There is no “universal prescriptions for planning” (Alexander, 2005). Why certain countries have used certain type(s) of planning (with referents: national, regional, state, provincial, city, urban, technical planning) and therefore, use certain social science methods (beside other sciences ), or have not used planning at all, is historical and contextual. So are their methods. In SMUS India, it was clear that planning is a system in certain countries, in which we cannot talk about urban planning separately because it obeys regional planning, which obeys national planning, which obey national socio-economic strategy and plan(s). There is also a vast diversity in regional, national and urban planning roles in Europe in 1945-1975. Sometimes, there were trial and abandonment in later period like Poland (Marszal, 2022). Sometimes, it is the skepticism if planning would actually be needed (Kunzmann, 2022). In East Asia Culture Region and some other Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia, “societies” went through ideological reaction (Cao Ngọc Lân et al., 2023; Nguyễn Bá Ân et al., 2000; Nguyễn Thị Bích Ngọc (Artena) et al., 2022; Viện Đông Nam Á [Institute of Southeast Asia Studies], 1987) to Western influence. To transform from their previous form of socio-economic organization, accompanied by their previous form of planning, to a new form that could improve their global position, they have used certain strategies and correspondent plans. For example, Chaebols were partners of the Korean government in the Five Year Economic Development Plans (EDP) (J. Kim and Choi, 2012). Korea followed a system of Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (CNTP), regional development plans, and comprehensive city/county plans which have been aligned with the goals and strategies of EDP in different periods. CNTP focuses have always changed, 1972-1981 on growth poles, 1982-1991 on restriction of the capital region, 1992-1999 on promotion of local regions , 2000-2010 on territorial integration (H. S. Kim, 2009), solving from after-war poverty and unemployment to today liberalism and climate change (Moon et al., 2013). Here planning is used as a solution to socio-economic problems. Another example of this “reaction phenomenon” is Viet Nam: they protect the independence by changing from village socio-economic mechanism focusing on public land use for the orphans, the poor, the academic people to centrally planned economy with large-scale farming cooperatives and then to market economy. This cause of planning makes them mix multiple-dimension social science theoretical schools, i.e. geographical-rational-cultural economics coined by Đặng Phong (Đặng Phong, 1970), East-West interaction (Cao Xuân Huy, 1995; Dương Thiệu Tống, 1995; Kim Định, 1974; Phan Ngọc, 2015; Thu Giang, 1957) causing Eastern values to degrade (Nguyễn Phú Trọng et al., 2005) and growth pole, and inseparable conditions of natural science reasoning (Nguyễn Công Bình, 1982) at once. This makes matrix methodology popular. Besides, having long history, methodological approach revealing long-term national “nature” is also employed in planning (Nguyễn Phú Trọng et al., 2005; Trần Thị Tuyết Mai et al., 1998). However, having to change their ideology dramatically in the last decades and therefore being uncertain about different “possible futures” (Vasavakul, 2006; Wells-Dang, 2006), they also employ forecasting scenario method.
If multiple ideological shades of different directions in space of urban villages (Randhawa, 2023), especially in Panchayat Raj mechanism in India, or desakota in Indonesia (Rudiarto, 2023), or ruralized city in Viet Nam (Nguyễn Quốc Vương, 2019; Phan Thùy Linh, 2007) happen, planners need a methodology to measure those multiple ideological shades and forecast trends. However, this may not be the case in Latin America neither with today Europe after 1975. Even in Asia, Singapore, who does not have a long nation history, has their own reasons for setting up Singapore Economic Development Board, Development Guide Plans, Concept Plan and Master Plan. The question why Korea chose Chaebol, why Vietnam chose centrally planned economy after independence (and then have changed), and why Indonesia today choose between pro-rural or pro-urban could only be answered by looking at their long processes (see Đặng Phong, 2009; Kim and Choi, 2012; Nam, 2011; Trần Đình Hượu, 1984). Exchanges in the whole stories of planning across countries and their methods could practically help those who are looking for a (new) way in their planning. We call for papers from planners, especially who have actual experiences in the government’s making decision of planning in any level/ type including but not limited to nation, region, state or province, urban level, in one of the following topics: a) Explaining the whole stories why certain country or region or state or any level ended up using certain type(s)/ system of planning and the correspondent reasons for methodology choice they make; b) Planning or space as solution for social problems and their methods; c) Comparative causality study of plannings across countries.