In this commentary, the author considers how theory helps one understa
nd the development process and how it helps situate the role of planni
ng as an agent of change in society. The problem is not that there is
no theory of economic development but that there is too much and that
there is little unity to this theory. Theory is also by construction a
bout ''what is,'' whereas planning is about ''what should be.'' Planni
ng is socially constituted and is, therefore, contingent on ideology,
history, and politics. Similarly, planning initiatives reverberate thr
ough a region's historic, geographic, economic, social, and political
fabric. It is the artificial separation of theory and planning that is
at the heart of both ''the problem with planning'' and the ''problem
with theory. ''