Introduction why reconsider planning by law and property rights?

Planning By Law and Property Rights Reconsidered

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1-19

  Hartmann, Thomas ^a   Needham, Barrie ^b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900569156     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (37)

1. Albrechts, L. 2004. Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(5), 743-758.
2. Allmendinger, P. 2002. Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77-99.
3. Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. 2010. Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28, 803-818.
4. Arthur, W.B. 1989. Competing technologies increasing returns and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99, 116-131.
5. Baum, H.S. 1977. Toward a post-industrial planning theory. Policy Sciences, 8, 401-421.
6. Bertolini, L. 2010. Complex systems, evolutionary planning?, in G. de Roo and E.A. Silva (eds), A Planner's Encounter with Complexity. Farnham: Ashgate, 81-98.
7. Billé, R. 2008. Integrated coastal zone management: Four entrenched illusions. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, 1, 75-86.
8. Bromley, D.W. 2000. Regulatory takings and land use conflicts, in M.D. Kaplowitz (ed.), Property Rights, Economics, and the Environment. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 23-33.
9. Coase, R. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44.
10. Cooter, R., and Ulen, T. 2004. Law and Economics (4th edn). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11. Davy, B. 1997. Essential Injustice: When Legal Institutions Cannot Resolve Environmental and Land Use Disputes. Wien, New York: Springer.
12. Davy, B. 2005. Bodenpolitik, in E.-H. Ritter (ed.), Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung. Hannover: ARL, 117-130.
13. Davy, B. 2009. Land thrift as sustainable development: the case of Germany's 30 hectares goal, in A. van der Valk and T. van Dijk (eds), Regional planning for open space. London, New York: Routledge, 279-300.
14. Davy, B. 2010. Freiraumsicherung durch Bodenpolitik: Was passieren müßte wenn wir das Ziel-30-ha ernst nähmen, in K. Marion and K. Selle (eds), Siedlungsflächen entwickeln. Akteure. Interdependenzen. Optionen. Detmold: Rohn Verlag, 258-271.
15. Durner, W. and Ludwig, L. 2008. Paradigmenwechsel in der europäischen Umweltrechtsetzung? Natur und Recht, 30(7), 457-467.
16. Ellickson, R. 1993. Property in land. Yale Law Review, 102, 1315-1400.
17. Forester, J. 2004. Reflections on trying to teach planning theory. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(2), 242-251.
18. Frank, S. 2006. The European Union and the European cities: three phases of the European urban policy, in U. Altrock (ed.), Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the New EU Member States. From Adjustment to Reinvention. Aldershot: Ashgate, 39-56.
19. Fraser, N. 1990. Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80.
20. Goodin, R.E. and Tilly, C. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Healey, P. 2003. Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101-123.
22. Healey, P. 2009. In search of the 'strategic' in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory and Practice, 10(4), 439-457.
23. Heinz, W. (ed.) 1993. Public Private Partnership - Ein neuer Weg zur Stadtentwicklung? Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln: Kohlhammer.
24. Hillier, J. 2010. Introduction: Planning at yet another crossroads?, in J. Hillier and P. Healey (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory. Conceptual Challenges for Spatial Planning. Farnham: Ashgate, 1-34.
25. Huxley, M. 2000. The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 369-377.
26. Huxley, M. 2009. Property Rights and Land Policies. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
27. Kurth, D. 1999. Laboratorium Emscher Park. Dortmund: Informationskreis für Raumplanung.
28. Needham, B. 2006. Planning Law and Economics: The Rules we make for Using Land. Abingdon: Routledge.
29. Ostrom, E. 2007. The Challenge or Crafting Rules to Change Open Access Resources into Managed Resources. Paper to the International Economic Association roundtable on the Sustainability of Economic Growth, Beijing (China), July 13-14, 2007.
30. Paffrath, C. 2004. Macht und Eigentum: Die Enteignungen 1945-1949 im Prozeß der deutschen Wiedervereinigung. Köln: Böhlau Verlag
31. Rittel, H.W. and Webber, M.A. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, (4), 155-169.
32. Schiller, R. 2001. The Dynamics of Property Location München. Sponpress: London.
33. Selle, K., Hüchtker, S., Scholz, B., Sinning, H., Sutter-Schurr, H., et al. 2000. Freiraum, Siedlung, Kooperationen: Forschungsergebnisse, Hinweise für die Praxis, Folgerungen. Arbeits- und Organisationsformen für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Dortmund: Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur.
34. Stein, U. 1995. Raumplanung zwischen Staat, Markt und Gesellschaft. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, (5), 393-396.
35. Stierand, R. 1993. Neuorientierung in der Planungstheorie? RaumPlanung, (61), 141-147.
36. Thompson, M. 1997. Rewriting the precepts of policy analyses, in R.J. Ellis and M. Thompson (eds), Culture Matters. Essays in Honor of Aaron Wildavsky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 203-216.
37. Wegener, M. 1999. Raumplanung als Systemrationalität oder die Rettung der Raumplanung durch die Ökologie, in K.M. Schmals (ed.), Was ist Raumplanung? Dortmund: Dortmunder Beiträge zur Raumplanung 89, University of Dortmund, 165-72.