It is customary to regard the planning function as being distributed over three levels of government—national, local and regional. This analysis radically differs from existing administrative machinery in most modern states: nevertheless it has been widely recognized that comprehensive, nation-wide planning cannot be carried out solely through the normal processes of national and local government. There is a need for a new level of power and responsibility: a level of government intermediate in function between central government and the municipality both geographically and administratively. To quote E. A. Gutkind: “Planning implies a systematic procedure starting from the top and the bottom at the same time. It includes large-scale plans as well as local plans, or in other words, its general framework consists of a national plan while local plans constitute, as it were, the cellular components which are bound together through the medium of regional schemes. Consequently planning proceeds on the different levels of national, regional and local activities forming one coherent whole ….”

Although this idea is probably true of planning, however its field is defined, it is worth remembering that the word is loose in meaning, and that under it several very different activities have been lumped together. In its commonest usage, planning means city planning: the reconstruction of cities to render them more efficient and more liveable. Though such planning usually requires permissive national legislation for its prosecution, it is emphatically a local activity, carried out normally in the smallest governmental units. Primarily, it is a matter for the architect and the engineer. But equally vital (perhaps more vital) to the community is the planning work of the conservationist, who is concerned to stop the wastage of physical resources and amenities. In the United States, the conservation movement has gathered impetus in this century until there are now many governmental agencies wholly concerned with work of this character. The work chiefly rests with either state or federal agencies: it involves too great an expenditure and too wide a viewpoint to be carried out locally. Lastly there is the group of purely national activities we can label economic and social planning, which may cover anything from public investment policies to such matters as the relocation of industry, the colonization of hitherto undeveloped country, or the systematic restriction of some field of production.