ABSTRACT
There is little doubt that if a panel of experts, or indeed laymen was convened to consider the problems of Third World urbanisation and to recommend remedial action, they would agree unanimously that first and foremost, sensible and responsive urban planning is required. That a consensus on the need for sound planning might exist is possibly misleading, however. Simply, it can lead to the implicit view that planning exists as a distinct entity, with clearly defined and uncontroversial goals and methods that result in some prespecified outcome. Nothing could be further from the truth. Planning is in reality a general blanket term for an extremely catholic set of activities. Put at its most crude level, urban planning means different things to different people, and more significantly, to different states and governments. If there is agreement about the ends of urban planning, there is commonly dissent concerning its means. More typically perhaps, there is often little if any consensus even as to the desired end product of planning.
