Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Planning Education and Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ranney, D. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Mobile Capital and Economic Development Planning

David C. Ranney

College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.

This article critiques capital market liberalization policies for inhibiting planning and producing results that are negative for many people throughout the world. Capital market liberalization is part of a broader set of economic development policies that constitute a development model that fails to distribute benefits and costs of economic integration in a manner that improves living standards for people most in need. After a discussion of trends in capital flows, the author critiques the theory behind liberalization in terms of limits placed on demand-side public policies, its narrow efficiency criterion, and its tendency to crowd out socially useful investment in favor of short-term returns. The article concludes with a discussion of national and regional planning implications and argues that liberalization is antiplanning because it limits the use of traditional planning policies. The author also considers alternatives including those implied by the development activity of the European Union and a new hemispheric proposal, Alternatives for the Americas.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, 281-292 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X0102000302
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
D. B. Abramson
The "Studio Abroad" as a Mode of Transcultural Engagement in Urban Planning Education: A Reflection on Ten Years of Sino-Canadian Collaboration
Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 2005; 25(1): 89 - 102.
[Abstract] [PDF]