URBAN PLANNING,POLICY AND MANAGEMENT*

Abstract: This paper deals with some important sources of confusion in discussions of urban issues. The first part distinguishes urban planning as a “future oriented” activity, from urban management which is primarily concerned with resource allocation. (The nature of urban development — interdependence and long life — makes a long-term perspective important.) When urban management aims to implement a plan the two are complementary. Urban policy covers a broader range of issues. The second part distinguishes four levels of debate about urban issues: ideological, political, operational and technical. Frequently debates in urban studies are not coherent because the participants are arguing at different levels and therefore make different assumptions about what is given and what can be varied. It is argued that the various levels form a hierarchy so that debates at any level need to assume particular positions with respect to higher level questions. Ideological issues include individual versus collective perspective, capitalist versus socialist, the appropriate role of markets and governments and the relative weight given to equity and efficiency criteria. The examples of political issues discussed are rationality versus group pressure as explanations of government behaviour, and whether planning is mainly a political or a professional activity. Operational issues include the appropriate level of government for carrying out urban functions and the role of statutory planning and other policy measures. Technical issues focus on predicting the effects of policy measures and external changes on cities. The different levels are illustrated by a discussion of policy towards inner city areas.     

GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND PUBLIC POLICY

Marc Holzer and Stuart S. Nagel (editors) . 1984. Productivity and Public Policy .
George W. Downs and Patrick D. Larkey . 1986. The Search for Government Efficiency: From Hubris to Helplessness
Elaine Morley . 1986. A Practitioner's Guide to Public Sector Productivity Improvement .
Richard H. Silkman and Dennis R. Young with the assistance of Robert Lipp . 1985. Subsidizing Inefficiency: A Study of State Aid and Local Government Productivity .     

SCIENCE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY

In recent years a number of important science policy issues have rentered on questions about the social utility of science. The field of knowledge systems accounting has evolved as a special form of social impact assessment to observe and measure the impact of science on society. A system of social impacts of science (SIS) indicators has been developed as an attempt to represent these complex patterns and relationships. In the final analysis, the causal relevance of science to social performance depends on our capacity to link the complex knowledge system of modern science to the achievement of social goals.     

URBAN GOVERNMENT, URBAN POLITICS AND THE FABRICATION OF URBAN ISSUES: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF URBAN POLICY

An "urban" definition of public policy problems raises great difficulties for the policy maker. If we emphasize implementation as a primary factor in evaluating public policy, we have good grounds for questioning the wisdom of an urban perspective. But urban questions have been and still are major areas of concern in public policy formulation. The ALP federal platform contains a long section on urban policies, reiterating what the Department of Urban and Regional Development (DURD) was striving to achieve under the Whitlam Government. At state level, urban problems have been tackled with varying degrees of success and seriousness, although at this level overall urban perspectives tend to be ignored, for reasons we shall indicate. However urban planning authorities have been tried in most capital cities, and metropolitan plans have been drawn up for all of them. They have concentrated mainly on land use and urban form. By the 1970s a common criticism of such planning was that it left aside many social and economic aspects of urban growth. For example, one (admittedly partisan) government source—the N.S.W. Department of Decentralization and Development—noted "a massive and increasing trend towards socio-economic segregation":
…the remoteness of central city facilities …the cost of commuter transport and the inadequacy of community facilities in low-income outer suburbs are operating to perpetuate economic under-privilege.     

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING POLICY AND FEDERALISM

There are widespread misperceptions about the way in which American federalism has worked in the past and is working now. One is the belief that since the 1930s, the federal government has engaged in many new activities. Another misperception is that liberals support centralization and conservatives, decentralization. Actually, most Americans tend to be pragmatic. The vitality of this American pragmatism is seen in state economic development policies. States have provided leadership in initiating new economic development programs in such areas as foreign trade and enterprise zones. Four major patterns in American federalism characterize the emergence and development of most of these programs: responsiveness, elitism, pluralism, and experimentation. Implications for employment and training policy are examined.     

INTRODUCTION: WATER RESOURCES AND PUBLIC POLICY

Research in water resource policy historically has reflected more general trends in public policy analysis. This symposium focuses more narrowly upon a sample of some contemporary issues.