It is often held that planning theory has little influence on planning practice. Some speak of an evident ‘theory-practice gap’. In reality, the opposite seems to be the case. The so-called ‘theorypractice gap’ is not the main issue at all; the real question is ‘which theory for what kind of practice’? Assuming this view, the article presents two different theories of public regulation: the teleocratic approach and the nomocratic approach.They can be interpreted as general approaches regarding the role of the state, but the article focus particularly on the consequences of accepting them in the specific field of land-use regulation. For the teleocratic approach, planning must be the central and most important instrument of land-use regulation, while for the nomocratic approach planning has only a secondary role and different kind of regulative instruments are proposed.

The purpose of this article is to explore what kind of (land-use) regulation is more compatible with a radical acceptance of the idea of the complexity of socio-spatial systems and of the intrinsic limits of explanation and prediction. The article applies insights from complexity sciences to planning practice, critically comparing different land-use regulatory instruments (in particular, patterning-instruments and framework-instruments). The main result and conclusion is that it is necessary to embrace the challenge of complexity and self-organisation, and consequently to start profound revision of regulatory instruments.

The article aims to demonstrate that neither the British planning system nor Continental planning systems adhere perfectly to the classical (liberal) ideal of the rule of law. It suggests a different approach to the regulation of land use more in line with this ideal, based on the assumption that it is not only relevant but also one that cannot be renounced. The objective is to show that the more complex an (urban) system becomes, the greater is the need for abstract, general and endindependent rules to favour a sort of beneficial, spontaneous order -selfcoordinating and polycentric -of individual actions.

No abstract

The justification for planning intervention has traditionally centred on the concept of the public interest. The situation is completely different today. Even though there are still some planning theorists trying to defend the idea of the public interest, and even though there are some planning practitioners still referring to the idea of the public interest, this traditional idea is today under severe attack. The purpose of this article is to explore the possibility of reconstructing the public interest criterion.