ABSTRACT
It is impossible to talk about planning as a scientific meta-discipline without mentioning one of the most influential worldwide figures in the second half of the 20th century: John Friedmann. His contributions to planning theory and practice have yielded a rich harvest both in the context of regional development and planning education (Friedmann 1973; Friedmann & Alonso 1975; Friedmann 2001). They have not only strengthened the theoretical foundations of regional planning but extended knowledge from policy analysis and evaluation of practical planning experiences in a variety of national settings. Since the beginning of the Urban Planning Program at UCLA in the 1960s, Professor Friedmann has launched an entirely new way of thinking about planning pedagogy which culminated in a new distinctive epistemology for planning. A similar revolutionary approach to planning education was taken up in
Spain under the intellectual drive of Angel Ramos and Ignacio Trueba. They were pioneers in the field of project planning in engineering. They saw project planning as a transformational tool that required a different approach from what prevailed during the 1970s in planning across both public and private domains. They also called for structuring knowledge and action in a different way, both in academic institutions where their disciples helped to bring about change, and with direct action through projects (Cazorla & De Nicolás 2015). Professors Ramos and Trueba initiated the Project and Rural Planning
Department at Technical University of Madrid (UPM-Universidad Politécnica de Madrid) in 1985. From the very beginning they contributed to the creation of the Engineering Projects Spanish Association (AEIPRO-Asociación Española de Ingeniería de Proyectos) and promoted the international conference with regard to professional standards and core requirements for project planning. Below we show the intellectual connection between these three visionary professors (Friedmann, Ramos and Trueba) and how their knowledge and
ideas have been integrated at the UPM to prepare planners in the Bologna European education context. The European dimension of planning for rural development is relevant for
at least three reasons: the need for the rural planner to be aware of the different systems of territorial planning that operate across the EU; the increasing cross-border planning policies and other transnational project planning for rural development; and the European level in the hierarchy of planning levels (Kunzmann & Yuan 2014).
