal of Planning Education and Research 18 (1999) 333–44. Faludi defines planning doctrine as ‘a conceptual scheme giving coherence to planning by means of conceptualizing an area’s shape, development challenges, and ways of handling them’ (p. 333).

2. P. Healey and R. Williams, European urban planning systems: Diversity and convergence. Urban Studies 30 (1993) 701–20. Healey and Williams differentiate planning systems by ‘variations in national legal and constitutional structures and administrative and professional cultures’ (p. 701) and include plan‐making, urban development and regulatory functions.

3. J. Nasr and M. Volait, Introduction: Transporting Planning, in J. Nasr and M. Volait (eds) Urbanism: Imported or Exported. Chichester, England: Wiley‐Academy, 2003, pp. xi–xxxviii; P. Saunier, Changing the city: urban international information and the Lyon municipality, 1900–1940. Planning Perspectives 14 (1999) 19–48; and S. V. Ward, Re‐examining the International Diffusion of Planning, in R. Freestone (ed.) Urban Planning in a Changing World. London: E&FN Spon, 2000, pp. 40–60.

4. A. Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981. Sutcliffe points to Charles Mulford Robinson as the one who coined the expression ‘international town planning movement’ to reflect this transfer and exchange of planning ideas (p. 229).

5. S. V. Ward, The international diffusion of planning: A review and a Canadian case study. International Planning Studies 4 (1999) 53–77.

6. J. Nasr and M. Volait, op. cit. [3].

7. A. M. Wood, Domesticating Urban Theory? US Concepts, British Cities and the Limits of Cross‐national Applications. Urban Studies 41 (2004) 2103–118. Wood warns about the limited applicability (but overuse) of the US concepts of urban regime and growth machine to British cities. See also S. Schrader, Avoiding the mistakes of the ‘mother country’: the New Zealand garden city movement 1900–1926. Planning Perspectives 14 (1999) 395–411. Schrader discusses the failure of Garden City idea to be accepted in New Zealand where the socio‐economic circumstances in the early twentieth century superficially resembled those in Britain, but did not warrant the realization of such an urban model. He also mentions the fad nature of introducing new planning ideas in contexts that do not call for them.

8. K. Pallagst, Local and Regional Planning Instruments in Central and Eastern Europe – a Transnational Approach, in Proceedings of the 1^st World Planning Schools Congress. Shanghai, July 12–15, 2001; and V. Nadin, Transnational Spatial Development and Planning – Experience from the spatial vision for North‐West Europe, in C. Bengs (ed.) Facing ESPON, Nordregio Report. Stockholm, 2002. pp. 25–40.

9. B. Stiftel and V. Watson (eds), Dialogues in Urban and Regional Planning, 1. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis in conjunction with the Global Planning Education Association Network (GPEAN), 2004.

10. B. Harris, Innovative Urban Planning in Developing Countries, in Proceedings of the 1^st World Planning Schools Congress, Shanghai, July 12–15, 2001.

11. V. Watson, Planning under political transition: Lessons from Cape Town’s metropolitan planning forum. International Planning Studies 3 (1998) 335–50; V. Watson, Changing Cape Town – Urban Dynamics, Policy and Planning During the Political Transition in South Africa. International Planning Studies 4 (1999) 414–16; and K. Maier, Planning and education in planning in the Czech Republic. Journal of Planning Education and Research 13 (1994) 263–9. Maier finds that those special circumstances offer a laboratory setting for tracking and evaluating the forms and concepts of planning over time.

12. S. V. Ward, op. cit. [3], p. 43.

13. Z. Nedović‐Budić, Adjustment of Planning Practice to the New Eastern and Central European Context. Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (2001) 38–52.

14. L. Sýkora, Transition states of East Central Europe, in P. Balchin, L. Sýkora and G. Bull (eds) Regional Policy and Planning in Europe. London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 161–92; and S. Chakravorty, Liberalism, neoliberalism, and capability generation: Toward a normative basis for planning in developing nations. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 (1999) 77–85.

15. A. Rapoport, Cross‐Cultural Studies and Urban Form. College Park, MD: Urban Studies and Planning Program, University of Maryland, 1993.

16. M. J. Thomas, Thinking about planning in the transitional countries of Central and Eastern Europe. International Planning Studies 3 (1998) 321–33. Based on the legal binding of the planning documents, Thomas distinguished coarsely between Continental and British models. See also J. Berry and S. McGreal (eds), European cities, planning systems and property markets. London: E & FN Spon, 1995; P. Healey and R. Williams, op. cit. [2]; and P. Newman and A. Thornley, Urban planning in Europe. London: Routledge, 1996. Newman and Thornley identified five legal families of European planning: British, Scandinavian, Napoleonic, Germanic and East European systems. The last one is now under transition from a communist system of centralized planning to a yet undefined set of new systems. Along with other authors, Booth discussed several European planning systems rather than one homogenous system. He found that there are more hybrids and variations than prototypical cases and clearly identifiable types. Booth offered two general categories of development control practices: (1) discretionary, which entails maximum flexibility (exemplified by the UK); and (2) regulatory, which provides legal certainty in the development processes and outcomes (exemplified by France, Germany, The Netherlands and, to some extent, the USA). P. Booth, Controlling development: Certainty and discretion in Europe, the U.S. and Hong Kong. London: UCL Press, 1996.

17. S. V. Ward, op. cit. [3].

18. E. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 4^th edn, 1995. According to Rogers, diffusion of innovation as communication concerns the spread of new and old ideas alike. The newness is, therefore, determined through the recipients’ experience, because ‘[i]nnovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption’ (p. 11). Communication channels are the means by which the messages and information are communicated. The social system is a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem‐solving toward accomplishing a common goal. A system may consist of individuals, formal groups, organizations and/or subsystems.

19. A. Sutcliffe, op. cit. [4].

20. E. Rogers, op. cit. [18].

21. S. V. Ward, op. cit. [3].

22. A. Faludi, op. cit. [1].

23. A. Faludi, ibid.

24. M. J. Thomas, op. cit. [16].

25. F. Wu, Transitional Cities (Commentary). Environment and Planning A 35 (2003) 1331–8 (p.1332).

26. L. Holmes, Post‐Communism: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997; P. Lewis, Theories of democratization and patterns of regime change in Eastern Europe. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 1 (1997) 4–26; J. Linz and A. Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1996; and M. J. Thomas, op. cit. [16].

27. D. Stark, The great transformation? Social Change in Eastern Europe. Contemporary Sociology 21 (1992) 299–304; and M. J. Thomas, ibid.

28. R. Beauregard and A. Haila, The unavoidable incompleteness of the city. American Behavioural Scientist 41 (1997) 327–41; and F. Wu, op. cit. [25].

29. P. Marcuse and R. van Kempen, Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order? Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.

30. N. Taylor, Anglo‐American town planning theory since 1945: three significant developments but no paradigm shifts. Planning Perspectives 14 (1999) 327–45.

31. S. V. Ward, op. cit. [3].

32. J. Nasr and M. Volait, op. cit. [3].

33. Sutcliffe identified four classes of planners: the fully cosmopolitan planner; the intermediary; the home‐based planner with a willingness to look abroad; and the xenophobe. See A. Sutcliffe, op.cit. [4].

34. S. V. Ward, The Emergence of the Global Planner. Town Planning Review 76 (2005) 119–41.

35. Rogers suggested that the change agents’ role is to: develop a need for change; establish an information‐exchange relationship; diagnose a problem; create an intent in the client to change; translate an intent to action; stabilize adoption and prevent discontinuance; and achieve a terminal relationship. See E. Rogers, op. cit. [18].

36. According to Nasr and Volait, the diffusion and exchange of planning models is usually part of overall modernization or of state or nation‐building efforts. Behind these general processes, the authors saw the urban environment and its identity shaped by a multitude of local interests and actors – public, quasi‐public and private. They described this process as negotiation among ‘powerful subjects’ and as rich and often constructive interaction between foreign experts and local professionals. See J. Nasr and M. Volait, op. cit. [3].

37. S. V. Ward, op. cit. [5], p. 53.

38. P. Saunier, op. cit. [3].

39. S. Schrader, op. cit. [7].

40. P. Newman and A. Thornley, op. cit. [16]. Emphasizing both the importance of action by local authorities and the role of central government, Newman and Thornley’s case studies revealed that the

[n]ational planning systems are differentiated along legal and administrative dimensions and national political and institutional structures create significant differences in approach to urban planning. At the urban level, specific local economic and political circumstances and the relative power of various interest groups also affect the urban planning outcome’ (p.245).

41. P. Booth, op. cit. [16].

42. Z. Nedović‐Budić, op. cit. [13]. See also L. Luithlen, Landownership in Britain and the quest for town planning. Environment and Planning A 29 (1997) 1399–418; D. B. Lee, Jr, Land use planning as a response to market failure, in J. I. de Neufville (ed.) The Land Use Policy Debate in the United States. New York: Plenum Press, 1981, pp. 149–64; C. J. Webster, Public choice, Pigouvian and Coasian planning theory. Urban Studies 35 (1998) 53–75; and C. J. Webster and W. C. L. Lai, Property Rights, Planning and Markets: managing spontaneous cities. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2004.

43. P. Booth, op. cit. [16].

44. K. R. Kunzmann, Culture, creativity and spatial planning. Town Planning Review 75 (2004) 383–404.

45. S. V. Ward, op. cit. [3].

46. Ibid.; and A. M. Wood, op. cit. [7].

47. E. Rogers, op. cit. [18].

48. A. Sutcliffe, op. cit. [4].

49. S. V. Ward, op. cit. [3].

50. Ibid.

51. A. Faludi, op. cit. [1].

52. J. Cvijić, La Péninsule Balkanique, Géographie humanie. Revue Universitarie 6 (1918).

53. B. Krstić and B. Bojović (eds), Prostorno planerski atlas Jugoslavije [Spatial Planning Atlas of Yugoslavia]. Beograd: Jugoslovenski institut za urbanizam i stanovanje – JUGINUS (Yugoslav Institute for Urbanism and Housing), 1972.

54. J. Cvijić, op. cit. [52].

55. Dj. R. Simonović and M. Ribar, Uredjenje seoskih teritorija i naselja [Arrangement of rural territories and settlements]. Beograd: IBI, Inzenjering i projektovanje, 1993.

56. B. Bukurov, Geografski položaj i teritorijalni razvitak banatskih gradova [Geographical Location and Territorial Development of Cities in Banat]. Zbornik Matice Srpske (Serija prirodnih nauka) 5 (1954) 5–15; B. Bukurov, Naselja u severnom Banatu [Settlements in the Northern Banat]. Zbornik radova Prorodno‐matematičkog fakulteta (Serija za Geografiju) 1 (1971) 318–44; and B. Kojić, Naselja u Vojvodini [Settlements in Vojvodina]. Glas SANU (Odeljenje društvenih nauka, tom CCL) 10 (1961) 63–80.

57. B. Krstić, Čovek i životna sredina – Pristup prostornom planiranju i razvoju [Man and Environment – An Approach to Physical Planning and Development]. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1982.

58. L. Beritić, Urbanstički Razvitak Dubrovnika [Urban Development of Dubrovnik]. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti – JAZU (Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts), 1958.

59. B. Kojić, Varošice u Srbiji XIX veka [Towns in Serbia in the 19^th Century]. Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije. (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), 1970; B. Maksimović, Urbanizam u Srbiji [Urbanism in Serbia]. Beograd: Gradjevinska knjiga, 1962; B. Maksimović, Idejni razvoj srpskog urbanizima [Ideological development of Serbian urbanism]. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti – SANU (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts), 1978; B. Stojkov, Plan i sudbina grada [The Plan and Destiny of a City]. Beograd: Gradjevinska knjiga, 1992.

60. J. Cvijić, op. cit. [52]; Dj. R. Simonović and M. Ribar, op. cit. [55]; B. Stojkov, ibid.; and B. Krstić, op. cit. [57].

61. J. Cvijić, ibid.

62. B. Maksimović (1962), op. cit. [59].

63. B. Stojkov, Obnova gradova u Srbiji [Renewal of Cities in Serbia]. Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), 1996; and B. Stojkov, op. cit. [59].

64. B. Stojkov, op. cit. [59].

65. A. Švarc, Priručnik za zemaljske i općinske činovnike civilne tehnike, gradjevinske obrtnike i gradeće obćinstvo [Guidance for surveyors and county officers of civil techniques, construction contractors and city officials]. Zagreb: Naklada L. Hartman, Stj. Kugli, 1903.

66. V. Krtalić, Sustavi planiranja i korištenja zemljišta [Systems for Planning and Land Use]. Zagreb: Novi Informator, 2004.

67. D. Božić, Tehnički List 7 (1903), in B. Stojkov, Plan i sudbina grada [The Plan and Destiny of City]. Beograd: Gradjevinska knjiga, 1992, p. 78.

68. D. T. Leko, Batal‐džamija i dom za narodno predstavništvo u Beogradu [The Batal Mosque and the People’s Representative Hall in Belgrade]. Srpski tehnički list 18, 1907.

69. M. Radovanović, Uvod u urbanizam [Introduction to Urbanism]. Beograd: Geca Kon, 1933.

70. D. Tošković, Urbani dizajn – Urbanistička tehnika i estetika [Urban Design – Urban Technique and Aesthetics]. Urbanistički Zavod Repuplike Srpske, Grafozavod Laktaši, 2000; and B. Stojkov, op. cit. [59].

71. A. Marinović‐Uzelac, Teorija namjene površina u urbanizinu [Land Use Theory in Urbanism]. Zagreb: Tehnička knjiga, 1989.

72. R. Bakić, Prostorno planiranje [Spatial Planning]. Nikšić: Univerzitetska riječ, 1988.

73. B. Maksimović, Urbanizam u Srbiji … , op. cit. [59].

74. A. H. Dawson, Yugoslavia, in A. H. Dawson (ed.) Planning in Eastern Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987, pp. 275–91.

75. J. C. Fisher, Planning the City of Socialist Man. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 28 (1962) 251–65.

76. E. Mumford, The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000.

77. N. Dobrović, Konture budućeg Beograda [The Contours of Future Belgrade]. Tehničke Novine 6 (1946).

78. A. Marinović‐Uzelac, op. cit. [71].

79. In Belgrade, Serbia: Yugoslav Institute of Town Planning and Housing – JUGINUS (1957, formerly State Institute for Communal and Housing Affairs), Serbian Institute for Urbanism and Communal Affairs – ZUKD (1962), Institute of Architecture and Urbanism of Serbia – IAUS (1958). In Zagreb, Croatian Institute of Town Planning – UIH (1954). In Ljubljana, Slovenian Town Planning Institute – UIS. In Titograd (now Podgorica), Institute for Urbanism and Planning of the Republic of Montenegro – RZUP (1962). In Novi Sad, Institute for Urbanism, Informatics and Construction – URBIS (1960), etc.

80. R. Bakić, op. cit. [72].

81. I. Vrišer, Regionalno planiranje [Regional Planning]. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1978; B. Cavrić, Perspectives on Yugoslav Planning Education in the New Century after the Collapse of Former Yugoslavia. Paper presented at the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP) Congress, Brno, Czech Republic, July 18–23, 2000; and D. Perišić, O Prostornom planiranju [About Physical Planning]. Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), 1985.

82. B. Piha, Osnove prostornog planiranja [Basics of Spatial Planning]. Beograd: Prirodno‐matematicki fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu and Jugoslovenski institut za produktivnost rada (Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, University of Belgrade and Yugoslav Institute for Labour Productivity), 1986.

83. B. Cavrić, op. cit. [81].

84. D. Perišić, op. cit. [81].

85. M. Vujošević, N. Spasić and K. Petovar, Reintegrating Yugoslavia into European Development Schemes – The Urge to Reform the Planning System and Planning Practice. The Use of Resources, Sustainable Development and Spatial Planning Series, No. 5. Belgrade: Institute of Architecture, Urban and Spatial Planning of Serbia, 2000.

86. Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije – IAUS (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), Tehničko upustvo za izradu prostornih planova u Srbiji [Technical Guidance for the Preparation of Physical Development Plans in Serbia]. Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), 1997.

87. B. Cavrić, op. cit. [81].

88. B. Krstić, op. cit. [57].

89. B. Cullingworth, Planning in the USA, Policies, Issues and Processes. London and New York: Routledge, 1997; I. Szelenyi, J. M. Simmie and J. Dekleva, Yugoslavia in Turmoil: After Self Management. London: Pinter, 1991; and M. Vujošević et al., op. cit. [85].

90. B. Cavrić, op. cit. [81].

91. H. Brković‐Bajić (ed.), Yu National Report. Beograd: Jugoslovenska nacionalna HABITAT II komisija, (Yugoslav National HABITAT II Committee), 1996.

92. J. Radulović, S. Bulatović, P. Radičević, P. Keckarević and Krunić‐Lazić (eds), Stanje životne sredine u Jugoslaviji [The State of Yugoslav Environment]. Ministarstvo za razvoj, nauku i životnu sredinu republike Jugoslavije (Ministry of development, science and environment of the Republic of Yugoslavia). Beograd: Birografika, 1996.

93. D. Perišić and B. Bojović, Planiranje, izgradnja i prostorni razvoj [Planning, construction and spatial development], in Proceedings of the 20^th Anniversary Symposium. Beograd: Odsek za prostorno planiranje (Department of Physical Planning), Geografski fakultet (Faculty of Geography), Univerzitet u Beogradu (University of Belgrade), 1997, pp. 1–9.

94. M. Janić, Održivi razvoj naselja u zemljama u tranziciji [Sustainable Development of Human Settlements in Transitional Countries]. Beograd: Jugoslovenski institut za urbanizam i stanovanje – JUGINUS I Agencija za urbano zemljiste i izgradnju grada Beograda (Yugoslav Institute of Town Planning and Housing and Agency for Urban Land and Construction of the City of Belgrade), 1997.

95. B. Cavrić, op. cit. [81].

96. Institut za arhitekuturu i urbanizam Srbije (IAUS ‐ Institute of Architecture and Spatial Planning of Serbia), Prostorni plan Republike Srbije [Physical Plan of the Republic of Serbia]. Belgrade: IAUS, 1996.

97. B. Cavrić, Challenges and Opportunities for Integrated Spatial Development in Cross‐Border Areas of Croatia and Serbia – An Overview of Recent Trends and Future Prospect. Paper presented at the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP) Conference, Vienna, July12–17, 2005.

98. Z. Nedović‐Budić and M. Vujošević, Interplay Between Political, Governance, Socio‐economic and Planning Systems: Case Study of Former Yugoslavia and present Serbia and Montenegro, in Z. Nedović‐Budić and S. Tsenkova (eds.) Winds of Societal Change: Remaking Post‐communist Cities, Conference Proceedings. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign, Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center, 2004, pp. 111–32.

99. Z. Žegarac, Illegal construction in Belgrade and the prospects for urban development planning. Cities 16 (1999) 365–70.

100. D. Perišić and B. Bojović, op. cit. [93].

101. M. Vujošević, Novije promene u teoriji i praksi planiranja na zapadu i njihove pouke za planiranje u Srbiji/Jugoslaviji [Recent changes in planning theory and practice in the west and their lessons for planning in Serbia/Yugoslavia]. Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije – IAUS (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), 2002; and M. Vujošević, Planiranje u postsocijalističkoj političkoj i ekonomskoj tranziciji [Planning during postsocialist political and economic transition], Special Edition 40. Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije – IAUS (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), 2003.

102. N. Milašin, N. Spasić, M. Vujošević and M. Pucar (eds), Održivi prostorni, urbani i ruralni razvoj Srbije [Sustainable spatial, urban and rural development in Serbia]. Symposium Proceedings, December 6–7, 2004. Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije – IAUS (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), 2004a; and N. Milašin, N. Spasić, M. Vujošević and M. Pucar (eds), Strateški okvir za održivi razvoj Srbije [Strategic framework for sustainable development of Serbia]. Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije – IAUS (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), 2004b.

103. N. Danilović, Noviji pristupi u urbanističkom planiranju u uslovima Evropske integracije [Recent approaches to urban planning under the circumstances of European integration], in N. Spasić (ed.) Noviji pristupi i iskustva u planiranju [Recent Approaches and Experiences in Planning]. Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije – IAUS (Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia), 2002, pp. 77–82; and M. Filipović and M. Vujošević, Mesto i uloga Srbije u neposrednom regionalnom i širem evropskom okruženju: Aspekt institucionalnog prilagodjavanja u oblasti politike i planiranja razvoja [Place and role of Serbia in the immediate and broader European environment: The aspects of institutional adaptation in the area of development policy and planning], in N. Milašin et al., Strateški okvir … ibid., pp. 3–9.

104. B. Cavrić, op. cit. [97].

105. M. Krešić, Serbian Planning and Constructing Law Approach to City Politics and Urban Management. Were We Ready?. in Z. Nedović‐Budić and S. Tsenkova (eds), op. cit. [98], pp. 171–80.

106. D. Djordjević, ‘Decentralizovana Srbija’ i njen prostorni razvoj: Pitanje instrumenata i pitanje koncepta [‘Decentralized Serbia’ and its spatial development: Questions of tools and concepts], in N. Milašin et al. (eds) Održivi prostorni … op. cit. [102], pp. 3–6.

107. B. Cavrić, The new planning paradigm in the latest Yugoslav State alliance of Serbia and Montenegro. Spatium 8 (2002) 14–25 (p. 107).

108. M. J. Thomas, op. cit. [16].

109. A. Hohn, Urban Planning within Socialist Centralism: The Legacy of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), in Proceedings of the 1^st World Planning Schools Congress. Shanghai, July 12–15, 2001, p. 2.

110. R. Freestone, The British connection: Convergence, divergence and cultural identity in Australian urban planning history, in J. M. Barker (ed.) Old Institutions – New Images, Proceedings of the International Conference. Perth: John Curtin International Institute, Curtin University, 1997, pp.61–70.

111. S. V. Ward, op. cit. [3].

112. A. Faludi, op. cit. [1]; S. V. Ward, ibid.

113. A. Faludi, ibid.

114. M. J. Thomas, op. cit. [16] p. 7; E. Rogers, op. cit. [18].

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Zorica Nedović‐Budić

Zorica Nedović‐Budić is Associate Professor of urban planning and geographic information systems (GIS) at the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign. She received her PhD degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1993. She is interested in diffusion and implementation of GIS technology in local government settings and development of spatial data infrastructures. Her planning research revolves around the issues of urban development and practice in post‐communist Europe and other international settings. She served on the Board of Directors for the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) and the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA). She has also contributed as a co‐editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association book reviews and URISA Journal’s literature reviews.

Branko Cavrić

Branko Cavrić is Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture and Planning at the University of Botswana. His research interests include urban geography, urban studies, environmental planning and management topics. As a member of an international team he was recently involved in a book entitled From Understanding to Action – Sustainable Urban Development in Medium‐Sized Cities in Africa and Latin America (Springer). In addition to his academic and research portfolio he has also been active in numerous urban planning and design projects in Europe and Africa.