Skip Navigation Planning & Markets
Subscribe Submission Requirements Editorial Board Archive Links Search Home

VIII. Conclusions

Market-oriented planning has been discussed intensively for a number of years. The purpose of this article was to identify a number of distinct types of planning that have been discussed under this heading. In the table below we summarize the different types, and the distinguishing characteristics of each. If we should try to rank the different styles from the perspective of how active the local government is, the order would probably be: New Nordic Style, Globalization Style, American Style, Coasian Style and Thatcher Style. However, such a ranking conceals important features of these planning styles, as there are differences in several dimensions.

TABLE 7: An Overview of the Different Types of Market-oriented Planning

1.New Nordic Style 2.Thatcher Style 3.American Style 4 Coasian Style 5.Globalization Style
Visions Strong Weak Weak Weak In co-operation with other local actors
Legal rights Strong Weak Strong Strong, but for a smaller number of issues Strong but for a smaller number of issues
Financial resources Weak Not relevent Weak Weak Rather strong, but mostly for infrastructure purposes

It is important to distinguish these different types in a number on contexts. For example:

1. It is important to understand the dynamics of planning in different countries. It is not very clarifying to say only that there has been a move towards more market-oriented planning. We have seen clear differences between what here is called the New Nordic Style, Thatcher Style and American Style of market-oriented planning. In several countries, there seems to have been a movement towards a Globalization Style in the last decade. The categorization above seems to be a useful tool for a more precise description of what has happened, and a fruitful starting point for explanations. For example, why did the changes in the planning system take a certain form in a specific country?

2. It is important to understand the consequences of changes in the planning system. The analysis above shows that it is not meaningful to discuss the consequences of a more market-oriented planning unless one first clarifies what type of market-oriented planning one is thinking about. The different types of market-oriented planning can be expected to have very different consequences with respect to, for example, how efficient land use patterns will be, and the role of social dimensions in planning.

page 49


USC Seal

Main Page | Subscribe | Submission Requirements | Editorial Board | Archive | Links

ISSN 1548-6036

Copyright 1999-2000
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California 90089-0626