Questioning planning, connecting places and times

Introduction to the special issue





Let us open this editorial introduction in an unusual way, made possible by plaNext’s innovative approach to peer-review. Let us quote a paragraph from one of the reviews to the articles of this issue, namely the review by Marco Allegra to Ignacio Castillo Ulloa’s article.

One might suspect that this is a simplistic account of the functioning of the planning process: planners, after all, might be creative in their work; take risks (or not); simply rely on their professional expertise, but also use it in a strategic way to negotiate their role in the policy process; display a number of alternative, ‘non-planning strategies’; follow a private, particularistic or political agenda (rather than planning handbooks) in doing their job; cheat, lie, manipulate their clients, colleagues or the stakeholders in general. In sum, what the author presents as a dispute between two irreconcilable logics – between the rational, positivistic planner and the hysteric residents – might be part of a broader interaction between a ‘planner- actor’ and all the other participants to the planning process




Alexander, E.R. (2015). 70 years’ planning theory: A post-postmodernist perspective. Italian Journal of Regional Science. 14(1): 5-18.

Alexander. E.R. (2016). There is no planning – only planning practices: Notes for spatial planning theories. Planning Theory. 15(1): 91-103.

Alfasi, N. (2003). Is public participation making urban planning more democratic? The Israeli experience. Planning Theory and Practice. 4(2): 185-202.

Allegra, M. (2016). Planners amid the storm: Lessons from Israel/ Palestine. Planning Theory and Practice. 17(3): 476-479.

Baptista, I. (2013). The travels of critiques of neoliberalism: Urban experiences from the ‘borderlands’. Urban Geography. 34(5): 590-611.

Barry, J. & Porter, L. (2012). Indigenous recognition in state-based planning systems: Understanding textual mediation in the contact zone. Planning Theory. 11(2): 170-187.

Bertolini, L. (2009). The dream of planning. Planning Theory and Practice. 10(3): 309-313.

Bond, S. (2011). Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Moving beyond the agonistic – communicative divide. Planning Theory. 10(2): 161-186.

Brenner, N. (2009). What is critical urban theory? City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action. 13(2-3): 198-207.

Caruso, N., Hammami, F., Peker, E., Tulumello, S. & Ugur, L. (2016). Differences and connections: beyond universal theories in planning, urban, and heritage studies. Conference report. Urban Research and Practice. 9(2): 219-224.

Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Davoudi, S. & Madanipour, A. (Eds.) (2015). Reconsidering Localism. London: Routledge.

Falanga, R. (2014). Changes need change: A psychosociological perspective on participation and social inclusion. Rivista di Psicologia Clinica. 2014(2): 24-38.

Fall, J.J. & Minca, C. (2013). Not a geography of what doesn’t exist, but a counter-geography of what does. Rereading Giuseppe Dematteis’ Le Metafore della Terra. Progress in Human Geography. 37(4): 542-563.

Faludi, A. (1973). A reader in planning theory. Oxford: Pergamon.

Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research. 15(4): 299-318.

Ferr o, J. (2011). O ordenamento do territ rio como pol tica p blica. Lisboa: Funda o Calouste Gulbenkian.

Ferr o, J. (2015). Governan a democr tica metropolitana. In . Ferreira, J. Rua & R.C. Mattos (Eds.), Desafios da metropoliza o do espa o (pp. 209-224). Rio de Janeiro: Consequ ncia.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory and Practice. 5(3): 283-206.

Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Friedmann, J. (1973). Re-tracking America: A theory of transactive planning. New York, NY: Anchor Press.

Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Getimis, P. (2012). Comparing spatial planning systems and planning cultures in Europe. The need for a multi-scalar approach. Planning Practice and Research. 27(1): 25-40.

Goldstein, B.E. (2012). Collaborative resilience: Moving through crisis to opportunity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gunder, M. (2003). Passionate planning for the others’ desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning. Progress in Planning. 60(3): 235-319.

Gunder, M. (2016). Planning’s ‘failure’ to ensure efficient market delivery: A Lacanian deconstruction of this neoliberal scapegoating fantasy. European Planning Studies. 24(1): 21-38.

Healey, P. (1991). Researching planning practice. Town Planning Review. 62(4): 447-459.

Healey, P. (2010). Making better places: The planning project in the twentyfirst century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Healey, P. (2012). The universal and the contingent: Some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. Planning Theory. 11(2): 188-207.

Healey, P., Magalhaes, C., Madanipour, A. & Pendlebury, J. (2003). Place, identity and local politics: Analysing initiatives in deliberative governance. In M. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 60-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of power: An allegory of prudence in land-use planning. London: Routledge.

Hillier, J. & Healey, P. (Eds.) (2008). Foundations of the planning enterprise: Critical readings in planning theory. Volume 1. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity. An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lane, M. & Hibberd, M. (2005). Doing it for themselves: Transformative planning by indigenous peoples. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 25(2): 172-184.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Le Gal s, P. (2016). Neoliberalism and urban change: Stretching a good idea too far? Territory, Politics, Governance. 4(2): 154-172.

Marcuse, P. (2010). In defense of theory in practice. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action. 14(1-2): 4-12.

Margerum, R.D. (2011). Beyond consensus: Improving collaboration to solve complex public problems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McClymont, K. (2011). Revitalising the political: Development control and agonism in planning practice. Planning Theory. 10(3): 239-256.

Meir, A. (2009). Contemporary state discourse and historical pastoral spatiality: Contradictions in the land conflict between the Israeli Bedouin and the state. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 32(5): 823-843.

Metzger, J., Allmendinger, P. & Oosterlynk, S. (Eds.). Planning against the political: Democratic deficits in European territorial governance. London: Routledge.

Minca, C. (2016). Italian Studies, Italian Theory and the politics of trans-lation. Environment and Planning D. 34(5): 822-829.

Miraftab, F. (2004). Making neo-liberal governance: The disempowering work of empowerment. International Planning Studies. 9(4): 239-259.

Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.

Pease, D. (2004). The extraterritoriality of the literature for our planet. ESQ: A Journal of the American Renaissance. 50(1-3): 177-221.

Pl ger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory. 3(1): 71-92.

Robinson, J. (2016). Thinking cities through elsewhere: Comparative tactics for a more global urban studies. Progress in Human Geography. 40(1): 3-29.

Roy, A. (2009). Strangely familiar: Planning and the worlds of insurgence and informality. Planning Theory. 8(7): 7-11.

Sandercock, L. (1995). Voices from the borderlands: A meditation on a metaphor. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 14(2): 77-88.

Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis II. Mongrel cities in the 21st century. London: Continuum.

Sandercock, L. (Ed.) (2004). Interface: Planning and indigenous communities. Planning Theory and Practice. 5(1): 95-124.

Santos, B.S. (2010). From the postmodern to the postcolonial – and beyond both. In E.G. Rodr guez, M. Boatcă & S. Costa (Eds.), Decolonizing European sociology. Transdisciplinary approaches (pp. 225-242). Farnham: Ashgate.

Scattoni, P. & Falco, E. (2011). Why Italian planning is worth studying. Italian Journal of Planning Practice. 1(1): 4-32.

Slater, D. (1992). On the borders of social theory: Learning from other regions. Environment and Planning D. 10(3): 307-327.

Sorensen, E. & Torfing, J. (Eds.) (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tulumello, S. (2015). Questioning the universality of institutional transformation theories in spatial planning: Shopping mall developments in Palermo. International Planning Studies. 20(4): 371-389.

Tulumello, S. (2016). Reconsidering neoliberal urban planning in times of crisis: Urban regeneration policy in a ‘dense’ space in Lisbon. Urban Geography. 37(1): 117-140.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.