Potentials of Entrepreneurial Thinking for Planning

References

• Adams, D.; Tiesdell, S. (2010): Planners as Market Actors: Rethinking State–Market Relations in Land and Property. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), pp. 187–207. doi:10.1080/14649351003759631. doi: 10.1080/14649351003759631
   Google Scholar
• AESOP (AESOP Secretary General) (2014): Association of European Schools of Planning. Booklet. Wroclaw. Available online: http://backend.aesop-planning.eu/uploads/aesop-logos/aesopbrochure.pdf, accessed 26. 05. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Agger, A.; Sørensen, E. (2016): Managing collaborative innovation in public bureaucracies. Planning Theory, (Online first), pp. 1–21. doi:10.1177/1473095216672500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, E. R. (2008): Between State and Market: A Third Way of Planning. International Planning Studies, 13(2), pp. 119–132. doi:10.1080/13563470802291994. doi: 10.1080/13563470802291994
   Google Scholar
• Biddulph, M. (2011): Urban design, regeneration and the entrepreneurial city. Progress in Planning, 76, pp. 63–103. doi:10.1016/j.pro gress.2011.08.001. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2011.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner, N. (ed.) (2017): Critique of Urbanization: Selected Essays. Bauwelt Fundamente, p. 156. Basel: Birkhäuser Bauverlag.
   Google Scholar
• Brenner, N.; Marcuse, P.; Mayer, M. (eds.) (2012): Cities for people, not for profit: Critical urban theory and the right to the city. London, New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Buitelaar, E. (2003): Neither market nor government: Comparing the performance of user rights regimes. Town Planning Review, 74 (3), pp. 315–330. doi:10.3828/tpr.74.3.4. doi: 10.3828/tpr.74.3.4
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, N. M.; Infranca, J. J. (2016): The Sharing Economy as an Urban Phenomenon. Yale Law & Policy Review, 34(2). Available online: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol34/iss2/1, accessed 26. 05. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Davidoff, P. (1965): Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31 (4), pp. 331–338. doi:10.1080/01944366508978187. doi: 10.1080/01944366508978187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dellenbaugh, M.; Kip, M.; Bieniok, M.; Müller, A. K.; Schwegmann, M. (eds.) (2015): Bauwelt Fundamente: Vol. 154. Urban commons: Moving beyond state and market. Gütersloh: Bauverlag.
   Google Scholar
• Florida, R. L. (2002): The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Florida, R. L. (2017): The new urban crisis: How our cities are increasing inequality, deepening segregation, and failing the middle class and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Florida, R. L.; Adler, P.; Mellander, C. (2017): The city as innovation machine. Regional Studies, 51 (1), pp. 86–96. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1255324. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1255324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaeser, E. L. (2011): Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. New York: Penguin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grossi, G.; Pianezzi, D. (2017): Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology? Cities, 69, pp. 79–85. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.012 doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. (1989): From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 71 (1), pp. 3–17. doi:10.2307/490503.
   Google Scholar
• Hou, J.; Knierbein, S. (eds.) (2017): City Unsilenced: Urban Resistance and Public Space in the Age of Shrinking Democracy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Frenken, K.; Schor, J. (2017): Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, pp. 3–10. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez, A. C. (2014): The Right to Infrastructure: A Prototype for Open Source Urbanism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32 (2), pp. 342–362. doi: 10.1068/d13077p. doi: 10.1068/d13077p
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R.; Lauriault, T. P.; McArdle, G. (2015): Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2 (1), pp. 6–28. doi:10.1080/21681376.2014.983149. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2014.983149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (1985): Arguments for and against planning. Town Planning Review, 56 (1), pp. 5–20. doi: 10.3828/tpr.56.1.e8286q3082111km4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunzmann, K. R. (2016): Crisis and urban planning?: A commentary. European Planning Studies, 24(7), pp. 1313–1318. doi:10.1080/09654313.2016.1168787. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1168787
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mau, S. (2017): Das metrische Wir: Über die Quantifizierung des Sozialen. Berlin: suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Merrifield, A. (2014): The new urban question. London: PlutoPress.
   Google Scholar
• Metzger, J. (2011): Neither revolution, nor resignation: (re)democratizing contemporary planning praxis: a commentary on Allmendinger and Haughton’s “Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(2), pp. 191–196. doi: 10.1068/c10210. doi: 10.1068/c10210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y.; Tate, L. E. (eds.) (2016): Routledge research in planning and urban design. Actor networks of planning: Exploring the influence of ANT. Abingdon, Oxon, New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2016): Activist planning: A response to the woes of neo-liberalism? European Planning Studies, 24(7), pp. 1262–1280. doi:10.1080/09654313.2016.1168784. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1168784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandercock, L. (1998): Towards cosmopolis: planning for multicultural cities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, P. J. (2016): Corporate Social Science and the Loss of Curiosity.
   Google Scholar
• UN (United Nations) (2016): Draft outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III): Adoption of the final outcome of the conference [General Assembly] (United Nations General Assembly No. A/CONF.226/4). Quito: United Nations. Available online: http://nua.un-habitat.org/uploads/DraftOutcomeDocumentofHabitatIII_en.pdf, accessed 26. 05. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Berghe, K. (2016): Definitive Space – Fuzzy Responsibility. The 29th Annual International Association of European Schools of Planning conference, Prague, 13–16 July 2015. Town Planning Review, 87(1), pp. 93–98. doi:10.3828/tpr.2016.7.
   Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, H.; Healey, P.; Laino, G.; Vigar, G.; Riutort Isern, S.; Honeck, T.; Beunderman, J.; van der Heijden, J.; Wagenaar, H. (2015): The transformative potential of civic enterprise [Interface]. Planning Theory & Practice, 16 (4), pp. 557–585. doi:10.1080/14649357.2015.1083153. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2015.1083153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B.; Othengrafen, F.; Sykes, O. (2013): Neo-liberalization Processes and Spatial Planning in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: An Exploration. Planning Practice and Research, 28 (1), pp. 141–159. doi:10.1080/02697459.2012.699261. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2012.699261
   Google Scholar
• WGBU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (2016): Humanity on the move: Unlocking the transformative power of cities: Flagship Report. Berlin: WBGU. Available online: http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/hg2016/hg2016_en.pdf, accessed 26. 05. 2017.
   Google Scholar