No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
EXISTINGTH EORIES AND METHODS OF GOVERNMENTAL PLANNING are incomplete. They neglect very often, for instance, the full range of factors which shape the behaviour and effectiveness of central government planners in liberal democratic regimes. It is essential, therefore, to refine the basic paradigm upon which analysis and evaluation of the activities of central planners is typically based if the major problems of their work are to be clearly understood.
Central planners are concerned with the improvement of the intellectual dimension of public policy-making at both national and increasingly supranational levels in Western Europe by longer-term perspectives, forward co-ordination and more sophisticated discussion of alternatives. They seek to guide or control the activities of a group of agencies, a particular governmental system or even of society as a whole.
1 For example Shonfield, A., Modern Capitalism, Oxford University Press, 1965.Google Scholar On modern planning theory see Ronge, V. and Schmieg, G. (ed.), Politische Planung in Theorie und Praxis, Munich, 1971;Google Scholar Lompe, K., Gesellschaftspolitik und Planung, Freiburg, 1971;Google Scholar Luhmann, N., Politische Planung, Opladen, 1971;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Jochimsen, R. and Simonis, (eds), Theorie und Praxis der Infrastrukturpolitik, Berlin, 1970;Google Scholar Oules, F., Economic Planning and Demommy, Pelican, London, 1966;Google Scholar Levine, R. A., Public Planning, Basic Books, New York, 1972;Google Scholar Tinbergen, J., Central Planning, Yale University Press, 1964;Google Scholar Meyerson, M. and Banfield, E. C., Politics, Planning and tbe Public Interest, Collier - Macmillan, London, 1955;Google Scholar Forrester, J. W., Urban Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969;Google Scholar Lutz, V., Central Planning For The Market Economy, Longmans Green and Co., Ltd. London, 1969;Google Scholar Lewis, W. A., The Principles of Economic Pianning, Unwin University Books, London, 1969.Google Scholar One problem for planning has been its relation to liberal ideology, see e.g. Hayek, F. A., The Road To Serfdom, University of Chicago Press, 1944 Google Scholar and the Röpke/Eucken school in Western Germany. On administrative ideologies and their effects on predispositions to plan in Western Europe see Armstrong, J. A., The European Administrative Elite, Princeton University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
2 It is possible to distinguish three roles for the planner vis-À-vis the politician: ‘technocratic’ (informing politicians about ‘substantive necessities’) e.g. Helmut Schelsky, ‘decisionist’ or value -free, and ‘pragmatic’ or mutual learning. Habermas, J., Technik und Wissenschaft als ‘Ideologie’, Frankfurt a. M, 1968.Google Scholar
3 For the effect of constitutional doctrines on the location of planning units within governments see Dyson, K. H. F., ‘Planning and the Federal Chancellor’s Office in the West German Federal Government’, Political Studies, 09 1973. P. 349.Google Scholar
4 K. H. F. Dyson, op. cit.
5 The two major problems were the effect on parliamentary - executive balance i.e. whether parliament’s ‘core area’ of functions was affected, and the effect on the principles of executive organization. Three alternative planning models were suggested. Erster Bericht der Projektgruppe für Regierungs- und Verwaltungs-Reform, Bonn, 1969. See K. H. F. Dyson, ‘Improving Policy-making in Bonn, The Journal of Management Studies’ (forthcoming).
6 For a fuller discussion see Etzioni, A., The Active Society, Collier - Macmillan, 1968.Google Scholar For the need to see planning as not only an information processing problem but also a conflict/consensus problem see Scharpf, F., ‘Planung als politischer Prozess’, Die Verwaltung, No. 4, 1971, p. 4.Google Scholar
7 Hence the ends-means approach becomes a doubtful and, given the multivalued nature of public choice, a very difficult guide to the planner. See Self, P., Administrative Theories and Politics, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1972, pp. 29–32.Google Scholar
8 For a fuller discussion see F. Scharpf, op. cit.
9 Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M., ‘Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, Vol. LVI, 1962, pp. 947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 See Schultze, C. L., The Politics and Economics of Public Spending, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1968.Google Scholar Also Wildavsky, A. in Ranney, A. (ed.), Political Science and Public Policy, Markham Publishing Co, Chicago, 1969, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
11 Wildavsky, A., Revolt Against The Masses, Basic Books, New York, 1971,Google Scholar ch.7.
12 On this topic see A. Ranney (ed.), op. cit.
13 Gross, B., Organizations and their Managing, Collier - Macmillan, 1968, p. 62.Google Scholar Also F. Scharpf, op. cit, p. 28.
14 For critiques of organization theory see Mainzer, L. C., Political Bureaucracy, Scott Foreman and Co., Glenview Ill., 1973;Google Scholar Silverman, D., The Theory of Organizations, Heinemann, London, 1970.Google Scholar
15 On advocacy planning see Blecher, E. M., Advocacy Planning for Urban Development, Praeget, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
16 ‘Power and Administration’ in Long, N., The Polity, Rand McNally & Co., Chicago, 1962.Google Scholar
17 On the problem of a politically controversial figure as head of a planning system see K. H. F. Dyson, op. cit., p. 361.
18 Grottian, P., ‘Vorläufige Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie zum Planungsbewusstsein der Bonner Ministerialbürokratie’, Gesellscbaftlicber Wandel und Politische Innovation, Politische Vierteljahresschtift, Sonderheft 4, Opladen, 1972.Google Scholar
19 Wettmann, R., ‘Aufbauprobleme staatlicher Planung’, Gesellscbaftlicher Wandel und Politische Innovation, ibid., p. 79.Google Scholar
20 Selznick, P., Leadership in Administration, Row Peterson, Evanston, Illinois, 1957.Google Scholar
21 F. Scharpf, op. cit., p. 27.
22 Reference is made here to the PPBS literature and to those who have applied management science concepts to government e.g. Robertson, J., Reform of British Central Government, Chatto and Windus, London, 1971;Google Scholar Garrett, J., The Management of Government, Pelican, London, 1972;Google Scholar J. W. Forrester, op. cit. Other examples include Cohen, S. S., Modern Capitalist Planning, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1969;Google Scholar V. Lutz, op. cit; C. Schultze, op. cit; F. Scharpf, op. cit. On this topic see Naschold, F., ‘Zur Politik und Ökonomie von Planungssystemen’, Gesellschaftlicber Wandel und Politische Innovation, ibid., p. 20.Google Scholar
23 For examples of such an approach see Miliband, R., The State In Capitalist Society, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1969;Google Scholar F. Naschold, op. cit.
24 F. Naschold, op. cit., p. 18.
25 Capitalist economies have of course developed in different ways and offer different opportunities for government intervention, for example, in the control and direction of credit. See Denton, et al., Economic Planning and Policies in Britain France and Germany, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1968,Google Scholar ch. 6.
26 F. Naschold, op. cit., p. 40.
27 Some ‘technocratic’ planners (e.g. Helmut Schelsky) are, however, hostile to democratization. Planners who favour participation may see it as an instrument of more effective communications or, more rarely, as a desirable end in itself. Etzioni (op. cit.) and Naschold (pp. cit:) see political re-energization and commitment as an essential prerequisite for effective planning. For a more technocratic perspective see F. Oules, op. cit. A good discussion of the concept of participation is contained in Parry, G. (ed.), Participation in Politics, Manchester University Press, 1972.Google Scholar See also Dennis, N., People and Planning, Faber, London, 1970;Google Scholar Gower Davies, J., The Evangelistic Bureaucrat, Tavistock Publications, London, 1972.Google Scholar
28 These comments relate primarily to forms of political goal planning which are oriented to innovation and reform. Comprehensive resource planning remains necessary simply to relate scarce resources to competing functional fields, and policy planning in such fields as defence and transport is essential for efficient project execution especially where long lead-times are involved. These latter two types of planning raise fewer information and consensus building difficulties than forms of political goal planning.