adjustment of planning practice to the new eastern and central european context

This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire]On: 05 October 2014, At: 05:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning AssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Adjustment of Planning Practice to the New Easternand Central European ContextZorica Nedović-BudićPublished online: 26 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Zorica Nedović-Budić (2001) Adjustment of Planning Practice to the New Eastern and Central EuropeanContext, Journal of the American Planning Association, 67:1, 38-52, DOI: 10.1080/01944360108976354

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976354

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01944360108976354

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976354

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Adjustment ofPlanning Practice tothe New Easternand CentralEuropean ContextZorica Nedovic-Budic

For the planner in the West, this part of the world may, in a condensedmanner and under the changed circumstances of the 1990s, serve as alaboratory of changes that occurred in the concept of planning in theWest between the end of World War II and the 1980s. (Maier, 1994,p. 263)

The societal transformations in Eastern and Central Europe createdturbulence and controversy in the planning profession throughoutthe 1990s. Due to a bad reputation acquired over the preceding 45

years and a general association with the old communist regime, the legiti-macy of urban planning was challenged fundamentally in the eyes of citi-zens and was not a priority for the politicians (Sykora, 1995, 1999). While theformal legal power of planning has not been substantially reduced, it hasbeen ineffective in addressing urban issues at the local level (Maier, 1998).The major obstacle to the reinstitution of the planning profession is a gen-eral misperception about incompatibility between planning and the freemarket system. In the confusion of societal transformation, what is misun-derstood is that a free market system cannot provide all solutions and fix allproblems. In fact, the main rationale for planning intervention in capitalistcountries throughout the 20th century was the need to correct for the fail-ures inherent in the free market system (Lee, 1981).

Assessments of the socialist era planning legacies on which the new sys-tem is being built are conflicting. Fisher (1966) and Montias (1962), for ex-ample, point to the relative sophistication of Eastern and Central Europeanplanners, given their lack of adequate institutional support. In their exami-nation of Russian city planning, Shove and Anderson (1997) acclaim the

38 APA Journal u Winter 2001 u Vol. 67, No. 1

The urban planning profession and itsactivities in Eastern and Central Eu-rope have been affected by the politi-cal and economic transformation inthese countries. The new, still evolvingsocietal and institutional frameworkspresent urban planners with a highlydynamic context to which they mustadapt. In contrast to relatively pre-dictable centrally planned and con-trolled development, the cities thereare now subjected to multiple forcesand immense pressures on their al-ready fragile environments. This articlereviews the frameworks, trends, andissues that characterize the planningpractice in this transitional period asevidenced in the capital cities ofPrague, Bratislava, and Budapest.Planners in the U.S. and Western Eu-rope will find many of these topicsrelevant to past, present, and futurecircumstances they face. The articleprovides for mutual learning and ex-change of experiences, and for betterunderstanding and improvement ofplanning systems and practice. It re-lates to the core dilemma in justifyingplanning as government interventionvis-a-vis free market rule.

Nedovic-Budic is an associate professor ofurban planning and geographic informa-tion systems (GIS) at the University of Illi-nois at Urbana-Champaign. She earned herPh.D. degree from the University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill in 1993. Her mainresearch area is the implementation of GISin local government settings and evaluationof its impact on urban planning functionsand processes. Another current research in-terest is the comparative study of urban de-velopment and planning practice in formercommunist countries in Europe.

Journal of the American Planning Association,Vol. 67, No. 1, Winter 2001. © AmericanPlanning Association, Chicago, IL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

intellectual quality and advanced nature of planning aspracticed during the 80 years of the communist regime.Other sources suggest that Eastern and Central Euro-pean planning practice has not been entirely devoid ofWestern influences even before the societal transforma-tion of the late 1980s. Pichler-Milanovich (1994), forexample, maintains that socialist planners have been fol-lowing Western patterns in physical planning, manage-ment, and development.

Even if Eastern and Central European planners ap-plied methods similar to those used by the urban plan-ners in some of the Western European countries and theU.S., those methods did not work well because they werecreated in substantially different societal contexts andlegal and institutional environments. This difference incircumstances is perhaps the main reason that the East-ern and Central European planners are unprepared forthe changing world of planning and why Ryder (1992)finds the planners’ capacity and methods largely inade-quate, particularly for managing and assessing urbanareas. He claims that the planners “do not have the skillsnecessary to predict and plan, and lack the means to fos-ter, shape and control change” (p. 216). In his accountof the state of the planning profession in Eastern andCentral Europe, Maier (1994) concludes that both (re)-training and new equipment are needed.

Professional planners and academics from WesternEurope and the U.S. have been eager to help their Easternand Central European counterparts through manychannels of exchange opened since 1989. Likewise, manypoliticians and professionals from Eastern and CentralEurope have been willing to embrace the new practices assoon as possible. One drawback of these exchanges is theoften premature transfer of Western methods and tech-nologies without adequate consideration of the circum-stances for their implementation. The limited transfer-ability of planning models among various countries hasalready been recognized (Maier, 1994, 1998; Masser,1992). Differences in the levels of affluence, relative so-cietal stability, and cultural and historical heritage allpoint to the need for a context-sensitive approach. Suchdifferences also exist among the Western countries andtheir planning systems, and they further complicate thetransfer of knowledge and technology.

Planning Systems and the MarketRather than looking at a unified Western experience,

Eastern and Central European planners face a variety ofplanning frameworks and approaches that are not easyto sort through (Thomas, 1998). Berry and McGreal(1995) and Healey and Williams (1993) discuss severalEuropean planning systems rather than one homoge-

nous system. Booth (1996) offers a more generalized cat-egorization of development control practices as discre-tionary or regulatory, the former entailing maximumflexibility and the latter providing certainty in develop-ment processes and outcomes. Those diverse practicesare determined by governmental structure, and the rolesof law, culture, and history, and the author admits thatthe task of placing countries into these categories is dif-ficult. There seem to be more hybrids and variationsthan prototypical cases. Generally, Booth claims that theUnited Kingdom exemplifies a flexible system. France,Germany, The Netherlands, and, to some extent, theUnited States have systems based on legal certainty. Inthe less flexible systems, room for change and adjust-ment is secured through negotiations, zoning appealboards, variances, and other mechanisms. For Europeansystems, Thomas (1998) makes a distinction betweenContinental and British models based on the plans’ legalbinding. Newman and Thornley (1996) further identifythree types of Continental model.

Underlying the establishment of any planning sys-tem is the balance between the role of government andthe role of the market in urban development. The twoare commonly perceived as a dichotomy, although, ac-cording to Luithlen (1997), “the interdependence be-tween market processes, market regulation, and ‘publicimprovement’” (p. 1399) was already recognized in theearly 20th century when the first planning statutes wereenacted in the United Kingdom. Pro-planning argu-ments are grounded in the market failure thesis relatedto negative externalities, natural monopoly, social costs,equity, and public goods (Lee, 1981); and in the Pigou-vian case for regulative planning (Webster, 1998). Lai(1997) adds property rights as the basis for planning, al-though they are more commonly used to attack plan-ning. These arguments are countered by the Coasianplanning theory of welfare economics (Holcombe, 1995;Webster, 1998), and the notion that socialist planninghas failed because it neglected market forces (Hodgson,1998; Scott, 1998).

Most recently, planning has been critiqued for itsdisregard of market forces. Zhu (1999), for example,claims that planning has jeopardized the developmentof property industry in China’s transitional economy.Tang and Tang (1999) state that even in the fully devel-oped market society in Hong Kong, the planner’s dis-missal of market viability issues compromises the effec-tiveness of a new zoning incentive. But rarely are thearguments one sided. Lai (1999), for instance, finds thateven Hayek, who was one of the most insistent oppo-nents of planning, at one point recognized the validity ofthe market failure thesis. In his article about planningas a response to market failure, Lee (1981) warns that

APA Journal u Winter 2001 u Vol. 67, No. 1 39

ADJUSTMENT OF PLANNING PRACTICE TO THE NEW EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

overregulating urban development processes can be asdetrimental as underregulating them. Hodgson (1998)relates his review of the deficiencies of socialist planningsystems to the issues of information and knowledge,concluding with a challenge to full market individual-ism. Finally, Webster (1998) offers a public choice the-ory of planning as the one that bridges the diverse per-spectives of the market and planning.

The theoretical discussion about planning and mar-kets is not relevant only to post-communist countries.Webster (1998) finds that “urban planning policy [is] intransition in many parts of the world, [and] the need tounderstand the theoretical bases for planning and toground discussion about policy innovations on theoryis as important as ever” (p. 53). Many developing coun-tries, for instance, are in the process of establishing theirplanning frameworks and, interestingly, many adopt the“market orthodoxy of efficiency” as the guiding princi-ple, without fully considering alternatives that may bemore suitable for their political, social, and economiccircumstances (Chakravorty, 1999, p. 77). McDermott(1998) describes the changing role of planners in NewZealand where, since the mid 1980s, neoliberal (i.e., les-saiz faire or free market) solutions have been preferred tolocal intervention. In Hong Kong, the changing politi-cal economy and the contest between alternative societalmodels affect the choice of planning system and prac-tice (Ng, 1999). In close geographic proximity to HongKong, Singapore’s and Taiwan’s planning systems arethe extreme examples of centralized state control and aloose decentralized system, respectively. Under the newliberal democratic regime, metropolitan planning forSouth African cities has been enhanced with “innovativeconsensus-seeking processes” (Watson, 1998, p. 335). Fi-nally, while the U.S. does not currently face the radicaltransition to a new planning system, it did experiencesuch a transition in recent history, right after the WorldWar II (Higgs, 1999). Ever since, adjustments in the U.S.planning system have been small but continuous, withthe playoff among the government, market, and privateproperty rights determining the direction and nature ofchanges over time.

Differentiation between the universal and regime-based, society-specific, and culturally unique features ofplanning is necessary in preparing for the internationalexchange of planning ideas and practices. Identificationof planning mechanisms that have emerged in reactionto the new political context is a first step toward devel-oping an effective new system. Better understanding thenature of forces and trends that shape the existing East-ern and Central European urban structure, recognizingthe uniqueness of local circumstances, and consideringthe applicability of experiences and tools across national

and regional boundaries will help: (1) identify the gaps inplanning practice; (2) search for contextually sensitivesolutions; and (3) meaningfully exchange the experi-ences, knowledge, and ideas between the Western plan-ning institutions and the transforming institutions ofEastern and Central Europe.

This article provides a discussion of the evolvingplanning systems and issues in the three capital cities inEastern and Central Europe: Prague, Bratislava, andBudapest. First, I provide a brief overview of the researchscope, objectives, and methods, and planning under theold communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe.

Comparative Case Study

Research Scope, Objectives, and MethodsAppreciation for the context in which planning is

practiced in Eastern and Central European cities is es-sential for effective adjustment of planning to the newconditions and for the adoption of new methods andtechnologies. Research on the effects on urban planningpractice of the transformation occurring in Eastern andCentral Europe is scarce in contrast to the proliferatingliterature on other aspects of the transition, such as pri-vatization, politics, management, and the overall econ-omy (Batt, 1991; Clague & Rausser, 1992; Dostál, 1998;Frydman et al., 1993; Maruyama, 1993; Mason 1992).Similar to studies on urban planning and developmentduring the socialist period, the recently published ac-counts usually focus on a particular country and addressonly specific planning issues. Comparative and compre-hensive studies of urban planning practice are rare, de-spite the recognized value of cross-national research forunderstanding the phenomena and for international ex-change of experiences, ideas, instruments, and institu-tional models. Several recent publications have begun tofill this gap, including Berry and McGreal (1995) on Eu-ropean cities, planning systems, and property markets;Newman and Thornley (1996) on European urban plan-ning; Booth (1996) on certainty and discretion in devel-opment control in Europe, the U.S., and Hong Kong; An-drusz et al. (1996) on cities and urbanization before andafter socialism; Strong et al. (1996) on transition in landand housing in the Czech Republic, Poland, and Bul-garia; Thomas (1998) on application of democratizationtheory in studying planning in the transitional countriesin Central and Eastern Europe; and Adair et al. (1999)and Ghanbari-Parsa and Moatazed-Keivani (1999) onreal estate markets in Central Europe.

The intent of the study presented in this article wasto identify and contextually examine three elementsof the urban planning systems in Eastern and Central

ZORICA NEDOVIC-BUDIC


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Europe as defined by Healey and Williams (1993), in-cluding the plan-making, urban development, and reg-ulatory functions. More specifically, the goals of thestudy were to:

• define the planning context and roles from thelegal, economic, and political perspectives (e.g.,enabling legislation and planning mandates;urban land value, ownership, and finance; andplanning process and activities);

• identify the new forms and patterns of urbandevelopment; and

• evaluate the change in the plan-making functionsand methodologies by focusing on the gaps and/or mismatch between the processes and tools usedand those required in the current urban planningcontext.

To provide insights that can be compared across theregion, a multiple case study was conducted. The studyincluded the capitals of three countries: Prague in theCzech Republic, Bratislava in the Slovak Republic, andBudapest in Hungary. These cities vary in populationfrom about 0.5 million in Bratislava to about 1.2 millionin Prague and 2 million in Budapest.

The study was mainly exploratory, capturing thegeneral trends that are common across the countries vis-ited. It relied on existing literature and three sources ofprimary data: (1) interviews with key informants con-ducted at each site in spring 1996, with a followup atselected sites in 1999 and 2000; (2) field observation; and(3) documentation collected on site. A research protocolwas used in each interview to ensure consistency in elic-itation of data and to facilitate cross-case comparisons(see Appendix). Information sought through the inter-views pertained to the following topics:

• overall planning system• role of urban planning• planning legislation• planning agencies• planning documentation• approval of plans• ownership of land and building structures• real estate taxation• investment in land development• building permit approval• housing provision

The answers to questions on those topics provide aframework for characterizing and comparing the plan-ning and urban development systems evolving in thethree countries.

Planning Under CommunismFrom the mid 1940s through the 1980s, urban plan-

ning in Eastern and Central Europe reflected the com-munist institutional and ideological framework that as-sumed a single-party political system; state ownershipand distribution of the nationalized means of produc-tion and property; rejection of market principles andmechanisms; and a general priority of public and collec-tive interests and goals over individual or private ones.Among the three countries studied, Hungary operatedunder a somewhat relaxed version of this framework,modified with economic system reforms (New EconomicMechanism) introduced in the late 1960s.

During the communist regime, local governmentsin Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and the Slo-vak Republic) and Hungary had limited legislative pow-ers and were largely dependent on income transferredfrom the state. However, planning was exercised with asubstantial legal power. Legislation in support of urbanplanning was introduced with the first 5-year economicplans very soon after World War II.1 Two distinct plan-ning models were applied: (1) in Czechoslovakia, aSoviet-based centralized planning model, with hierar-chical control mechanisms mostly exercised throughintermediate regional agencies; and (2) in Hungary, a de-centralized planning model, with centrally-determinedoverall long-term goals, but with some planning and de-cision making exercised at the local level (Enyedi, 1990).

Spatial planning was subordinate to economic plan-ning, and its role was to ensure rational allocation anduse of resources (Compton, 1987). The function of phys-ical planning was mainly technical: to help execute eco-nomic plans with respect to territorial conditions, to in-ventory cities and control their size, and to provide asynoptic view of cities via national urban developmentstrategies and a controlled rate of urbanization (Maier,1994; Ryder, 1992; Zovanyi, 1989). Immediately afterWorld War II, only economic sectoral planning was prac-ticed. Attention to the physical aspects of urban growthwas minimal until the late 1950s and early 1960s, whenregional and comprehensive plans were introduced asthe key instruments of industrial decentralization (En-yedi, 1996; Pichler-Milanovich, 1994).

The underlying public interest justified governmentintervention into existing urban structure and its in-volvement in new developments. Expropriation of pri-vate property for public use, including housing con-struction, was a common and legally-sanctioned prac-tice. The state was the main urban land developer andhad a particularly significant role in the provision ofhousing. The patterns promoted in Eastern and CentralEuropean cities during the communist period and the



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

goals and principles that guided their planning and de-velopment have been well documented (Fisher, 1962,1966; French & Hamilton, 1979; Pioro, 1965). The twogoals were to correct the ills inherited from the era ofcapitalism and to develop a new pattern for the city thatreflected the classless society. The basic principles wereegalitarianism and planned urbanization (Enyedi, 1996).Egalitarianism aimed at achieving equal living condi-tions within the settlement network and within indi-vidual settlements. Planned urbanization was realizedthrough decentralization of industry to underdevelopedregions and efficient distribution of large enterprises ina few large centers. At the city level, the guiding planningprinciples were promoted through (1) standardization,(2) proper city size, (3) the vital role of the city center,and (4) the neighborhood unit concept (Fisher, 1962).

While not completely dominated by central govern-ment directives, planning in Eastern and Central Europeduring the 50-year period after World War II neglectedmarket forces and mechanisms. It was primarily focusedon achieving the national and regional economic growthobjectives through implementation of sectoral and phys-ical plans at detailed (urban block/area), citywide, andregional levels. Table 1 gives an overview of these factors.

Case Study Findings: EmergingPlanning Systems

The New ContextTraces of the decline of centralized planning in East-

ern and Central Europe can be found as early as the1960s, although its demise accelerated by the mid 1970s.By this time, the comprehensive plans were already turn-ing into symbolic documents and their implementationhad become increasingly difficult (Bolan, 1992; Maier,1994). Efforts to revise investment plans in the 1980sfailed in the face of macro economic conditions—the af-termath of oil crises and globalization. In Czechoslova-kia, a sharp decline in housing production after 1975was an early indicator of this inability of centralizedplanning to respond to the changing circumstances (L.Sykora, personal communication, August 22, 2000).

Despite the claimed gradual departure from the so-cialist order, the actual dismantling of the communistsystem in the late 1980s presented a substantial qualita-tive change in all aspects of societal organization. The ex-tent of socioeconomic and political changes in the late1980s and early 1990s prompted “a new notion of plan-ning” (Maier, 1994, p. 263) in Eastern and Central Euro-pean countries (see Table 1). The changes that mostdirectly influenced urban development and planningwere the introduction of private property rights with re-

spect to both urban land and structures, the restructur-ing of government to shift power to the local level, andthe opening of the land development process to a widerrange of participants, such as private investors, citizens,property owners, special interest groups, businesses, non-profit organizations, service providers, local governmentand decision-making entities, and planning consultants.

The empowerment of local units is probably themost significant of all these changes. First, in 1990 theAct on Municipalities in Czechoslovakia and the Act onLocal Self-Government in Hungary granted indepen-dence and power to all municipalities. Further, all threecapital cities included in this study were divided into au-tonomous districts of various sizes and sometimes dif-ferent cultural and economic backgrounds. By the mid1990s there were 57 local districts in Prague, 17 in Brati-slava, and 23 in Budapest. Those local districts have be-come the basic level of urban planning and manage-ment, with more centralized municipal functions inPrague. Most localities have received powers compara-ble to those of their Western European counterparts,such as the power to tax income and property, to managetheir budgets, and to establish legal entities. Lingeringfunding from the state, however, has diluted the effect ofdecentralization and kept the local governments depen-dent. This dependence has been reduced most in theCzech municipalities. The major source of revenue,property taxes, still does not correspond to market con-ditions and does not generate sufficient income, pri-marily because local governments have been reluctant touse it. In both the Czech Republic and in Hungary, ef-forts are underway to differentiate taxation based onthree factors: location in rural and urban areas (Burger,1998; Reiner & Strong, 1995), placement within the set-tlements system, and market transactions (L. Sykora,personal communication, August 8, 2000).

Diversification of ownership patterns has also beena significant change in the region studied. Many prop-erties that until the early 1990s were owned, managed, ordeveloped by the state or by the cooperatives have beentransferred to various forms of private ownership or tomunicipalities. Restitution and sale of the housingstock, as well as privatization of industrial and commer-cial establishments have been the main means of trans-ferring real estate to private ownership (Redding &Ghanbari-Parsa, 1995; Sykora, 1995). Inaccurate or miss-ing cadastral records have often made it difficult to de-termine legal ownership and to identify the owners of allthe properties. Therefore, some municipalities are stillin possession of properties that had no buyers, for whichthe owner was unknown, or that were set aside for socialreasons. This process proceeded somewhat more effi-ciently in the Czech Republic where some delays were



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014



TABLE 1. Highlights of planning and urban development in Eastern and Central Europe before and after the 1989 politicaland economic changes.

Before 1989 Czechoslovakia (Bratislava and Prague) Hungary (Budapest)

Planning context Single-party system Relaxed version of the communist regimeState ownership of property and means Economic system reforms introduced in 1968

of production Limited private property rightsState as the main land developerIndividual needs subordinated to collective

interests

Planning system Centralized planning with hierarchical Decentralized planningcontrol mechanisms Decision making power shifted to the local level

Physical planning subordinate to economic/ State and private development initiativessectoral planning

Decline from 1960s on

Planning legislation 1958 Town and Country Planning Act 1964 Building Code1976 Territorial Planning and Building Act 1951 Growth Management Decree

(amended in 1962, 1974, and 1982)

Planning documentation 1961 First Master Plan for Prague; 1968 National Settlement Development Strategyapproved in 1964 1980 National Regional Plan Conception

1975 Revised Master Plan including a larger 1980 Budapest Master Planarea annexed by the City (General Plan of 1986 and 1988 Master Plan revisionsthe Capital City of Prague)

1986 Master Plan

After 1989 Czech Republic (Prague) Slovak Republic (Bratislava) Hungary (Budapest)

Planning context Introduction of democratic governments, free market mechanisms, and private property rightsRestructuring of government to shift power to the local levelLingering dependence on state transfer fundsProperty taxes not fully reflective of market valuesMany new participants in the urban development process

Planning legislation 1992 Law on physical planning [Czechoslovakia] 1996 Building Act1996 Act on Regional

1998 Planning and Building 1997 New planning law Development and Physical Law Planning

Planning documentation 1994 Provisional master plan 1993 Actualization of existing 1997 Strategic and Structural with designated stabilized master plan Planareas 2000 Expected approval of a 1998 Budapest Master Plan

1999 Approval of new master new master plan (implementation started plan January 1999)

2000 Expected approval of Prague Strategic Plan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

experienced for different reasons—a large number ofclaims and efforts to move to automated handling ofland records (L. Sykora, personal communication, Au-gust 22, 2000). In the Slovak Republic, the most recentchange in the cadastral law attempts to achieve moreexpedient property transactions and more accurate landrecords, which will hopefully improve the situation (K.Ivanicka, personal communication, October 26, 1999).

From a legislative perspective, in the early 1990s theEastern and Central European countries were challengedto set up a system appropriate to a mixed-market-ori-ented economy (Healey & Williams, 1993). The govern-ments of all three countries almost immediately initi-ated revisions of their planning-related laws, which theyperceived as urgent to pursue. The quick response to thenew circumstances were the laws on physical planningin Czechoslovakia in 1992 (before the Czech and SlovakRepublics separated) and in Hungary in 1990. The newlegislation built on the previous laws, and, as Baar andZsamboki (1992) note in the case of Hungary, the majordifferences were not necessarily in the legal structuresand systems, as much as they were in the mode of imple-mentation. The laws enacted immediately after theswitch to a new political regime were subsequently re-vised with the Planning and Building Law in 1998 in theCzech Republic, a new planning law enacted in 1997 inthe Slovak Republic, and the 1996 Act on Regional De-velopment and Physical Planning in Hungary (Á. Nagy,personal communication, January 10, 2000).

This new legislation puts planning, plan approval,and building approval processes entirely in the hands oflocal governments. This shift is consistent with the Eu-ropewide recognition of the increasing relevancy of ur-ban planning at the local level. This recognition is insti-tutionalized through European Community initiativesand changes in local governance practices (Healey & Wil-liams, 1993).

In all three countries, the involvement and influenceof state-level institutions have been generally weakened.Plan preparation has been shifted from the planning in-stitutes previously controlled by the centralized politi-cal structures to various government-based or indepen-dent agencies and to private consultants that are licensedto perform planning activities. Except in Budapest, plan-ning agencies are part of the city government structureand budget (e.g., the City Development Office in Prague,the City Planning Office in Bratislava). In Budapest, themain city planning office is a business-oriented institu-tion that is partly owned by the municipality but com-petes for city planning projects on the free market withother planning firms (Á. Nagy, personal communica-tion, March 25, 1996; January 10, 2000).

The New Focus of PlanningThe major changes in the scope of planning in East-

ern and Central European countries are the transforma-tion of economic planning and the regional element interritorial planning. The former has been reduced to ad-dress macro economic policy. The latter has been de-tached from economic development plans and refocusedon the physical development of urban areas. Planningagencies make plans to guide privatization of the hous-ing stock, urban development and redevelopment, prop-erty transactions, and historic preservation in order tofacilitate private and public investments in land devel-opment and to ensure functional urban areas. Commonacross all three countries is the change in the scope ofplans from large-area development or redevelopmentproposals to site-specific urban projects. These plans stillseek to improve the quality of life in urban environmentsthrough effective and efficient allocation of resourcesand distribution of urban functions in space.

The present situation, however, with many urbandevelopment and redevelopment activities, appears quitechaotic and hard to track, particularly when comparedto the time when the state was the major land developerand all activities were directed and controlled from onepoint. The allocation of land to urban functions and de-velopment decisions are now guided by various marketand development interests. Existing urban plans andbuilding codes are no longer useful for guiding develop-ment. For example, the areas set aside for social servicesand commercial functions in the housing estates inPrague (Jizni Mesto) and Bratislava (Petrzalka) are ig-nored by the new developers (D. Kaliská & L. Vitková,personal communication, March 19, 1996; M. Turba,personal communication, March 21, 1996). Instead, theyselect the land along major arterials for investment. Thelocal districts, now the basic units of government, alsocontribute to this conflict between the planned andmarket-driven development patterns. As the owners ofsignificant portions of land and the ultimate decisionmakers, local districts compete for investors with otherdistricts and are often lax in their requirements andguidance.

Planning DocumentsOfficially, in the Czech Republic, planning legisla-

tion prescribes municipal development programs (i.e.,strategic plans), land use plans (i.e., master plans), anddetailed regulation plans for urban zones. In Hungary,the documentation includes regional plans (which arenot legally binding) and municipal physical plans. Themaster plan or general land use plan is the most com-mon type of planning document; its principal role is di-recting overall urban development (Sykora, 1999).



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

After the change in 1989 from socialism to a marketeconomy, different plans were needed to respond to thenew conditions and to institute some order in develop-ment actions. Budapest (Meggyesi, 1993) and Prague(Sykora, 1995) were among the first former communistcities to revise their master plans, which had been de-vised in the 1980s. Prague’s early designation of stabi-lized areas where development is allowed has been an ef-fective way of protecting the areas where plans are notyet available but where some development should occurin near future (R. Perlín & L. Sykora, personal commu-nication, March 21, 1996). The document, however,could not be fully enforced to prevent all constructionand reconstruction activities in the protected areas (M.Turba, personal communication, March 21, 1996). Anew master plan for Prague was approved in late Sep-tember 1999 (R. Perlín & L. Sykora, personal communi-cation, October 14, 1999). The master plan for Bratislavawas also revised. The revision was initiated in the newlyformed City Planning Department to work on the actu-alization of the 1993 plan produced with help from theMinistry of Environment. A subsequent version was pre-pared more recently and is expected to be approved in2000 (K. Ivanicka, personal communication, October 26,1999). The Master Plan of Budapest was adopted in 1998and implemented starting in January 1999. It contains aframework for regulating building and development ac-tivities in 23 independent local districts (Á. Nagy, per-sonal communication, January 10, 2000).

While the new plans have been formulated and dis-cussed, the overall lack of effective planning documen-tation and processes to enforce and control developmentremains an obstacle to more coordinated and orderlydevelopment and redevelopment efforts. Reiner andStrong (1995), for instance, believe that zoning ordi-nances would be extremely useful in facilitating the lo-cation of new functions in space. Although planning hasretained strong legal power and some planning docu-mentation is available (Maier, 1998), these are not ade-quate to secure the kind of guidance needed. The de-tailed plans are the most illustrative example of the needfor adjustment. In local planning agencies, there seemsto be a tendency to adhere to an old way of generating de-tailed plans, which are essentially urban design projects.According to Baar and Zsamboki (1992) “the formula-tion of this type of plan by the public authority consti-tutes the undertaking of a role that is traditionally un-dertaken by owners and developers in market econo-mies. It requires that the owner/developer build accord-ing to a particular building plan rather than formulatinghis/her own plan within a range of permissible schemes”(p. 4). The detailed planning needed in the new circum-stances is in the form of flexible regulative and technical

frameworks for development, which do not prescribe theexact location, footprint, and form of buildings. The tra-ditional detailed planning method, however, still seemedto be lingering, even by the mid 1990s—half a decadeafter the switch to a market economy. The need to mod-ify this practice has been recognized (R. Perlín & L. Sy-kora, personal communication, March 21, 1996; S. Gá-bor, personal communication, March 25, 1996). Maier(1998) identifies the missing feedback between “planmakers and decision makers at the implementationstage” and the execution of plans by administrators“who, for the most part, have no planning background”and are disengaged from “the conceptual aims of theplan” (p. 355) as the major obstacles to effective plan-ning at the local level.

Planning Issues and Methods

Coordination and Strategic Vision. In all three cases,strategic planning documents have either been neglectedor slow to develop. In Prague, a strategic plan was con-sidered almost simultaneously with the general plan.While the general Master Plan was approved in Septem-ber 1999, the draft of the Prague Strategic Plan has beenunder discussion, and slated for approval by the City As-sembly in fall of 2000 (L. Sykora, personal communica-tion, August 22, 2000). In Bratislava, there has been anattempt to create a strategic vision of the city as an edu-cational and information technology center, but the sub-sequent planning efforts in 1998 did not seem to followup on this strategy (K. Ivanicka, personal communica-tion, March 19, 1996; October 26, 1999; D. Kaliská &L. Vitková, personal communication, March 19, 1996).In Budapest, too, those strategic documents have beenonly partially introduced and consulted. The Strategicand Structural Plan, approved in 1997, still could notaddress some of the local coordination issues (Á. Nagy,personal communication, January 10, 2000). The over-whelming attention given to urban peripheral develop-ment, with neglect of the existing infrastructure andreusable building stock in the inner city, is one of themost obvious strategic omissions in the new planningprocess (Á. Nagy, personal communication, March 25,1996; January 10, 2000). This and other concerns mostlikely stem from the changing institutional environmentand the lack of centralized oversight of citywide and re-gional development. Maier (1998) finds that the new“central government was far from enthusiastic in sup-porting anything regional” (p. 355).

Regional planning is clearly a missing link in theoverall spatial planning system. Local planners believethat regional planning would help coordinate the orga-nization of space at the metropolitan level (Á. Nagy,



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

personal communication, March 25, 1996; January 10,2000). In Hungary, regional planning quickly recoveredfrom the initial neglect in the early 1990s. By 1995 theNational Regional Development Concept was underpreparation and regional plans were developed for sev-eral regions (one being the Budapest area). In the CzechRepublic, a Regional Development Act was rejected in1992, and it was not until January 2000 that the regionallevel of government was reestablished. In the SlovakRepublic, the regional level of government was also rein-troduced (with 8 regions encompassing 74 districts), butit has been perceived as detrimental to local indepen-dence. New territorial reform is under preparation (K.Ivanicka, personal communication, October 26, 1999;August 4, 2000).

Without a regional government—or at least a re-gional view—the development of the capital cities is indirect conflict with that of surrounding cities and vil-lages, a condition that is aggravated by the relaxed re-strictions offered to developers just beyond the cityboundaries. Another difficult task is coordination be-tween the capital cities and their local districts, some ofwhich are developing their own master plans. This is par-ticularly challenging in Bratislava and Budapest wherethe local districts exercise autonomy in their decisionsregarding urban development priorities and zoning.

Methods. The new notion of planning in Eastern andCentral European cities implies a switch from technical,rigid, and mostly land-use-oriented planning in supportof economic plans to process-based, participatory, andintegrative planning activities. The most challenging as-pects of the planning methodology seem to be linkingplanning initiatives to the performance of property mar-kets (Pichler-Milanovich, 1994) and integrating socio-economic and physical planning at the local and re-gional levels (Healey & Williams, 1993; Maier, 1998).Urban planners need to learn to work with and take ad-vantage of economic forces to influence land develop-ment pattern; otherwise their work will be futile.

Among various methodological innovations, East-ern and Central European planners started to introducemultifunctional zones of spatial arrangement and envi-ronmental concerns (Bolan, 1992; Paget & Vagacová,1998; Sykora, 1999). Environmental planners use sus-tainability as their main frame of reference. The latter isespecially critical given the environmental neglect anddegradation that occurred during the communist era(DeBardeleben, 1991). Interestingly, in the Czech Re-public, environmental issues were side by side with civilrights issues in the late 1980s, and they fared equally wellin the initial legislative action of the first post-1989 gov-ernment (Maier, 1998). The Environmental Impact As-

sessment Act was passed in 1992 to provide for increasedfunding for pollution abatement and for mandatory en-vironmental impact assessments of large projects. Simi-lar environmental statements are required by the Hun-garian 1996 Building Act. Unfortunately, in the CzechRepublic, environmental concerns very soon fell behindthe focus on economic transformation and progress.The recycling bins found throughout Prague, however,are evidence of that city’s new commitment to ecologi-cally sound cities.

Finally, from the methodological standpoint, com-puterized technology and geographic information sys-tems are used or planned for in several agencies in Bu-dapest and Prague. In these cities, however, databasedevelopment, data manipulation, and mapping are stillfar from widely practiced as they are in localities in theU.S. and Western Europe.

The inertia of using familiar and proven methods isnot easy to overcome. Although the preparation of plan-ning documents is shared with private consultants andthe quasi-governmental sector, in practice the same peo-ple are still in charge (R. Perlín, personal communica-tion, March 21, 1996).

Public Participation. A common thread in the newplanning process in all three countries is the increasedrole of the public, supported by improvements in themost recent legislation. Due to a distrust of governmentand planning built over the years of the communistregimes, planning offices do not receive as much inputfrom the public as they desire. This negative reaction toplanning is being expressed at a time when the rest ofEurope is shifting back to plan-led approaches and rec-ognizing that planning systems are useful in preventingextreme changes in property markets (Healey & Wil-liams, 1993).

Growing public participation, however, seems to bea by-product of the more democratic political environ-ment, with more open communication between the gov-ernment and citizens. Encouraged by the legalization ofvoluntary citizen association, grassroots organizationshave also been forming around common concerns aboutthe local urban environment. Hoffman (1994) describesthe increased public involvement in the Czech Republic.In Budapest, a public voice was evident during a num-ber of attempted urban projects (Á. Nagy, personal com-munication, March 25, 1996; January 10, 2000). InPrague, a public and NGO-based protest was voicedagainst some provisions in the new Master Plan. Whilethis is a significant change from the previously more for-mal participation at the level of local communes, bysome accounts the channels of communication betweencitizens and government institutions have deteriorated.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

This relates to a general mistrust in the planning processand the perceived low value of planning. According toMaier (1998), there is a fine balance to be struck betweenpublic and private involvement in planning.

Concluding RemarksIn this article I have discussed the changes in urban

development and planning frameworks in three Easternand Central European countries during the process oftheir transition from planning practice under the com-munist political regime to a new market-driven systemof planning. The transition from communist to plural-istic societies and market-based economies is clearlymanifested in interventions in the spatial structure ofPrague, Bratislava, and Budapest and in the attemptedchanges of planning systems and legislation. The expe-riences in post-communist urban development andplanning in the three cities are comparable. Some of themain points are also applicable to other post-commu-nist countries in this and other world regions. Similarconclusions come from Tirana (Nientied, 1998), Mos-cow (Shove & Anderson, 1997), L- ódz (Riley, 1997), Bel-grade (Zegarac, 1999), and Chinese cities (Leaf, 1998;Wu, 1997, 1999; Wu & Yeh, 1999; Yeh & Wu, 1999).

In Prague, Bratislava, and Budapest, (re)privatiza-tion of urban land and the housing market and privateinitiatives in land development, among other factors,have introduced entirely new considerations for localplanners. First, planners in the 1990s had to deal withhighly dynamic environments, where various activitiesin construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation are ini-tiated by numerous actors. In the new system, where themajor forces driving land development are the cost ofland and investment interests, the role of planners has

changed from guiding city growth to trying to track anddirect urban development. For the past decade, the roleof planning has been to introduce order and some guid-ance (but not control) in market-led development activ-ities. The cost of land remains the prime driver of devel-opment patterns, with planning yet to assume a signifi-cant role. An interviewee from Prague thought that“keeping the planning system in operation” was a suc-cess in its own right. Maier (1998) agrees that “[i]n thehectic period of the first years after the upheaval, Czechurban and regional planning struggled for its bare exis-tence” (p. 354). Figure 1 gives highlights of the majorissues facing these nations.

With an unfortunate legacy from the communistperiod and poor understanding of its new role and value,planning has gained a pejorative connotation. Good ex-amples of planning as practiced during the communistregime are easily forgotten. For example, seeing the ne-cessity for and building a subway system in Prague wasan achievement communist or capitalist planners alikewould be proud of; the decision to rebuild old Warsawafter the destruction of World War II was an extremelysensitive one within the communist ideological context,but fully implemented nevertheless; the containment ofurban sprawl by enforcing high densities of housingestates built on the periphery of major cities; the goal ofproviding housing for all individuals was certainly notfar from what all civil societies strive for. Prague andother Eastern and Central European cities are now at astage that Western European and U.S. cities have longpassed, but which the West would like to (re)achieve inthe future (Maier, 1998). Eastern and Central Europeancities are vital, vibrant, and socially integrated cities; havepreserved historic cores, high residential density, andmixed land uses; and rely considerably on public transit.



FIGURE 1. Highlights of major current planning and urban development issues in Eastern and Central Europe.

• Doubts about the legitimacy of planning• Lack of sensitivity to the local context when “borrowing” methods from other countries/systems• Inertia in applying old planning methods and approaches• Main focus on site-specific urban projects and neglect of wider area planning• Lack of strategic vision and regional coordination at the metropolitan level• Need for better integration of physical planning, economic factors, and market mechanisms• Need for multifunctional zoning as an alternative to a more uniform pattern of land uses• Planning documentation not adequate to support implementation of plans at the local level• Ineffective administration of legally binding planning documentation• Need for more public participation in all aspects and phases of the planning process• Inadequate attention to environmental problems

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The author suggests that the “backwardness,” generalstagnation, nonexistent property markets, and centralcontrol of the communist period have helped to preservethe positive aspects of cities and towns in Czechoslova-kia and to avoid the “damaging changes which have beencommon in the last two or three decades in other coun-tries” (p. 356). Planners in other transitional countriesmay also utilize this wisdom.

The reforms of urban planning systems in the 1990shave not been given as high a priority as the economicreforms (Thomas, 1998). However, there was an imme-diate institutional response to the new context in theform of revisions to planning legislation and documen-tation. Along with other societal reforms and policies,these revisions are intended to reflect the new politicaland economic reality. The new legislation and docu-mentation, however, accomplish this with only partialsuccess. Maier (1998) agrees that “an entirely new legalenvironment for planning” is needed to achieve the com-patibility with “market economy and private initiativethat are the main driving forces for development”(p. 354).

The full mutual adjustment between the urban de-velopment context and the planning process, therefore,is yet to be achieved. Planning in the former communistcountries has suffered the legacy of sectoral economicplanning and problematic coordination at the urbanlevel (Healey & Williams, 1993). The situation is compli-cated by the transitional state of those societies, wheremany issues and policies are still unresolved. Such is thecase with land ownership, which is not conceptually fullydefined, and which faces practical problems of identifi-cation or transfer of ownership. Still, considerable re-liance on transfers of state funds for local governmentoperations also creates an awkward situation.

Resulting from these systems in formation are par-tial solutions, often copied from the U.S. or Western Eu-ropean countries. Ivanicka et al. (1996) give an exampleof a hybrid housing policy to show that the simple adop-tion of Western approaches does not work. The formercommunist countries in Europe have unique featuresthat restrict the direct applicability of some of the im-ported tools and methods, require their “customiza-tion,” or demand entirely new ones. For instance, despitethe general encouragement from the West (the U.S. inparticular) for privatization of urban land, some of theformer communist countries have considered retainingpublic ownership of urban land (Hafrey, 1995). This fac-tor alone may have a major impact on planning practice.

Despite the considerable activity in the legislativeand master planning realms, Eastern and Central Euro-pean planners still lack suitable implementation mech-anisms. Zoning and detailed planning are two types of

documents that are slow to adapt and to better suit theneeds of the current practice. In the case of zoning, theprevious system did not require the level of regulatorydetail and flexibility that would be useful in the 1990s. Inthe case of detailed planning, which addressed the spe-cifics of urban development, the problem was their rigidprescription of urban design elements that are usuallyleft to land developers to decide. This situation, in whichplanning guidance mechanisms are partially developed,is further aggravated by the transfer of planning and de-cision-making powers to the local level and by the aban-donment of regional coordination. The extreme decen-tralization has led to fragmented activities in space andde facto competition between the local governments fordevelopers and investors. In addition to technical as-pects, the administrative mechanisms for plan imple-mentation are also maladjusted to the new needs ofplanning practice.

A more fundamental problem faced by planners inthe countries studied has to do with the general rejec-tion of the idea of planning (Healey & Williams, 1993).This relates to an old debate on the virtue of planning associal engineering versus the freedom of an uncon-strained market (Hayek, 1976; Mannheim, 1940; Rittel &Webber, 1974; Wooten, 1945). During the 1990s, whilethere were no pronounced planning doctrines, urbanplanning itself was subordinated to the market as thedominant force in shaping urban development. This pre-vailing market orthodoxy is reflected in the negative atti-tudes toward planning and government interventions.In the 1990s, Eastern and Central European planninghas experienced the opposite of centralized planning—ithas been watching the uncontrolled markets work. It isinteresting to note that the abandonment of centralizedplanning control is thought to represent a diminishedpresence of ideology in planning (Yeh & Wu, 1999), asif the increasing dominance of the free market-basedmodel is not an ideology in its own right. Finding theirown balance between planning and market forces iswhat Eastern and Central European planners (as well asplanners in other transitional societies) have yet to grap-ple with.

Difficulties in adjusting to the new context are anobvious reason for the passive role of planning in the1990s. As public attitudes in Eastern and Central Europestart to converge with their Western counterparts,2

urban planners in Eastern and Central Europe will hope-fully soon assume the full role. Accordingly, planningwill regain its status as an important activity that trulystands for the public interest rather than serving the po-litical regime.3 Meanwhile, planners in the West and Eastcan learn and mutually benefit from jointly observingand engaging in the adjustments to the evolving societal



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

circumstances of the Eastern and Central Europeanplanning systems and methods. Resulting from this ex-change is an increased awareness of various planningframeworks and tools and of their applicability. Basedon this awareness and knowledge, planners in Easternand Central Europe need to develop their own models.They should stay away from any automatic transfer ofWestern methods and models, and should consider whatis appropriate to keep from their own traditions. Theycan learn a lot by revisiting positive experiences from thesocialist planning system. With several decades of lagtime behind their Western counterparts, and with a care-ful choice of planning systems and tools, the Eastern andCentral European countries do not have to repeat thehistory of Western cities, but can use their experiencesto avoid the mistakes of Western planning and markets.The first 10 years of market-driven planning have alreadyhad positive effects on revitalizing the urban cores.Along with the interventions from the previous planningera, there is a solid base to build upon.

Simpson and Chapman (1999) rightfully note theimportance of the relationships among planning, urbangovernance, and the market. However, to their call forEast to look West, I would respond with Shove andAnderson’s (1997) stance that none of the existingapproaches and methods should be viewed as superiorto others. While the East will find a rich source in theWestern experiences, I propose that West look Eastas well, as the most creative solutions are likely to emergein difficult times and circumstances. The ongoing so-cietal transformation in Eastern and Central Europeand other countries worldwide is the opportunity for alongitudinal study of the evolution and diffusion ofplanning frameworks and an evaluation of the achieve-ments of planning in various political and economicenvironments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to all the individuals whohelped arrange my visits to Prague, Bratislava, and Budapest,and who participated in the interviews. I tried my best tounderstand the complexities of the new socioeconomic andplanning systems, and any omissions or misinterpretationsare solely mine. My appreciation also goes to my colleaguesand anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism andsupport.Interviewees:PragueDr. Radim Perlín, and Dr. Ludek Sykora, Department of Social

Geography and Regional Development, Charles Univer-sity

Dr. Milan Turba, Director of Strategic Planning, City Devel-opment Authority

BratislavaMr. Karol Balás and Ms. Eva Petrásová, Local Self-Government

Assistance CenterDr. Koloman Ivanicka, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak

Technical UniversityDr. Dagmar Kaliská and Dr. Lubica Vitková, Faculty of Archi-

tecture, Slovak Technical UniversityBudapestMr. Soóki-Tóth Gábor and Dr. Tamás Meggyesi, Urban Insti-

tute, Budapest Technical UniversityMs. Ágnes Nagy, Hungarian Institute for Regional Develop-

ment, Town Planning and Architecture

NOTES

1. The first Town Planning Office had been instituted inPrague with state funding in 1951 to represent the stateinterest and control at the local level. The Town andCountry Planning Act was adopted by Czechoslovakia in1958. It prescribed regional, master, and detailed plan-ning (Carter, 1987). Regional plans provided long-termdirection and overview of development; master plans stip-ulated long-term construction or renovation in urbanareas with respect to both industrial and residential needs;and detailed plans dealt with regulatory and design as-pects of the sites to be developed. Plans were produced byprofessionals in regional agencies and approved by stateagencies. The 1958 legislation was soon followed by theestablishment of the state funded Chief Architect’s Officein Prague. The laws that governed planning activities upto the late 1980s and early 1990s were enacted in 1976:the Territorial Planning and Building Act, with detailedregulatory aspects, and the Agricultural Land ProtectionAct which discouraged consumption of fertile lands(Carter, 1987; Sykora, 1995). The first Master Plan forPrague was composed in 1961 and approved in 1964. Theplan was amended in 1975 to include a larger area thatwas annexed by the City (General Plan of the Capital Cityof Prague). That same year, the Regional Plan for thePrague Agglomeration was completed and approved. Thenext version of the Master Plan for Prague, adopted in1986, served as the main legal document through the ini-tial years of the recent reform.

In Hungary, economic planning was administeredby the National Planning Office, while the Ministry ofConstruction and Urban Development was in charge ofterritorial planning. Urban planning-related legislationstarted with the 1951 Growth Management Decree(amended in 1962, 1974, and 1982). The Decree stipu-lated a minimum of 5 years of uninterrupted residency inBudapest and a minimum of 5 years of employment witha state firm to qualify for a state apartment or to build aresidential unit. As in Czechoslovakia, the Land Protec-tion Act of 1961 was also aimed at controlling urbangrowth and preserving agricultural land. This act tem-porarily reduced the conversion of agricultural lands butcould not restrain the growth that accelerated in the1970s. The National Settlement Development Strategy



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

was implemented throughout the 1970s to address re-gional disparities by eliminating differences in living stan-dards and improving access to services and public utili-ties that resulted from uneven economic development(Compton, 1987). The Master Plan for Budapest wasadopted in 1980 and updated in 1986 and 1988.

To further regional development goals, the NationalRegional Plan Conception was completed in 1980 by theScientific and Planning Institute for Urban Construction.Other urban plans, too, were prepared by state agencies,which incorporated the local plans into the country’s de-velopment plans and administered them regionally. Withthe decentralization of state activities in the late 1970sand the 1980s, some of the planning functions were trans-ferred to the local level. The 1985 law declaring the inde-pendence of 3,200 villages and towns in financial man-agement and development responsibility was a significantstep in this direction. Regional agencies retained the re-sponsibility for regional infrastructure. Budapest and itslocal governments (districts) were allowed to prepare mas-ter plans and detailed planning documentation. Publichearings had been required since 1964, but it was notuntil the 1980s that the “planning process became moresensitive to the public opinion” (Baar & Zsamboki, 1992,p. 3). During most of the post–World War II period, anold fashioned Building Code of 1964 was in force in Bu-dapest. It was based on a very rigid land use regulation,with detailed zoning classifications restricted only to resi-dential areas (Baar & Zsamboki, 1992; Meggyesi, 1993).

2. Mason (1994) maintains that attitudes are the key to thesuccess of reforms. Results of his comparison of publicattitudes toward public and private in the former socialistcountries and the capitalist ones, however, are promising.He finds that the nature and structure of public opinionare quite close, with Eastern and Central Europeans beingsomewhat more sceptical towards government interven-tion.

3. The “true” service to the public interest in democracies,and the “sole” service to the regime in communist coun-tries is a point of further debate.

REFERENCES

Adair, A., Berry, J., McGreal, S., Sykora, L., Ghanbari-Parsa, A.,& Redding, B. (1999). Globalization of real estate marketsin Central Europe. European Planning Studies, 7, 295–305.

Andrusz, G., Harloe, M., & Szelenyi, I. (Eds.). (1996). Cities aftersocialism: Urban and regional change and conflict in post-social-ist societies. Oxford: Blackwell.

Baar, K. K., & Zsamboki, K. (1992). Hungarian land use policy inthe transition to a market economy with democratic controls (UIProject 6127-72). Budapest: U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment.

Batt, J. (1991). East Central Europe from reform to transformation.New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press.

Berry, J., & McGreal, S. (Eds.). (1995). European cities, planningsystems and property markets. London: E & FN Spon.

Bolan, R. S. (1992). Organizing for sustainable growth in Po-

land. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 301–311.

Booth, P. (1996). Controlling development: Certainty and discretionin Europe, the U.S. and Hong Kong. London: UCL Press.

Burger, A. (1998). Land valuation and land rents in Hungary.Land Use Policy, 15, 191–201.

Carter, F. W. (1987). Czechoslovakia. In A. H. Dawson (Ed.),Planning in Eastern Europe (pp. 103–138). New York: St.Martin’s Press.

Chakravorty, S. (1999). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and capa-bility generation: Toward a normative basis for planningin developing nations. Journal of Planning Education and Re-search, 19, 77–85.

Clague, C., & Rausser, G. C. (1992). The emergence of marketeconomies in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Compton, P. A. (1987). Hungary. In A. H. Dawson (Ed.), Plan-ning in Eastern Europe (pp. 167–194). New York: St. Mar-tin’s Press.

DeBardeleben, J. (Ed.). (1991). To breathe free—Eastern Europe’senvironmental crisis. Washington, DC: Woodrow WilsonCenter Press

Dostál, P. (1998). Democratization, economic liberalization,and transformational slump: A cross-sectional analysis oftwenty-one postcommunist countries. Environment andPlanning C, 16, 281–306.

Enyedi, G. (1990). Specific urbanisation in East-Central Eu-rope. Geoforum, 21, 163–172.

Enyedi, G. (1996). Urbanization under socialism. In G. An-drusz, M. Harloe, & I. Szelenyi (Eds.), Cities after socialism(pp. 100–118). Oxford: Blackwell.

Fisher, J. C. (1962). Planning the city of socialist man. Journal ofthe American Institute of Planners, 28, 251–265.

Fisher, J. C. (Ed.). (1966). City and regional planning in Poland.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

French, R. A., & Hamilton, I. F. E. (1979). The socialist city: Spatialstructure and urban policy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Frydman, R., Rapaczynski, A., Earle, J. S., et al. (1993). The pri-vatization process in Central Europe. Budapest: Central Eu-ropean University Press.

Ghanbari-Parsa, A., & Moatazed-Keivani, R. (1999). Develop-ment of real estate markets in Central Europe: The caseof Prague, Warsaw, and Budapest. Environment and Plan-ning A, 31, 1383–1399.

Hafrey, A. (1995). Land valuation and property rights in East-ern Europe. LandLines, 7, 4–5.

Hayek, F. (1976). The road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Healey, P., & Williams, R. (1993). European urban planningsystems: Diversity and convergence. Urban Studies, 30, 701–720.

Higgs, R. (1999). From central planning to the markets: TheAmerican transition, 1945–1947. Journal of Economic His-tory, 59, 600–623.

Hodgson, G. M. (1998). Socialism against markets? A critiqueof two recent proposals. Economy and Society, 27, 407–433.

Hoffman, L. M. (1994). After the fall: Crisis and renewal inurban planning in the Czech Republic. International Jour-nal of Urban and Regional Research, 18, 691–702.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Holcombe, R. G. (1995). Public policy and the quality of life—Mar-ket incentives versus government planning. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.

Ivanicka, K., Zubkova, M., Sindlerova, E., & Spirkova, D.(1996). Housing finance in the Slovak Republic and otherCEFTA countries. Journal of Transforming Economies andSocieties, 3, 102–123.

Lai, L. W. C. (1997). Property rights justification for planningand a theory of zoning. Progress in Planning, 48, 161–246.

Lai, L. W. C. (1999). Hayek and town planning: A note onHayek’s views towards town planning in The Constitution ofLiberty. Environment and Planning A, 31, 1567–1582.

Leaf, M. (1998). Urban planning and urban reality under Chi-nese economic reforms. Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 18, 145–153.

Lee, D. B., Jr. (1981). Land use planning as a response to mar-ket failure. In J. I. de Neufville (Ed.), The land use policydebate in the United States (pp. 149–164). New York: PlenumPress.

Luithlen, L. (1997). Land ownership in Britain and the questfor town planning. Environment and Planning A, 29, 1399–1418.

Maier, K. (1994). Planning and education in planning in theCzech Republic. Journal of Planning Education and Research,13, 263–269.

Maier, K. (1998). Czech planning in transition: Assets and de-ficiencies. International Planning Studies, 3, 351–365.

Mannheim, K. (1940). Man and society in an age of reconstruction.New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Maruyama, M. (1993). Management reform in Eastern and Cen-tral Europe. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.

Mason, D. S. (1992). Revolution in East-Central Europe: The riseand fall of communism and the cold war. Boulder, CO: West-view Press.

Mason, D. S. (1994, September). Attitudes towards the public andprivate: An East-West comparison. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American Political Science Associa-tion, New York, NY.

Masser, I. (1992). Learning from Europe. Journal of the Ameri-can Planning Association, 58, 3–8.

McDermott, P. (1998). Positioning planning in a market econ-omy. Environment and Planning A, 30, 631–646.

Meggyesi, T. (1993). Development of a new land use and zon-ing plan for Budapest. Proceedings of Mini-Conference on De-signing Markets—35th Annual Meeting of the Association of Col-legiate Schools of Planning. Tallahassee, FL: ACSP.

Montias, J. M. (1962). Central planning in Poland. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). Urban planning in Europe.London: Routledge.

Ng, M. K. (1999). Political economy and urban planning: Acomparative study of Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan.Progress in Planning, 51, 1–90.

Nientied, P. (1998). The question of town and regional plan-ning in Albania. Habitat International, 22, 41–47.

Paget, G., & Vagacová, M. (1998). The future of tenure of rurallands in Slovakia. Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement, 41, 621–628.

Pichler-Milanovich, N. (1994). The role of housing policy inthe transformation process of Central–East European cit-ies. Urban Studies, 31, 1097–1115.

Pioro, Z. (1965). Socialist city planning: A reexamination. Jour-nal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 31–42.

Redding, B., & Ghanbari-Parsa, A. R. (1995). Budapest. In J. N.Berry, & W. S. McGreal (Eds.), European cities, planning sys-tems and property markets (pp. 291–320). London: E & FNSpon.

Reiner, T. A., & Strong, A. L. (1995). Formation of land andhousing markets in the Czech Republic. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, 61, 200–209.

Riley, R. (1997). Central area activities in a post-communistcity: L- ódz, Poland. Urban Studies, 34, 453–470.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1974). Dilemmas in a generaltheory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

Ryder, A. (1992). Urban planning in post war Poland with ref-erence to Cracow. Cities, 9, 205–219.

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to im-prove the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Shove, C., & Anderson, R. (1997). Russian city planning, de-mocratic reform, and privatization: Emerging trends. Jour-nal of Planning Education and Research, 16, 212–221.

Simpson, F., & Chapman, M. (1999). Comparison of urbangovernance and planning policy: East looking West. Cities,16, 353–364.

Strong, A. L., Reiner,T. A., & Szyrmer, J. (1996). Transitions inland and housing: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Po-land. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Sykora, L. (1995). Prague. In J. Berry & S. McGreal (Eds.), Eu-ropean cities, planning systems and property markets (pp. 321–344). London: E & FN Spon.

Sykora, L. (1999). Transition states of East Central Europe. InP. Balchin, L. Sykora, & G. Bull, Regional Policy and Plan-ning in Europe (pp. 161–192). London: Routledge.

Tang, B. S., & Tang, R. M. H. (1999). Development control,planning incentives and urban redevelopment: Evalua-tion of a two-tier plot ratio system in Hong Kong. LandUse Policy, 16, 33–43.

Thomas, M. J. (1998). Thinking about planning in the transi-tional countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Interna-tional Planning Studies, 3, 321–333.

Watson, V. (1998). Planning under political transition: Lessonsfrom Cape Town’s metropolitan planning forum. Inter-national Planning Studies, 3, 335–350.

Webster, C. J. (1998). Public choice, Pigouvian and Coasianplanning theory. Urban Studies, 35, 53–75.

Wooten, B. (1945). Freedom under planning. Chapel Hill: Uni-versity of North Carolina Press.

Wu, F. L. (1997). Urban restructuring in China’s emergingmarket economy: Towards a framework for analysis. In-ternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 21, 640–663.

Wu, F. L. (1999). The “game” of landed-property productionand capital circulation in China’s transitional economy,with reference to Shanghai. Environment and Planning A,31, 1757–1771.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Wu, F. L., & Yeh, A. G. O. (1999). Urban spatial structure in atransitional economy: The case of Guangzhou, China.Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 377–394.

Yeh, A. G. O., & Wu, F. L. (1999). The transformation of theurban planning system in China from a centrally-plannedto transitional economy. Progress in Planning, 51, 167–252.

Zegarac, Z. (1999). Illegal construction in Belgrade and theprospects for urban development planning. Cities, 16, 365–370.

Zhu, J. (1999). The formation of a market-oriented local prop-erty development industry in transitional China: A Shen-zhen case study. Environment and Planning A, 31, 1839–1856.

Zovanyi, G. (1989). The evolution of a national urban devel-opment strategy in Hungary. Environment and Planning,21, 333–347.



Focus: URBAN PLANNING (i.e., planning of citiesand towns)

Time: BEFORE AND AFTER the 1989 “revolution”

Legislative-Urban Planning MandateWas/is there a planning-related legislation?What was/is the overall planning system (types of

planning and plan at particular levels)?What were/are the focal activities legislatively

prescribed?Where was/is the place of urban planning in the

system?What was/is the role of urban planning?Who developed/develops urban plans?Who were/are the participants in the planning

process?How did/do the participants interact/contribute?Who approved/approves the plans for urban areas?How were/are the plans approved?What were/are the advantages/shortcomings of the

urban planning process as mandated?

Urban Land DevelopmentWho owned/owns urban land?Who owned/owns structures built on urban land?Was/is there a real estate taxation system?

If yes, how was/is the tax determined?Who could/can build on urban land?What was/is the process of building/land development

approval?Who had/has the authority to approve building/land

development?Who could/can finance urban (re)development?How was/is public housing provided?What were/are the major issues/problems in the

process of urban development?What were/are the opportunities/advantages of the

existing practices?

Planning AgencyWere/are there urban planning agencies?How were/are they positioned within the existing

government structure?What was/is the mission of the urban planning

agencies?What functions did/do urban planning agencies

perform?Which planning methods and principles did/do urban

planners apply?Was/is geographic information systems technology

used in urban planning?

APPENDIX

Case Study Interviews: Content Analysis Checklist

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

05:

29 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014