The issue of land use regulations and property values carries deep economic, social, and distributive-justice implications. This article revisits the upward side of the land-value coin to examine its relevance in today's world. It first addresses the issue and debates over real-property rights and the history of value capture policies. It also proposes a theoretical distinction between macro, direct, and indirect instruments for value capture. Following this, it focuses on direct value capture, and surveys the laws and policies in thirteen advanced-economy countries and draws out the lessons that may be learned from these experiences. Furthermore, it explains why the idea of value capture has been incrementally transformed into a plethora of indirect value capture instruments with growing popularity around the world. Finally, the article sets out challenges for future cross-national learning.

No abstract

No abstract

This article reports on research in progress whichThe analysis covers the relative influence on empirically measures and examines the implementaimplementation of the plan from political factors, tion of a land use plan. It is a case study of a from the attributes of the plan, and from changes statutory land use plan for the Krayot area in Israel.occurring in the urban system.While the ultimate purpose of plans is their implementation, there has been surprisingly little systematic attention devoted to the relationship between planning and implementation, or plans and their performance.' This article reports on an empirical study of the implementation of a land use plan in Israel, investigating how the plan in fact has performed and why it has done so.

The years 2016–2017 have opened up a dream-world set of opportunities for the planning profession. To what extent are planning education and the global planning profession intrinsically ready to take up these opportunities, and are there prices to be paid?

National-level planning in democratic countries has been almost all but ignored by researchers in urban and regional planning since the reconstruction years following the Second World War. Having become identified in many people's eyes with communist regimes and coercive government practices, national-level planning fell into some disrepute. Yet, this book will show that planning is carried out on the national level to some degree in each and every one of the ten countries studied, even though the goals, degree of comprehensiveness, subjects, institutions, format, powers and effectiveness differ widely from country to country. There are even modest trends whereby, on the threshold of the twenty-first century, national-level planning is growing in importance in democratic, advanced-economy countries. These trends point to the need to revisit planning theory. Why study national-level planning?Little attention has been given to the study of national-level planning in Western countries for many decades. The attention of planning theorists in recent years, as expressed in the majority of topics for empirical research and the themes of normative debate, has tended to focus on decision-making modes relevant more to the local and individual levels than to the national one. The three compendiums of planning theory published in the 1990s (Campbell and Fainstein, 1996; Mandelbaum et al., 1996;Stein, 1995) do not include even a single chapter devoted to the types of issues, institutions and modes of decision-making typical of national-level planning.This book was born of necessity. It is not the result of a library search for lacunae in knowledge, but of a real-life need for knowledge about how different countries handle their land-use (or 'spatial') planning issues at the national level. The need was Israel's-a country that ostensibly already has a high degree of national-level planning, but where a group of planners and academics involved in the ambitious 'Israel 2020' planning team 1 was seeking to know more about alternative modes of national-level planning. I began to search the literature for ideas. Is national-level NATIONAL-LEVEL PLANNING reasons for the inception, perseverance or demise of national-level planning, to its political-ideological contexts, to the emerging modes and styles whereby it is carried out, and to the tools and problems of implementation. I conclude by pointing out some of the challenges that the findings hold for planning theory.Defining 'national-level planning'

This paper presents a comparison of American planning education and professional practice with the modes of education and practice prevalent in European countries. American planning education, encompassing the world's largest community of planning schools in a single country, can be described as mature, rich, and energetic in production of knowledge, and exhibiting a large variety of formats and approaches that reflect its "bottom-up" evolutionary process. It is high on the generic aspects of planning and relatively low on substantive spatial focus. It is also flexible and open-ended in terms of the jobs graduates take, but is lukewarm on professional organization and professional support. This profile is in many ways different from the profile of planning education and the planning profession in other countries The latter part of the paper presents an initial research agenda for planning theorists who may wish to use the challenging lever of crossnational research for boosting our understanding of planning.Rachelle Alterman teaches at the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning at Technion —

No abstract