Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Citizen Participation, the -Knowledge Problem- and Urban Land Use Planning: An Austrian Perspective on Institutional Choice

  • Published:
The Review of Austrian Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

At the forefront of the argument for government-directed land use planning is the notion that -citizen participation- in urban land use decisions can avoid the problems associated with bureaucratic governance and tackle widespread instances of -market failure-. Using illustrations from the British land use planning system this paper argues that participatory planning models are insufficiently attuned to the problems of social co-ordination generated by the absence of market prices and of the importance of private property rights in facilitating -experiments in urban living-.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boettke, P. (1997) “Where Did Economics Go Wrong?” Critical Review, 11: 10-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, D. et al. (Eds.) Understanding Growth Management. Washington DC: The Urban Land Institute.

  • Buchanan, J. and Vanberg, G. (1991) “The Market as a Creative Process.” Economics and Philosophy. 7: 167-186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calthorpe, P. (1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, G. (1996) Town Planning in Britain Since 1900. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1992) “The Institutional Structure of Production.” American Economic Review, 82(4): 713-719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, A. (1977) “Land Use Planning: Success or Failure?” Architects Journal, 165(3): 94-134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, R. (1996) “Cars and Drivers in the New Suburbs: Linking Access to Travel in Neo-Traditional Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1): 51-65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. (2002) Laissez Faire Urban Planning, in Beito, D., Gordon, P., Tabarrok, A. (2002) The Voluntary City, University of Michigan Press/The Independent Institute.

  • Demsetz, H. (1969) “Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint.” Journal of Law and Economics, 12(1): 1-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, H. (1939) Economics of Socialism. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, A. (1988) No Room! No Room! London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, A. (1991) “Rabbit Hutches on Postage Stamps: Planning Development and Political Economy.” Urban Studies, 28(6): 853-870.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1980) “Critical Theory and Planning Practice.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 46(3): 275-286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, P. and Richardson, H.W. (1997) “Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1): 95-107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1987) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1948) Individualism and Economic Order. University of Chicago Press.

  • Hayek, F. A. (1960) The Constitution of Liberty. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1978) “Competition as a Discovery Procedure.” In: Hayek, F.A. (Ed.) New Studies in Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, R. (2002) “Political Entrepreneurship and the Democratic Allocation of Economic Resources.” Review of Austrian Economics, 15(2/3): 143-159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, S. (1992) “Monetary Exchange as an Extra-Linguistic Communications Medium.” Review of Social Economy, 50(2): 193-214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. (1997) “Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach.” Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 66-85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, D. (2000) “Planning and the Two Co-ordinations with Illustration from Urban Transit.” Planning and Markets, 1: 1-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie, D. (1985) Rivalry and Central Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1959) “The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review, 19: 78-88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1977) Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1988) Democracy and Market System. Olso: Norweigian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft, J. (1999) “Planning for Sustainable Development: What Can Be Learned From the Critics?” In: Meadowcroft, J. and Kenny, P. (Eds.) Planning for Sustainability. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mises, L. Von (1920) Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (2002) “Privatizing the Neighbourhood.” In: Beito et al. (Ed.) op cit., The Voluntary City.

  • Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. R. (1989) Cities and Automobile Dependence: A Sourcebook. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, M. (1999) “Free Market Environmentalism and the Limits of Land Use Planning.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 1(1): 43-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, M. (2000) Planning and the Political Market. London: Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, M. (2003) “Hayekian Political Economy and the Limits of Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies, 51(4): 722-739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. et al. (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance. London: E and F Spon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sautet. F. (2000) An Entrepreneurial Theory of the Firm. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmie, J. (1993) Planning at the Crossroads. London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1957) Models of Man. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowell, T. (1980) Knowledge and Decisions. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, D. (1992) From Marx to Mises. La Salle, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wholgemuth, M. (1995) “Economic and Political Competition in Neo-Classical and Evolutionary Perspective.” Constitutional Political Economy, 6(1): 71-96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wholgemuth, M. (1999) “Entry Barriers in Politics, or: Why Politics, Like Natural Monopoly, Is Not Organised as On-Going Market-Process.” Review of Austrian Economics, 12: 175-200.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics, Queen Mary College, University of London, UK

    Mark Pennington

Authors
  1. Mark Pennington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pennington, M. Citizen Participation, the -Knowledge Problem- and Urban Land Use Planning: An Austrian Perspective on Institutional Choice. The Review of Austrian Economics 17, 213–231 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RAEC.0000026832.58981.ec

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RAEC.0000026832.58981.ec

Search

Navigation