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.     

The Office of Management and Budget in a Changing Scene

Authors' Note: It is too early to provide a definitive view and appraisal of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan presidency. The discussion that follows is based partly on current and recent articles and a few recent monographs and books, many of which are credited in footnotes. In additon we have relied upon a considerable number of interviews with current participants and alumni of OMB as well as with some observers from outside. It would be impracticable to list those who helped us, but we are grateful to all of them. The substance of this article was completed in mid-July 1982.     

The relationship of perceptions and emotions to behavior in the face of collective inequality

The present experiment investigated the role of emotions and perceptions in determining the overt behavior of disadvantaged group members. Three limitations to the existing psychological research are presented as a possible reason for the present inability to describe a consistent relationship between the emotions and perceptions of those faced with intergroup inequalities and their subsequent actions. The present experiment attempted to address these limitations by employing a laboratory paradigm in which subjects actually engage in overt behavior. As well, a broader array of emotions and perceptions were assessed and subjects were offered a variety of behaviors from which to choose. The findings point to a relatively strong relationship between emotions and perceptions on the one hand, and overt action on the other. Feelings of frustration and anger, the perception of one's personal treatment as satisfactory and just, and hope of future improvement of one's position combined to discriminate between subjects who accepted their disadvantaged position, those who took normative forms of action, those who reacted in an individual nonnormative way, and those who chose collective nonnormative behavior.