Abstract
Strategic planning, as developed in the military and business sectors, offers a procedural model with important differences from the earlier comprehensive approach. Economic and physical development strategies, often called for by national planning legislation in European countries, frequently have little in common with the model proposed by Steiner for private firms, or espoused for the public sector by Bryson and others: there appears to be confusion resulting from use of similar terms. This paper investigates efforts to employ at least the major features of strategic planning in two institutionally and culturally different contexts, nearly half a world apart. In Bergen, Norway, these principles have informed economic development planning and planning for a major district of the city. In the case of Seattle, Washington, USA, the new comprehensive plan is based on framework policies developed during a 2‐year public process, and now that the city‐wide plan is adopted, Seattle is turning to developing neighbourhood plans which will provide more operational detail for guiding public and private investments. Comparison of these two cases both provides contrasts and similarities stemming from the two different contexts, and help to evaluate the transférability of strategic planning from the private to the public sector.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
