Skip to main content
Log in

A complete general theory of planning is impossible

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The essay defines the domain of planning theory and proposes two criteria—brevity and neutrality — for a prime table displaying the basic propositions of a complete general theory. I argue—on sociological rather than on formal epistemological grounds—that these two criteria cannot be met simultaneously. Even the most aggressive development of the policy sciences is not likely, therefore, to culminate in a complete general theory of planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bernstein, R. J. (1971). Praxis and Action: Contemporary Philosophies of Human Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, R. J. (1978). The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., ed. (1973). Rules and Meanings: The Anthropology of Everyday Life. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. (1977). Political Language: Words that Succeed and Policies That Fail. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faludi, A. (1973). Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. V. (1945). “The use of knowledge in society,” American Economic Review, 35: 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horkheimer, M. (1947). Eclipse of Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, A. (1974). The Logic of Social Systems: A Unified, Deductive, System-Based Approach to Social Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and Markets: The World's Political-Economic Systems. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbaum, S. J. (1977). “The past in service to the future,” Journal of Social History, 11: 193–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbaum, S. J. (1978). “The design of the designing community,” in Martin C. J. Elton, et al., eds., Evaluating New Telecommunications Services, 663–678. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J. (1976). Social Justice. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E. H. and Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. (1956). “The marrow of Puritan divinity,” in Miller P. (ed.) Errand Into the Wilderness. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, M. (1976). Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, J. (1964). Central Planning. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, R. L. (1977). Social Change and Human Purpose: Toward Understanding and Action. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mandelbaum, S.J. A complete general theory of planning is impossible. Policy Sci 11, 59–71 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143837

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143837

Keywords

Navigation