Critically Reconsidering Orthodox Ideas: Planning as Teleocratic Intervention and Planning as a Rational Decision Method

References

• Abercrombie, P. (1943). Town and country planning. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, T. (1935). Outline of town and city planning. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation / London: Routledge, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. (2003). Planning and power: Towards an emancipatory planning approach. Environment and Planning C, 2(6), 905–924.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, E. R. (1998). Doing the ‘impossible’: Notes for a general theory of planning. Environment and Planning B, 25, 667–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfasi, N. (2018). The coding turn in urban planning: Could it remedy the essential drawbacks of planning? Planning Theory, 17(3), 375–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfasi, N., Almagor, J., & Benenson, I. (2012). The actual impact of comprehensive land-use plans: Insights from high resolution observations. Land Use Policy, 29, 862–877.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfasi, N., & Portugali, J. (2007). Planning rules for a self-planned pity. Planning Theory, 6(2), 164–182.
   Google Scholar
• Allison, L. (1975). Environmental planning. London: Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Banfield, E. C. (1959). Ends and means in planning. International Social Science Journal, 11(3), 361–368.
   Google Scholar
• Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Day, M., Ericksen, N., Laurian, L., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2006). What makes plan implementation successful? Environment and Planning B, 33, 581–600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, A. (1990). The Chicago area transportation study: A case study of rational planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10(1), 27–37.
   Google Scholar
• Boudon, R. (1977). Effets pervers et ordre social. Paris: PUF.
   Google Scholar
• Branch, M. (1981). Continuous city planning. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Branch, M. (1985). Comprehensive city planning. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.
   Google Scholar
• Breheny, M. J., & Batey, P. W. J. (1981). The history of planning methodology: A preliminary sketch. Built Environment, 7(2), 109–120.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. (2000). The reason of rules. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Brody, S. D., Highfield, W. E., & Thornton, S. (2006). Planning at the urban fringe: An examination of the factors influencing nonconforming development patterns in southern Florida. Environment and Planning B, 33, 75–96.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2000). Moral obligations, planning, and the public interest. Environment and Planning B, 27(2), 297–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, G. (1971). A systems view of planning. Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Cherry, G. E. (1982). The politics of town planning. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Chiodelli, F., & Moroni, S. (2016). Zoning-integrative and zoning-alternative transferable development rights. Land Use Policy, 52, 422–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiodelli, F., & Moroni, S. (2017). Planning, pluralism and religious diversity. Cities, 62, 62–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cozzolino, S., Buitelaar, E., Moroni, S., & Sorel, N. (2017). Experimenting in urban selforganization. Framework-rules and emerging orders in Oosterwold (Almere, The Netherlands). Cosmos and Taxis, 4(2), 49–59.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, L. C. (1986). Why the rational paradigm persists. The resistance of professional education and practice to alternative forms of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 5(3), 147–153.
   Google Scholar
• Darke, R. (1982). The dialectics of policy-making. In P. Healey, G. McDougall, & M. J. Thomas (Eds.), Planning theory. Prospects for the 1980s (pp. 194–210). Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Davidoff, P., & Reiner, T. A. (1962). A choice theory of planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 28, 103–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean, J. W., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 368–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMuth, C. (2009). Unintended consequences and intended non-consequences. Working Paper. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Dror, Y. (1964). Muddling through – Science or inertia? Public Administration Review, 24, 153–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, Y. (1973). The planning process: A facet design. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A reader in planning theory (pp. 323–343). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dror, Y. (1983). Public policymaking reexamined. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Books.
   Google Scholar
• Elbanna, S., & Child, J. (2007). Influences on strategic decision effectiveness: Development and test of an integrative model. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 431–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed scanning: A third approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review, 27, 385–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eversley, D. (1973). The planner in society. London: Faber & Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1973a). Planning theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1973b). What is planning theory. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A reader in planning theory (pp. 1–10). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1985). The return of rationality. In M. Breheny & A. Hooper (Eds.), Rationality in planning (pp. 27–46). London: Pion.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1986). Critical rationalism and planning methodology. London: Pion.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1987). A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1989). Conformance vs. performance: Implications of evaluation. Impact Assessment, 7(2–3), 131–151.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (ed.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. London: UCL.
   Google Scholar
• Foldvary, F., & Minola, L. A. (2017). The taxation of land value as the means towards optimal urban development and the extirpation of excessive economic inequality. Land Use Policy, 69, 331–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: California University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. Albany: State of New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forrester, J. W. (1971). Counterintuitive behaviour of social systems. Technology Review, 73(3), 52–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. (2008). The uses of planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28, 247–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George, B., & Desmidt, S. (2018). Strategic-decision quality in public organizations. Administration & Society, 50(1), 131–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillingwater, D. (1975). Regional planning and social change. Aldershot: Gower.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, W. I., & Freund, E. C. (1968). Principles and practice of urban planning. Washington, DC: ICMA.
   Google Scholar
• Hague, C. (1991). A review of planning theory in Britain. Town Planning Review, 62(3), 295–310.
   Google Scholar
• Hakim, B. S. (2014). Mediterranean urbanism. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, B. (1985). Rationality and its enemies. In M. Breheny & A. Hooper (Eds.), Rationality in planning (pp. 60–76). London: Pion.
   Google Scholar
• Holcombe, R. G. (2013). Planning and the invisible hand: Allies or adversaries? Planning Theory, 12(2), 199–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins, L. D., & Zapata, M. A. (2007). Engaging the future. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Hostovsky, C. (2006). The paradox of the rational comprehensive model of planning: Tales from waste management planning in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(4), 382–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, F. C. (1914). The modern city and its problems. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, B. M. (1979). Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(4), 387–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory”. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 333–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikeda, S. (2004). Urban interventionism and local knowledge. Review of Austrian Economics, 17(2–3), 247–264.
   Google Scholar
• Ikeda, S. (2017). The city cannot be a work of art. Cosmos and Taxis, 4(2/3), 79–86.
   Google Scholar
• Imbroscio, D. (2013). From redistribution to ownership: Toward an alternative urban policy for America’s cities. Urban Affairs Review, 49(6), 787–820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E. J., & Godschalk, D. R. (1995). Twentieth century land use planning. Journal of the American Planning, 61(3), 365–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E. J., Godschalk, D. R., & Chapin, F. S. (1995). Urban land use planning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kent, T. J. (1964). The urban general plan. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kiernan, M. J. (1983). Ideology, politics, and planning. Environment and Planning B, 10, 71–87.
   Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (1983). Fact and value in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 49(2), 216–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapintie, K. (1998). Analysing and evaluating argumentation in planning. Environment and Planning B, 25(2), 187–204.
   Google Scholar
• Laurian, L., Day, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Backurst, M., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2004). Evaluating plan implementation. A conformance-based methodology. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), 471–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach, S. (1982). In defence of the rational model. In S. Leach & J. Stewart (Eds.), Approaches in public policy (pp. 6–22). London: Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Leibniz, G. W. (1710/2007). Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l’homme et l’origine du mal. Amsterdam: Bibliobazaar.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, N. P. (1916). Planning the modern city. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Long, Y., Han, H., Tu, Y., & Shu, X. (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of urban growth boundaries using human mobility and activity records. Cities, 46, 76–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorini, G., & Moroni, S. (2018, July 19). Ruling without rules. Paper delivered at a seminar held at Milan Polytechnic University, Milan ( forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2016). Local plan implementation: Assessing conformance and influence of local plans in the United States. Environment and Planning B, 43(2), 381–400.
   Google Scholar
• Mandelbaum, S. J. (1979). A complete general theory of planning is impossible. Policy Sciences, 11, 59–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastop, H., & Faludi, A. (1997). Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle. Environment and Planning B, 24, 815–832.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLuoghlin, J. B. (1969). Urban and regional planning. A systems approach. London: Faber & Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Millard-Ball, A. (2012). The Limits to planning: Causal impacts of city climate action plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(1), 5–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2007). Planning, liberty and the rule of law. Planning Theory, 6(2), 146–163.
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2010). Rethinking the theory and practice of land-use regulation. Towards nomocracy. Planning Theory, 9(2), 137–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2012). Land-use planning and the question of unintended consequences. In D. E. Andersson (Ed.), The spatial market process (pp. 265–288). Bingley: Emerald.
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2015). Complexity and the inherent limits of explanation and prediction: Urban codes for self-organising cities. Planning Theory, 14(3), 248–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2018). The public interest. In M. Gunder, A. Madanipour, & V. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of planning theory (pp. 69–80). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S., Buitelaar, E., Sorel, N., & Cozzolino, S. (2018). Simple planning rules for complex urban problems. Journal of Planning Education and Research. doi:10.1177/0739456X18774122
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moroni, S., & Cozzolino, S. (2019). Action and the city. Emergence, complexity, planning. Cities, 90, 42–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moroni, S., & Minola, L. (2019). Unnatural sprawl: Reconsidering public responsibility for suburban development in Italy, and the desirability and possibility of changing the rules of the game. Land Use Policy, 86, 104–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumford, L. (1938). The culture of cities. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace & C.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, D., & Kitsuse, A. (2000). Constructing the future in planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 221–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naess, P. (2001). Urban planning and sustainable development. European Planning Studies, 9(4), 503–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakeshott, M. (2006). Lectures in the history of political thought. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Oliva, F., Galuzzi, P., & Vitillo, P. (2002). Progettazione urbanistica. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli.
   Google Scholar
• Pasour, E. C. (1991). Land-use planning: Implications of the economic calculation debate. In J. C. Wood & R. N. Woods (Eds.), Friedrich A. Hayek (Vol. IV, pp. 1–15). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Peattie, L. R. (1978). Politics, planning, and categories. Bridging the gap. In R. W. Burchell & G. Sternlieb (Eds.), Planning theory in the 1980’s (pp. 83–93). New Brunswick: CUPR.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, M. (2002). Liberating the land. London: IEA.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, M. (2003). Land use planning: Public or private choice. Economic Affairs, 23(2), 10–15.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, C., Ten Siethoff, B., & Smith, V. (2005). Impacts of comprehensive planning and smart growth initiatives on transportation. Transportation Research Record, 1902, 91–98.
   Google Scholar
• Portugali, J. (1999). Self-organization and the city. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Portugali, J., Meyer, H., Stolk, E., & Tan, E. (eds). (2012). Complexity theories of cities have come of age. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Reade, E. (1983). Town planning and sociology. In V. Pons & R. Francis (Eds.), Urban social research (pp. 146–170). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Regulski, J. (1981). La pianificazione della città: Un approccio sistemico. Roma: Officina.
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothblatt, D. N. (1971). Rational planning reexamined. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 37(1), 26–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot: Avebury.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2018). Planning by intentional communities: An understudied form of activist planning. Planning Theory, 17(4), 449–471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilling, M. S., Oeser, N., & Schaub, C. (2007). How effective are decision analyses? Assessing decision process and group alignment effects. Decision Analysis, 4(4), 227–242.
   Google Scholar
• Simmie, J. (1974). Citizens in conflict. London: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slaev, A. (2016). Types of planning and property rights. Planning Theory, 15(1), 23–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talen, E. (1996). After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(2), 79–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tian, L., & Shen, T. (2011). Evaluation of plan implementation in the transitional China: A case of Guangzhou city master plan. Cities, 28, 11–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasu, M. L. (1979). Politics and planning. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, L. G., Han, H., & Lai, S. K. (2014). Do plans contain urban sprawl? A comparison of Beijing and Taipei. Habitat International, 42, 121–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, V. (2006). Deep difference: Diversity, planning and ethics. Planning Theory, 5(1), 31–50.
   Google Scholar
• Webber, M. M. (1963). The prospect for policies planning. In L. J. Duhl (Ed.), The urban condition (pp. 319–330). New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Webber, M. M. (1969). Planning in an environment of change. Part II. Town Planning Review, 39(4), 277–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittemore, A. H. (2015). Practitioners theorize, too. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(1), 76–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar