Western governments often attempt to regulate the use of privately owned urban land, while still relying on private landowners and developers to initiate development. This requires restrictions on the ways owners can develop their land, which restricts supply and increases land prices. The incentive of landowners to maximize the value of their land leads them to resist any restrictions on their right to develop.

Different countries have responded to these difficulties in achieving land use policy objectives in different ways. In the United States, and to a lesser degree Australia, the private market largely determines the way cities grow and land use planning has only a minor influence. In Sweden and the Netherlands most land for development is purchased by the municipalities who also initiate the development. Britain, with strong land use controls, still relies on private development initiatives. Those controls restrict the land available and contribute to high land prices.

Social policy in Northern Ireland offers examples of social policies strongly influenced by ideological considerations. There are a number of factors which determine how susceptible services and policies are to ideological influences. Some services are particularly sensitive to ideological values and demands, for example, education. In certain areas the distribution of services and the allocation of resources has been significant in maintaining the political structure. The distribution of administrative responsibility, the absence of pressure from Britain for maintaining parity in social services, and the absence of non-secretarian pressures on the government are other significant factors. The process of analysing problems and formulating social policy reflects deep ideological divisions. This can be contrasted with the rational, empirical and pragmatic models of policy making, implicit in the development of social policy in Britain. With some minor modifications the British model of the Welfare State operates in Northern Ireland. In some areas it operates to serve ends other than those of redistribution or meeting social need. This provides insights into some of the assumptions made about social policy and the Welfare State in Britain.

This paper relates the nature of planning thought to the administrative and legal context, and to possible welfare objectives. The question is raised as to whether town planners have become concerned with specific social benefits. An analysis of the preoccupations of planners is made, using data available in Royal Town Planning Institute literature. From branch meetings data, conclusions are drawn as to changing areas of interest. It is noted that planners did not develop a very strong preoccupation with specific social issues over the 1947–71 period. Factors that may have influenced the evolution of professional thought are then examined. In particular, a hypothesis is put forward that the nature of the planning machinery has been such as to deter discussion about specific welfare implications. Other factors have included traditions, alternative preoccupations, and a lack of coherent attempts to link theoretical analyses with implementation. The paper comments briefly upon the town planning approaches that would be necessary if a more definite welfare outcome were desired. Town and country planners have thought in terms of physical development standards mainly because of the character of the land use planning system.

The use of social indicators in the implementation of area-specific positive discrimination programmes is increasing and is likely to continue to do so. It is important in this context that some of the unintended consequences of their use be appreciated.

It is argued that the concentration on the statistical niceties and technical details of social indicators especially as they are applied to the identification of areas of urban deprivation has been misplaced, and the concern for the ‘arithmetic of woe’ has diverted attention away from some of the more fundamental assumptions underlying their use.

As predominantly used, social indicators have assumed both that a value consensus exists about the nature and parameters of urban deprivation, when in fact this is an issue of value (and political) conflict, and, more specifically, that urban deprivation springs from social pathology. By default, urban deprivation has been assumed to be that which the indicators measure, when in fact they often reflect no more than existing levels of service provision and current social policies.

There is a need for a clear (even if arbitrary) definition of deprivation, and the derivation of indicators from such a definition. In the latter part of the article the author outlines an attempt to do this.