ABSTRACT
Planning theoreticians are in a state of turmoil. Nothing is accepted; everything is questioned. The requirements that theory must meet have been well stated (McConnell 1981, 20-2; Healey and Thomas 1982, 19-22), but no coherent body of thought has been accepted as meeting these criteria. Indeed, Mandelbaum (1979) and others (Rittel and Webber 1973; Tenbruck 1972) have questioned whether a “general theory of planning” is even possible. Given these cogent reservations about the feasibility of a general theory of planning, it is clear that a more modest approach is indicated. Consequently, a contingency framework is suggested here as a way of addressing the problems planning theoreticians face today.
