Systems Analysis in Planning: A Critique of Critiques

  • Michael Breheny
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 12)


This paper is as much concerned with a critique of the available critiques of systems analysis as with systems analysis itself. It argues that much of the assessment of systems analysis during the past decade has been misleading in the impression that it has given to the planning profession. It argues that a preoccupation with American evidence, drawn from a relatively small sample of applications, with theory rather than with practice, with substantive rather than procedural issues, with major planning issues rather than common problems, with spatial modelling rather than with methods generally and a general failure to define systems analysis, have given a distorted interpretation of the role of systems analysis in planning.


Planning Theory Substantive Issue Early Seventy Procedural Aspect Plan Preparation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barras, R. and Broadbent, T.A., 1979, The Analysis in English Structure Plans, Urban Studies, 16, 1–18.Google Scholar
  2. Bather, N., Williams, C. and Sutton, A., 1976, Strategic Choice in Practice: The West Berkshire Structure Plan Experience, Geographical Paper 50, University of Reading, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Batty, M., 1976, Models, Methods and Rationality in Urban and Regional Planning: Developments Since 1960, Area, 8, 93–97.Google Scholar
  4. Batty, M., 1978, On Planning Processes, in B. Goodall, and A. Kirby, (Eds.) Resources and Planning, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Batty, M., 1981, A Perspective on Urban Systems Analysis, in D. Banister, and P. Hall, (Eds.), Transport Policy and Planning, Mansell, London.Google Scholar
  6. Booth, D. and Jaffe, M., 1978, Generation and Evaluation in Structure Planning, Town Planning Review, 49, 445–458.Google Scholar
  7. Boyce, D., Day, N. and McDonald, C., 1970, Metropolitan Plan-Making, Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, Penn.Google Scholar
  8. Breheny, M.J. and Roberts, A.J., 1981, Forecasting Methodologies in Strategic Planning: A Review, Papers of the Regional Science Association, 44, in the press.Google Scholar
  9. Brewer, G.D., 1973, Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Consultant: A Critique of Urban Problem-Solving, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Broadbent, A., 1975, The Wrong Case, The Planner, 61, 188–189.Google Scholar
  11. Camhis, M., 1979, Planning Theory and Philosophy, Tavistock Publications, London.Google Scholar
  12. Drake, M. et al, 1975, Aspects of Structure Planning in Britain, Research Paper 20, Centre for Environmental Studies, London.Google Scholar
  13. Friedmann, J., 1973, Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning, Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Friedmann, J. and Hudson, B., 1974, Knowledge and Action: A Guide to Planning Theory, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40, 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friend, J. and Jessop, W.N., 1969, Local Government and Strategic Choice, Tavistock Publications, London.Google Scholar
  16. Gutch, R., 1970, Planning, Philosophy and Logic, Journal of the Town Planning Institute, 56, 389–391.Google Scholar
  17. Harris, B., 1978, A Note on Planning Theory, Environment and Planning A, 10, 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanter, J. de and Morrison, W.I., 1978, The Merseyside Input-Output Study and its Application in Structure Planning, in P.W.J. Batey, (Ed.), Theory and Method in Urban and Regional Analysis, Pion, London.Google Scholar
  19. Koestler, A., 1967, The Ghost in the Machine, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, D.B., 1973, Requiem for Large Scale Models, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McDougall, G., 1973, The Systems Approach to Planning: A Critique, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 7, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pack, J.R., 1978, Urban Models: Diffusion and Policy Application, Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, Penn.Google Scholar
  23. Parry-Lewis, J., 1970, The Invasion of Planning, Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, 56, 100–103.Google Scholar
  24. Pearce-Williams, L., 1970, Normal Science, Scientific Revolutions and the History of Science in I. Lakatos, and A. Musgrave, (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Sayer, R., 1976, A Critique of Urban Modelling, Pergamon Press, Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  26. Webber, M., 1978, A Difference Paradigm for Planning, in R.W. Burchell and G. Sternleib, (Eds.), Planning Theory in the 1980’s: A Search for Future New Directions, The Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  27. Webber, R., 1975, Liverpool Social Area Study, 1971 Data: Final Report, PRAG TP 14, Centre for Environmental Studies, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Breheny
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations