Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8







A. Rondinelli”


and Development

Institute, The East-West Center

Planning theory and practice derived from corporate experience, management science and rational decision theory have had little influence on decision-making in the public sector. The political environment and organ- izational complexity of public decision making render conventional approaches to objective, rational, comprehensive planning of limited value in government agencies and in private corporations involved in public policy making. A more effective approach to strategic planning and manage- ment must be based on an understanding of the political dynamics through which policies are made. It must adopt a variety of styles directly related to major functions in the policy making process and use a variety of political intervention and in- fluence techniques that facilitate the im- plementation of plans and policies.









ment and plays a significant role in national

and local budgeting, programming and manage- ment. Theories and practices of public planning were derived primarily from principles of manage- ment science and from the strategic planning experience of large corporations.’ Planning, in its broadest sense, borrowed its prescriptions from rational decision theory, and consists of a set of procedures whereby decision makers attempt to :

identify and define major problems and goals,





transform goals into operational targets,

identify alternative courses of action for achieving goals and targets,






and strategic





is Senior


at the




Center, Honolulu,


calculate costs and benefits of each alternative,

estimate the probabilities of future events and projected trends occurring,

determine the potential non-economic gains,

losses and consequences

of each alternative,









integrate chosen courses of action into a comprehensive long-range plan.

Plans are then transformed into operational programs, budgets and schedules for implementa- tion. This ideal model of long range planning has generally failed, however, to produce desired results in the public sector. Indeed the ideal model has rarely been operationalized in public policy- making. Intensive evaluations of public decision- making-at national as well as local levels, in both advanced and developing nations-document the difficulties of doing comprehensive planning. Reviewing the process in a number of countries, Wildavsky found few truly successful efforts. The paucity of effective planning systems, he concluded, ‘suggests that the record of planning has hardly been brilliant. For all we know, the few apparent suc- cesses (if there are any) constitute no more than random occurrences.” Examining the American experience with master planning in local govem- ment led one expert to conclude that ‘where it was tried and judged by its own claims, comprehensive planning turned out to be a colossal failure.‘3 Analysts note that individuals and organizations do not, and indeed cannot, make decisions in the highly rational and comprehensive manner pre- scribed by conventional planning theory. They cite ‘cognitive limits on rationality’, inability of indi- viduals to take into account complex sets of values, goals and consequences, and the high costs of searching widely for optimal solutions as parameters that keep decision-making inevitably a ‘satisficing’, and incremental process.4 Problems of operationalizing comprehensive planning in government are attributable, to a large




extent, to the fact that public policy-making is substantially different from and more complex than decision-making in a single corporation. Manage- ment science versions of planning theory generally assume a high level of central control over organ- izational activities through a hierarchical structure that vests authority and responsibility for decision- making in a single chief executive or a set of top management officials. Administrative units are departmentalized by major purpose, process, product or clientele, with authority delegated to various levels, each supervised by and responsible to the next higher level. Span of control is limited and unity of command is preserved to prevent overlap, duplication and waste and to promote efficiency. In public policy-making, however, these con- ditions rarely prevail. Indeed, major decisions are rarely within the purview or authority of a single agency. Planning is usually done by a number of decision-makers in an organizationally complex environment under politically dynamic conditions. The characteristics of this complex decision environment-emerging more frequently not only in the public sector but in large private organiza- tions as well-severely complicate conventional processes of comprehensive, long range planning. Harlan Cleveland most concisely summarizes the situation when he observes that:

“The organizations that get things done will no longer be hierarchical pyramids with most of the real control at the top. They will be systems-interlaced webs of tension in which control is loose, power diffused, and centers of decision plural. ‘Decision-making’ will become an in-

creasingly intricate process of multilateral brokerage both

inside and outside

responsibility for making, or at least announcing, the decision. Because organizations will be more horizontal, the way they are governed is likely to be more collegial, consensual and consultative. The bigger the problems to be tackled, the more real power is diffused and the larger the number of persons who can exercise it-if they work at it. The trend is visible in totalitarian as well as demo- cratic societies.“s

the organization that thinks it has the

In such an environment planning and decision- making inevitably become political activities. Planning cannot assume an objective, rational, technical, value-free role and be effective. Planning becomes a process not only of analyzing problems, goals and alternative courses of action, but also of advocating positions, influencing behavior and intervening in the policy-making process to affect the outcome of decisions. It becomes a method not only for choosing alternative courses of action but for designing strategies for executing them. The characteristics of political decision-making have profound implications for the nature, process, techniques and methods of planning. If strategic planning and management are to become more effective in the public sector, theory and practice must : (1) be based on a thorough understanding of the political environment in which policies are made; (2) adopt a variety of forms and styles that are directly related to major functions in the policy-making process; and, (3) fashion a variety

of intervention and interaction techniques into strategies for influencing not only the choice of alternatives but also the implementation of selected policies.





Public policy-making is an inter-organizational,

rather than an intra-organizational, process. Public decisions evolve from the interaction of individuals and groups each seeking a legitimate allocation of resources or authority from the governmental system. Policy-making, as political scientists point

out, involves a variety of functions:

definition of needs, problems and goals, formula- tion of proposals and plans; mobilization of support; social analysis and political ‘deliberation’; policy enactment and legitimization. Once policies

are enacted, plans are implemented through organ- ization and administration of programs and projects; program results are evaluated and policies reformulated.6 In reality, policymaking is itinitely more com- plicated than implied by this simple descriptive model. Yet policies do evolve through a cycle of identifiable stages. The process described earlier is not necessarily sequential; nor are the stages always clearly distinguishable in practice or mutually exclusive, since some activities may occur simultaneously and other functions are inextricably linked. Plans may be stalled or die before complet- ing the process, or are resurrected later in different form. Because of the procedural and organizational complexity, effective planning in the public sector must be based on a thorough understanding of the characteristics of the policy-making process :7

perception and



is Essentially

a Political


Public decision-making is a political process rather than an intellectual or deliberative one. Policies evolve through social interaction, conflict resolution and mutual adjustment among groups with diverse goals. Priorities are determined and final choices made through compromises among groups with a diversity of values, decision criteria, interests, and perceptions of benefits and costs.





are Adjusted

to the

of Means

to Achieve


Rarely are public policies the result of optimal decisions. Goal formulation is situational. Each organization participating in public decision- making pursues its own interests; goals may be terminal or instrumental, changing over time in relation to changes in social, economic and political conditions. The level of expectations of decision-makers are adjusted to the probability, subjectively determined, of achieving their objec- tives, to estimates of uncertainties and risks of

determined, of achieving their objec- tives, to estimates of uncertainties and risks of 76 LONG RANGE





pursuing a particular course of action, to percep- tions of past success in influencing the outcome of political conflict, and to their access to resources for influencing the behavior of other decision- makers.

(3) Policy Planning Requires Trading-Off Complex Variables to Reach a Politically Feasible Alternative

Policy-making involves tradeoffs among econ- omic, political, social and other criteria, weighing tangible facts, information, and data against intangible and incalculable potential opportunities

and constraints. Quantitative variables must be balanced with qualitative factors. Decisions affect- ing immediate problems and issues must be balanced against long range impacts and conse-



interests considered important by different groups and individuals must be reconciled in a plan

capable of attracting sufficient support to be enacted and implemented.







(4) Policy is Formulated and Implemented

Decision Structure

Through a ‘Horizontal’

Policy is initiated, enacted, executed and eval- uated through a complicated set of ‘horizontal’ interactions within an organizationally complex decision environment. Government structure is fragmented and open to the influence of a wide variety of public agencies, private organizations and specialized interest groups. Powers and responsibilities are dispersed and unevenly distri- buted among specialized organizations within and outside of the government structure. Policy is implemented through a complex system of formal and informal delegation of responsibility and control. The policy-making structure has a multi- tude of leverage points at which individuals and groups attempt to exercise influence. Participants possess a diversity of potential resources for in- fluencing the outcome of political contlicts- money, credit, control over jobs, votes, information, expertise, popularity and others-and varying skills at utilizing them.

Policy-making is an amoral process, governed by an ethics of responsibility; each participant determines the correctness of a course of action in terms of his ability to satisfy a constituency or to represent a position considered by him to be morally correct. Policy-making is governed by situational ethics rather than by absolute principles of right and wrong. Conflict often erupts over disagreements concerning decision criteria as well as over disagree- ments on substantive content of policy proposals.

(6) Public Decisions Evolve Through Conflict Resolution

Policies emerge most often through

a process


conflict resolution in which individuals and groups attempt to influence each others’ behavior through psychological field manipulation, adaptive adjust- ments, bargaining, negotiation, coalition-building, conflict displacement, inducements, threats, authori- tative control and force.

(7) Policies are Not Chosen Through Objective Optimization

Public policy-making is not a process of optimiz- ing, that is, of discovering one, rational, optimum alternative for the solution of a social problem. Public problems may not have distinctive solutions. Social problems are complex, amorphous and difficult to define concisely; each participant in policy-making may define the problem differently,

in terms of a single component of a larger issue, or

within the context of another

problem. Facts,

information and statistics used to analyze policy alternatives are subjectively interpreted through preconceived interests from which groups and individuals reach different conclusions concerning the ‘best’ course of action. Indeed, optimization

does not characterize public planning because often the number of possible alternatives for ameliorating

a social problem is indeterminate at the outset-

politically feasible alternatives evolve from pro-

cesses of political interaction and intervention.

(8) Policy-Making

is Synergistic

Political interaction produces policy proposals and decisions different from those espoused by any

single participant in a policy-making conflict. As the scope of disagreements over policy proposals expand and contract, as new groups enter and leave

a conflict, as issues, goals and perceptions are

adjusted to changing political conditions, and as support is mobilized around compromise positions, initial proposals are redefined producing outcomes

that were unpredictable at the outset. Past decisions often produce unanticipated consequences that influence the scope, content and feasibility of current alternatives. As disagreements arise from the interaction of disparate participants the process

of policy formulation takes on a life of its own;

(5) Participants in Policy-Making


Within Narrowly Defined Conceptions of

the ‘Public Interest’

Unlike private corporations, public agencies rarely have easily defined criteria by which to judge the ‘correctness’ of alternative courses of action. Plans in the private sector may be aimed at increas- ing profits, expanding market share, or diversifying product lines. In public policy-making there is often no over-riding, clearly defined set of goals by which to choose one alternative over another. Policy is initiated, formulated, enacted and im- plemented by groups pursuing their own interests and their own conceptions of ‘the public interest’.

plemented by groups pursuing their own interests and their own conceptions of ‘the public interest’. APRIL,




central control and comprehensive outcome is made more difficult.


of the

designed to achieve social acceptance’ and for ‘the preparation of operational plans and programmes, and the measurement of effectiveness of these programmes in gaining social acceptance’.* Plan- ning must become not only an analytical instrument for defining and selecting goals, but also a means for designing strategies of intervention in the policy-making process to influence the acceptance and execution of planned objectives. Planning theory has given little attention, however, to the need for, development and utilization of alternative intervention techniques. A variety of tactics, other than those of central co-ordination and control most frequently used in hierarchical organizations, are available to influence the outcome of policy conflicts in the political arena (see Figure 1). Central co-ordination and control are often the least useful techniques in organizationally complex decision situations because policy-making, by its very nature, provides access for a diversity of semi-autonomous participants. Groups can em- ploy tactics of social influence to create unantici- pated demands, to delay, obstruct and veto plans, build and mobilize support for a variety of alterna- tive policies, and subvert central control in plan implementation. In order to influence the outcome of public decisions intervention strategies must be formulated that incorporate both direct and in- direct techniques of influence.





Techniques such as information dissemination, education and training, persuasion and consulta- tion, as opposed to central control and co-ordina- tion, are indirect, voluntary, and require a low degree of direct intervention by planners in specific policy conflicts. They often provide a strong base of influence in early stages of policymaking by attempting to shape the environment or atmos- phere for problem recognition and the need for action. Psychological manipulation, modeling, and techniques that psychologists, refer to as ‘shaping and reinforcement seek to influence behavior while allowing a large degree of choice in compliance.g Non-coercive adaptation can influence behavior in support of planned objectives through tacit co-ordination, by obtaining the mutual consent of those potentially affected by proposed plans, and through provisions of incentives and rewards. Adaptive adjustments are often made in the content of plans to avoid adverse effects for groups that are likely to oppose the plan because of perceived losses.





Other techniques of political intervention require more direct exercise of control and more intensive interaction in policy conflicts. Reciprocal exchange and compromise, promises and threats, formal and informal bargaining and negotiation, and media- tion, together with subsidies or regulation may be

(9) Public Policy Formulation and Implementation are Characterized by Long Lag and Lead Times

Few policy innovations or plans receive im- mediate acceptance in the public decision-making arena. Social problems must be widely recognized, support for their solution mobilized, proposals formulated and enacted and programs implemented -a process that, for major social issues, may require a decade to complete. The long lag times between initiation of plans and their implementa- tion occur because of the nature of the policy- making process, because of the dispersion of in- fluence, the multiple channels for exercising in- fluence, and the ability of a wide variety of groups to delay or veto action. Policy execution requires the formulation of strategic plans for exploiting the proper timing and atmosphere for action.

(10) Policy Enactment and Implementation Require a Strong Coalition of Support

Public plans are formulated, enacted and im- plemented through concerted efforts and pooled resources of groups and individuals organized into coalitions. Coalition building is essential to policy formulation and execution because of the fragmen- tation of authority, organizational complexity and unequal distribution of power that characterizes decision-making. Coalitions may vary in size from

small elites %th substantial resources to potentially large constellations of groups with mutual interests in the outcome of a decision. Coalitions shift over time, expanding, contracting, dispersing and re- forming in response to changes in the political environment and changes in perceptions of issues, costs and benefits. Every coalition attempts to carve out a ‘policy space’ or ‘sphere of influence’ over a set of issues from which it can dominate decision-making. Innovation and change often require destruction or reformulation of existing

of new

coalitions based on different perceptions of prob-

lems, new goals, redefinition of needs, or dis- satisfaction with existing programs and policies.

spheres of influence and the creation







Conventional approaches to planning are not effective under the politically dynamic conditions of public policy-making. Even within private cor- porations, Taylor argues, ‘it is clear that the theory and practice of strategic management is inadequate to handle social and political problems’. As public and private organizations become more intertwined in policy-making, new and improved approaches to government and corporate planning are needed for ‘developing strategies and policies

to government and corporate planning are needed for ‘developing strategies and policies 7 8 LONG RANGE





Methods of Indirect Influence High Degree of Choice In Compliance Low. LOW Degree of Intervention

Methods of Indirect Influence

Methods of Indirect Influence High Degree of Choice In Compliance Low. LOW Degree of Intervention In
Methods of Indirect Influence High Degree of Choice In Compliance Low. LOW Degree of Intervention In
Methods of Indirect Influence High Degree of Choice In Compliance Low. LOW Degree of Intervention In


Degree of Choice In Compliance



Degree of Intervention In Policy Conflict



LOW Degree of Intervention In Policy Conflict High [I Methods of Direct Influence F i g
LOW Degree of Intervention In Policy Conflict High [I Methods of Direct Influence F i g
LOW Degree of Intervention In Policy Conflict High [I Methods of Direct Influence F i g
LOW Degree of Intervention In Policy Conflict High [I Methods of Direct Influence F i g
LOW Degree of Intervention In Policy Conflict High [I Methods of Direct Influence F i g

Methods of Direct Influence









e 1 . Tactical Approaches to influencing Policy Conflicts. used in combination with other indirect influence

used in combination with other indirect influence tactics to reinforce desired political behavior or to discourage undesired actions. Techniques requiring the most direct control, the least freedom of com- pliance, and the most intense intervention in political conflict are authoritative prescription, pre-emption, command and coercion and force. The most effective technique or combination of tactics must be determined by strategists through analysis of the problem or issues under considera- tion, the power and resources of potential con- tenders in political conflict, and the organizational environment in which plans and policies must be formulated and implemented.







The concept of planning as strategic intervention in and management of public policy-making recog- nizes not only that a multitude of decision-makers plan, but that a variety of planning functions and roles must be performed in order to influence public decisions. One style of planning, essential and appropriate for a particular decision-maker at one stage of the policy-making process, may be inappropriate for others. If planning is to become more effective in influencing the outcome and quality of public decisions, a number of distinctive planning styles that are directly related to policy formulation and implementation functions, must be used. Seven approaches are suggested here (see Figure 2).

(1) Innovative



of needs, goals and problems

and the

initiation of change can evolve only from a creative planning approach. Problem perception, identifi- cation of threats and opportunities, and change- initiation do not generally emerge from ‘routine’ bureaucratic forms of programming. The innovative

planning style anticipates and seeks change, explores and exploits opportunities for new policy direc- tions, crystallizes dissatisfaction with current conditions and searches, through what Etzioni has called ‘mixed scanning’ processes, for marginally better alternatives. Innovative planning is con- cerned not so much with operational issues as with

It is

futuristic, often concerned with forecasting and predicting trends as well as with searching for potential solutions to problems that are still in the experimental or pilot stages. In other situations, innovative planning is less concerned with the future, but directed more toward re-orienting perspectives of decision-makers on current prob- lems, redefining social values, changing decision agendas, altering priorities and immediate goals of resource-allocating organizations comprising the major spheres of influence over strategic policy issues.

the contextual or strategic aspects of policy.

(2) Advocacy


While the innovative approach is useful for defining the directions and parameters of desired change and assisting decision-makers to delineate problems and needs, ultimately, objectives must be translated into specific proposals. Only demands that are clearly and persistently expressed receive serious public attention. Individuals and groups

that are clearly and persistently expressed receive serious public attention. Individuals and groups APRIL, 1976 7




and Technical Determination C o o r d i n a t i v e
and Technical Determination C o o r d i n a t i v e
and Technical Determination C o o r d i n a t i v e
and Technical Determination C o o r d i n a t i v e

and Technical


and Technical Determination C o o r d i n a t i v e Policy
and Technical Determination C o o r d i n a t i v e Policy




C o o r d i n a t i v e Policy Enactment Allocative Planning



d i n a t i v e Policy Enactment Allocative Planning skilled at innovative planning
d i n a t i v e Policy Enactment Allocative Planning skilled at innovative planning

skilled at innovative planning often lack the interest and ability to promote demands publicly, thus requiring another form of planning-advocacy. Advocacyplanning makes no pretense of objectivity. Its purpose is to represent a policy position or the perceptions of a particular ‘interested public’. Advocate planners strive to translate felt needs of groups and organizations into policy demands, to obtain access to decision centers and leverage points, and to satisfy those demands through authoritative allocation of tangible resources. Advocate planners seek to develop leadership, induce participation, develop and promote argu- ments and disseminate information in support of a policy position. If the objective is to assist groups and organizations to obstruct, delay or modify policy proposals adverse to their interests, advocacy planning takes on a lobbying function. Advocacy includes formulation of coalition-building strate- gies, communication of policy demands, presenta- tion of policy positions to authoritative decision makers through direct persnal contact, psycho- logical field manipulation and intermediation. Through adversary functions it moves to counter and offset the impact of opposing plans.

(3) Adjunctive








phases, participants in political conflict often seek assistance in analyzing issues and positions from third parties, sources considered to be more

neutral, who place policy analysis within a broader social context. Information and analysis is sought from sources outside the immediate arena of political conflict. The functions required are, in a sense, adjunctive. The adjunctive planning style

attempts to preserve an image of objectivity; adjunctive planners most often perform informa- tion collection and analysis functions and make the results available to all contenders in policy contlict without becoming absorbed in the imbroglio them- selves. Adjunctive functions are often performed by ‘think tanks’, foundations and research institutes with interests in national policy, and by regional planning agencies, municipal research bureaus and city planning commissions at the local level. Adjunctive planners perform ‘research and de- velopment’ functions: they organize and imple- ment demonstration projects, gather operational and planning data, and evaluate positions and proposals as inputs for policy conflict resoluti0n.l’

(4) Allocative


Allocation of scarce resources among competing

demands and interests is the essence

making. Allocativeplanning seeks to facilitate policy enactment by proposing resource distribution plans that result in satisfactory tradeoffs among competing groups. Allocative planning is often sequential, an incremental series of compromises aimed at attaining mutually acceptable positions by various participants in the policy-making process. It seeks, where necessary, to balance economic, political, social, physical and other criteria, to allocate tangible and symbolic rewards, to mediate between pressing and long-term considerations in order to find alternatives acceptable to a coalition large enough to enact and implement a plan. At a technical level allocative planning institutionalizes resource distribution proposals through operating and capital budgets. But it attends to the distri- bution of normnancial resources as well.

of policy-

distri- bution of normnancial resources as well. of policy- Figure 2. Alternative Planning Styles. 8 0













and project pkuming are prerequisites to effective plan implementation. Administrative planning results in operational programs and schedules ‘related to production, budgeting and accounting, personnel, distribution of output, general internal services and research’.”




Finally, because policy-making is a continuous process, programs and policies must be continually monitored and evaluated. Evaluative planning aims to reduce the opportunity costs of failing to adjust resource mobilization, allocation and utilization decisions to changing socioeconomic and political conditions. Evaluative planners analyze previous public and private decisions to determine their results. Evaluation includes performance auditing that leads to recommendations for program re- formulation, termination or continuation. Evalua- tive planners attempt to determine the effectiveness of policies using the wide variety of criteria im- posed by the nature of public decision-making. In organizationally complex decision environments, evaluation-as Gross notes-must account for and satisfy diverse interests, measuring multiple outputs -both tangible and intangible, immediate and long-range-of different kinds, quality and quan- tity. Not only efficiency, but organizational, pro- grammatic and political viability must be assessed. At the same time evaluation must assure that the operation of programs conforms to generally observed codes: internal due process and applica- tion of external regulations. In brief, conventional processes of comprehen- sive planning based on rational decision theory and hierarchical concepts have proven of little use in public policy-making, and are becoming less useful in complex private organizations that deal in- timately with governmental agencies. Concepts offered by theorists such as Emery, that view planning as a system of hierarchical control, are at best irrelevant. At worst they are perverse in the organizationally complex policy environments where decisions are made primarily through horizontal interaction among semi-autonomous participants. r2 The emerging character of public and private decision-making calls for new concepts and approaches to planning. The seven approaches described here attempt to relate planning to policy- making functions. The styles are not mutually exclusive, either in function or performance. A planner may perform a number of roles, operating within a single organization, at different stages of the policy-making process. In other cases he may choose to specialize in a particular style of planning in order to influence policy at a specific stage in its formulation or implementation. The point is that planning theory must begin to recognize the validity, need for and effectiveness of a diversity of planning styles, roles and functions. Effective planning must be grounded in the characteristics of the policy-making process, and must be a tool

Planning for policy enactment and implementa- tion requires co-ordination and integration of the decisions of the multitude of participants involved in policy-making. The co-ordinative planning ap- proach develops strategies for mobilizing disparate resources and focusing them on remediable aspects of problems. Co-ordinative planning seeks to reconcile differences among decision-makers with diverse interests and to search for compromises, bases for exchange, incentives and instruments of manipulation and persuasion. It explores grounds for joint action by explicating shared interests, potential linkages, and requirements for mutual consent. It seeks to reduce the lag and lead times between plan enactment and implementation. This style of planning recognizes that semi- autonomous decision units can be integrated effectively only along lines of shared interest, specialization and interdependence. The great potential for policy co-ordination lies within spheres of influence among groups seeking mutual gains. Co-ordination, to be successful, must have an explicit objective. Response is based primarily on self interest; co-ordination cannot be imposed through hierarchical integration, centralized con- trol, regulation or structural consolidation. Mutu- ally beneficial rewards must accrue to parties in a co-operative act. This form of planning focuses on creation of inducements, compensation, reciprocity, and encourages and facilitates bargaining and negotiation among individuals and organizations. It attempts to create informal co-ordination mech- anisms where formal institutional arrangements for integration are weak. Co-ordinative planners may also act as intermediaries-explicating and explain- ing policy innovations, mediating conflicting demands, communicating information, bargaining positions and compromise solutions to conflicting parties. They may, through co-ordinating adminis- trative units, act as catalysts for resource mobiliz- ation in plan implementation and program evaluation.

(6) Administrative

and Technical



ameliorate problems and attain stated objectives, they must be effectively applied, institutionalized and managed. This phase of policy-making re- quires administrative planning, which, according to Gross, ‘is the complex process through which administrators try to guide the activities of people in an organization toward formulating or achieving some accepted pattern of purposes’. Administrative planning subsumes the interpretation of statutes, liaison with co-operating and competing organiza- tions, interaction with resource suppliers and output users, and design of basic management systems. Functionalplanning-the organization and manage- ment of distinct program components-snd control and direction of program outputs through technical








control and direction of program outputs through technical If plans and policies, once enacted, are APRIL,




not only for the analysis of alternative courses of action, but also for fashioning strategies to in- fluence behavior in policy implementation. n






Dennis A. Rondinelli, Urban and Regional Devefop- ment Planning: Policy and Administration, Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1975).

Aaron Wildavsky, Does Planning Work?, The Public Interest, 24, 95-l 04, Summer (1971).

John Friedmann, The Future of Comprehensive Planning : A Critique, Public Administration Review, 31,316-326, May-June (1971).

J. March and H. Simon, Organizations,


Muddling Through, Public Administration Review,


C. Lindblom, A Strategy


Wiley, New



















New York










Harlan Cleveland, The Future Executive: A Guide for Tomorrow’s Managers, Harper 8 Row, New York


Charles 0. Jones, An introduction to the Study of Public Policy, Wadsworth, Belmont,California (1970).

Dennis A. Rondinelli, Analysis: Management

of the American Institute of Planners, 39, 13-22, January (1973).









Bernard Taylor, Introducing Strategic Management, Long Range Planning, 6, 34-38, September (1973).








Cliffs (1970).


Dennis A. Rondinelli, Adjunctive Planning and Urban Development Policy, Urban Affairs Quarter/y, 7,13-39, September (1971).

Bertram M. Gross, Organizations and Their Managing, Free Press, New York (1968).

James C. Emery, Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969).

Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING
Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING
Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING
Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING
Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING
Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING
Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING
Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING
Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING
Organizational Planning and ControlSystems: Theory and Technology, Macmillan, New York (1969). 82 LONG RANGE PLANNING