This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Alexander, E. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Capturing the Public Interest

Promoting Planning in Conservative Times

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Following Calavita and Krumholz’s answers to conservative attacks on planning, this commentary offers another way to promote planning in public discourse. Transaction cost theory (TCT) debunks the "planning versus markets" dichotomy, relieving planning advocates from claiming the need for public intervention, an argument that encounters frequent skepticism. TCT makes the case for planning in three ways: (1) rejecting generalizations, it focuses debate on specific cases; (2) breaking the link between planning and government, it disarms conservative critics; (3) it provides an authoritative theoretical base for answering neoliberal attacks on public planning. Convincing people that planning (not only as public intervention) is necessary and enhances their welfare is an argument that can be won.

Key Words: transaction cost theory • government intervention • planning • welfare economics

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, 102-106 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X04266605


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?