Martin Schmidt, Jochen Monstadt

Infrastructure

CC license: CC-BY-SA 4.0 International

URN: 0156-55999119

This is a translation of the following entry:

Schmidt, Martin; Monstadt, Jochen (2018): Infrastruktur. In: ARL – Akademie

für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.): Handwörterbuch der Stadt‐ und
Raumentwicklung. Hannover, 975‐988.

The original version can be accessed here:

urn:nbn:de:0156-5599911

Typesetting and layout: ProLinguo GmbH

Translation and proofreading: ProLinguo GmbH

Recommended citation:
Schmidt, Martin; Monstadt, Jochen (2018): Infrastructure.
[Link]
Martin Schmidt, Jochen Monstadt

Infrastructure

Contents

1 Clarification of the term

2 Development of the infrastructure debate in Germany
3 Infrastructure and spatial planning
4 Outlook: trends and challenges
References
Additional literature

The German infrastructure debate is shaped by economic

perspectives and often neglects the specific features of the two
subareas of social infrastructure and technical infrastructure
as well as coordination problems both between the various
divisions of infrastructure planning and with comprehensive
spatial planning. Given the current challenges, the scientific and
planning approaches to infrastructure development should be
critically examined.

2
Infrastructure

1 Clarification of the term

The term infrastructure describes facilities and systems for both individual and collective
beneficial use and which influence the economic development, social coexistence and sustainable
environmental development of a space. Along with social security, infrastructures make up the key
component of the ▷ Provision of public services (see Fig. 1). Infrastructure systems are characterised
by special economic and/or technical features. In accordance with traditional assumptions, these
are difficult to provide via the market and require specific institutional regulations. With ▷ Social
infrastructure and ▷ Technical infra­structure, the umbrella term Infrastructure comprises two
categories that share a number of fundamental characteristics – e.g. certain essential functions
for modern societies and the state’s responsibility for guaranteeing and funding them – but
otherwise have significant differences. Social infrastructures include education and healthcare,
social, cultural, recreational, leisure and sports facilities, public administration and (in quite
controversial interpretations) social housing (cf. Zapf 2005; Tsohatzopoulos/Gliwa/Nagl 2011).
Technical infrastructure is divided into transport (▷ Transport infrastructure), information and
communication systems (▷ Information and communication technology) and utilities systems
(▷ Utilities), which in turn includes water supply (▷ Water management) and the ▷ Energy
industry (electricity, gas, district heating, etc.) as well as sewage and waste disposal (▷ Waste
management, recycling) (cf. Jochimsen 1995; Frey 2005; Tietz 2005).

Figure 1: Infrastructures and provision of public services

Provision of public services

Social security Social infrastructure Technical infrastructure

Transport systems
Education (road, rail, air, shipping transport)
Health care
Social security law Cultural institutions/facilities Supply and disposal systems
Social insurance Social facilities (energy, water, sewage, waste)
Public administration and security
Recreational, leisure and sports facilities Information and communication systems
(telephone, internet, radio and television)

Source: The authors

Infrastructure facilities have particular features, entailing special requirements when it

comes to provision and maintenance as well as management, oversight and funding (cf. Libbe/
Köhler/Beckmann 2010: 50). For example, the provision of infrastructure involves a high level
of state regulation, the production of goods and services and, in some cases, public funding.
Beyond this however, technical infrastructures differ from social infrastructures in their patterns
of development and other features, such as the way in which they are shaped by location-
bound technical artefacts and supply networks, their high fixed costs and socio-technical path
dependencies.
In terms of function, infrastructures form the foundation for the realisation of basic public
service functions for the individual as well as the economic and political activity of communities,
i.e. they allow modern societies to function. Infrastructure is a basic indicator of the ▷ Equivalence

3
 Infrastructure

of living conditions aspired to by the constitution and thus plays a key role in spatial cohesion
policies. Traditionally, a major objective of state infrastructure policy has therefore also been
to compensate for spatial disparities (▷ Disparities, spatial). However, besides structural policy
objectives, infrastructures also perform environmental, social, democratic and symbolic functions,
as well as functions relating to budgetary policy (cf. Naumann/Moss 2012: 5 et seq.).
In accordance with the guarantee of self-government as per Article 28(2) of the Basic Law
(Grundgesetz, GG), much of the responsibility falls to local authorities (▷ Local self-government).
Mandatory local self-government responsibilities include the construction and running of
schools as well as waste and sewage disposal, whereas the provision of most cultural and social
facilities (e.g. theatre, welfare centres and sport complexes) are voluntary self-government tasks.
Responsibilities here are distributed within the municipal territorial authorities (▷ Territorial
authority) between towns or local authorities (for example water supply and sewage disposal
as well as child care facilities) and districts or urban districts (e.g. waste disposal, schools and
emergency services).

2 Development of the infrastructure debate in Germany

The scientific debate on infrastructure has in many ways reflected the political and societal
developments of each decade (for a full account c.f. Schmidt 2013). Although infrastructure has
always been closely linked to societal development, the term ‘infrastructure’ in Germany was first
extricated from its purely military usage in the 1960s, when economic research started to work
with the term.

2.1 Descriptions of the term and function of infrastructure in

the 1960s and 1970s
The view of Jochimsen (1966), who provided the explanatory model for the functioning of a market
economy in the mid-1960s, is seminal: Jochimsen defined infrastructure as ‘all of the material,
institutional and human capital facilities and circumstances available to an economy based on
the division of labour […] which thus [constitute] the basic functions of an economy necessary for
growth, integration and utilities’ (Jochimsen 1995: 490). Material infrastructure means physical/
built structures and resources (cf. Jochimsen 1966: 103-133), whereas institutional infrastructure
refers to standards, facilities and policies, and human resources infrastructure refers to human
capital. This economic origin of infrastructure as ‘the foundation of a political economy which is
the premise for the creation, distribution and use of goods and services’ (Frey 2005: 469), as well
as the different types of infrastructure outlined above, have frequently been cited and expanded
upon (cf. e.g. Buhr 2003), shaping the debate in the long term. Even at an international level,
infrastructure has hitherto been considered the foundation of economic activity (cf. Smith 2011)
or at least it is assumed that there is a close correlation between infrastructure and the level of
economic activity (cf. Good-man/Hastak 2006: 1.10).
Stohler (1965: 281) goes on to describe further important features of infrastructures of a
technical (long life, indivisible and location-bound systems, etc.), economic (high investment and
fixed costs, long payback periods, economies of scale and scope, etc.) and institutional nature

4
Infrastructure

(very close to the state). While it is true that these features primarily apply to the traditional
configurations of technical infrastructures, a coherent role of the state was derived from this with
regard to the social and technical infrastructure areas when social planning was professionalised
in the mid-20th century, with the state taking on an official planning and governing function. Due
to an imputed market failure, only the state can be responsible for the planning and financing as
well as the construction and operation of infrastructures (cf. Schmidt-Relenberg 1968: 43).
State investment in infrastructure policy was deemed necessary in the 1970s (e.g. expansion
of universities and sewage systems). Thus ‘infrastructure policy [was considered to be] growth
policy’ (Vosgerau 1970: 29) and infrastructure measures were seen as ‘the main instruments of
public planning for managing spatial development’ (Wegener 1980: 35). Developing social and
technical infrastructure was considered the guiding principle of social policy (cf. Bode 2013: 32) and
as a means of steering spatial planning to compensate for regional disparities (▷ Spatial planning
(Raumplanung)). Guideline values and schemes for planning and operating infrastructures directed
the strategic organisational procedure both for technical infrastructure systems and public social
amenities – for example by determining land requirements, accessibility and percentage shares
of the urban land area (cf. Frey 1972; Borchard 1983). Increasingly, infrastructure was considered
not just important for the ▷ Choice of location on the part of businesses, but also for the location
preference of households, and a distinction was made between enterprise-oriented (productive)
and household-oriented (consumptive) infrastructure (cf. Frey 1979: 20 et seq.).

2.2 The changing, broadening discourse in the 1980s and 1990s

While these types of approach can be interpreted as a differentiation of existing debates, the
discourse fundamentally changed in the 1980s. Firstly, the focus shifted to the boundaries
of integrated planning, which in practice had always had to give way to a ‘juxtaposition of
departmental planning on the one hand and the planning at federal levels on the other’ (Pfaff/
Asam/Behnken et al. 1980: 12). Secondly, the negative external effects of technical infrastructures
and the resulting environmental crises became the focal point of a growing protest movement.
There was a departure from pure infrastructure development as the focus shifted to the
management, preservation and the adaptation of existing infrastructures (cf. Beckmann 1988: 67,
71). Obviously flawed dimensioning and possible adaptions were discussed (cf. Henckel 1985),
with civil and planning engineers adding to the economic debate to a growing extent.
The debate of the 1990s was characterised by a greater distinction between social and
technical infrastructures. In the area of social infrastructures, priorities appeared to shift
towards human-capital-based infrastructure (education and training and knowledge transfer
facilities) (cf. e.g. Klemmer 1993: 985), and the extent to which disparities in the provision of
social infrastructure adversely affect individual population groups was examined (cf. Schön 1990)
(▷ Social infrastructure). Even though typical models of an investment-based, supply-side
infrastructure policy initially experienced a renaissance in the early 1990s due to ‘Aufbau Ost’ –
the German ‘reconstruction of the East’, mainly in the area of technical infrastructure – there were
also signs of moderate change. Firstly, demands for a departure from spatial equalisation and
distribution policies towards the promotion of regional growth centres became louder. Secondly,
the debate around sustainability in technical infrastructures in particular put the processes of
commercialisation, ecological renewal and technical innovation as well as options for adapting
to changed spatial framework conditions on the agenda. Furthermore, the ▷ European Union

5
 Infrastructure

adopted initiatives as part of its domestic market policy to deregulate the telecommunications,
electricity, gas, rail and postal markets, with the legal, policy and planning sciences increasingly
scrutinising the form and scope of the state’s responsibility for guaranteeing the provision of these
services (cf. Hermes 1998; Grande/Eberlein 2000; Monstadt 2004). For example, the creation of
infrastructure services by the state and local authorities was challenged and a shift from the state
as provider to the state as guarantor was later identified. In addition to the German concept of
▷ Provision of public services (Daseinsvorsorge), the terms ‘services of general/general economic
interest’ appeared in Green and White Papers by the European Commission in the context of
safeguarding social and environmental standards on deregulated markets (cf. Krautscheid 2009).

2.3 Changing conditions and use of term from the 2000s

Alongside further discussion of growing EU influence (cf. entries in Schader-Stiftung 2001),
three trends have set the course for the development of infrastructure since the 2000s. Firstly,
the increasing financial constraints of public budgets and the corresponding fiscal reforms have
become apparent (cf. Bogumil 2011: 65). Given rising social benefits, the economising of public
administrations and the expansion of municipal responsibilities, local authorities in particular
have had to cut back on voluntary social infrastructure services (cf. Holtkamp 2011: 16). While the
education sector continues to be dominated by the state, the healthcare sector has seen a growing
share of private hospital operators entering the market alongside public and charitable providers
(cf. Libbe/Köhler/Beckmann 2010: 59 et seq.). Secondly, the environmental modernisation of
technical infrastructures, in particular in relation to ▷ Climate protection, has become a field of
action for local authorities and regions (▷ Region). Thirdly, demographic changes (▷ Demographic
change) have brought about new demands with regard to the funding, accessibility and
technical implementation of infrastructure services in both social and technical infrastructure
(cf. Koziol 2004; Kloß/Bieber 2008). These developments have shaped the infrastructure debate in
the first instance by making a greater distinction between real-capital-based (transport networks,
public utilities, etc.), human-capital-based (training capacities, knowledge transfer facilities,
etc.) and budget-based infrastructures (social and cultural facilities), with social infrastructure in
particular being deemed to be of ‘fundamental significance’ in the competition between locations
alongside transport (cf. Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning [BBR] 2005: 109).
Technical infrastructures have increasingly been discussed as agents of ecological
material flows (cf. Monstadt 2009), but also in terms of their role in adapting to climate change
(▷ Climate, climate change). At the same time, attention has increasingly turned to users in their
role as customers with choice and potentially co-producers. In addition, the discussion has shifted
from regarding infrastructures as an instrument of regional structural funding to their competitive
and political restructuring and the associated spatial effects (cf. Graham/Marvin 2001). From
the point of view of infrastructure planning, aspects of the protection of critical infrastructures
(cf. e.g. Lauwe/Riegel 2008) (▷ Resilience/robustness; ▷ Vulnerability) have become an issue, as
well as the management of major infrastructure projects, which goes hand in hand with a changed
understanding of planning (participation-based instead of top-down planning) and a new role for
the players in infrastructure planning (cf. Flyvbjerg 2007).
In recent years, the theory and practice of planning has once again linked the term
‘infrastructure’ with a more pronounced social understanding of public service provision
(cf. Libbe 2009; Neu 2009). Despite this broadening of the discussion, economic perspectives

6
Infrastructure

in the sense of the 1960s understanding of infrastructure as a foundation of modern national

economies continues to dominate the German infrastructure debate. This has predetermined
the views of other disciplines – for example, its introduction into the debates on social planning
and the welfare state (cf. Bode 2013: 31) – and has placed the focus on the economic effects of
infrastructure investments (cf. Moss 2011: 76) to the detriment of social, ecological and cultural
effects. The fact that social and technical infrastructures are two areas that are subsumed under
one umbrella term should be assessed critically: while it is true that they are together significant
for growth and cohesion policies, and are often organised in proximity to the state, this does
not sufficiently take into account important differences between the infrastructure sectors with
regard to their institutional (and technical) characteristics, their patterns of development and
innovation, their cultures of provision and how the state performs which duties.

3 Infrastructure and spatial planning

In accordance with the close reciprocal supply relationship between infrastructure and the
respective ▷ Space, expectations of infrastructures in managing the desired ▷ Spatial development
are traditionally high, as are the demands on ▷ Spatial planning (Raumplanung) for the across-
the-board coordination of infrastructures.

3.1 Infrastructure planning

As with ‘infrastructure’, there is no standard definition of the term ‘infrastructure planning’. In
reference to technical infrastructure, it includes heterogenous planning activities (cf. Moss 2011:
77): (1) measures by various state levels within the framework of regional economic policy in
particular to promote structurally weak areas (▷ Regio­nal economic policy); (2) sectoral planning
by local and national authorities (for example the creation and implementation of sectoral
plans and strategies and their coordination with spatial planning; ▷ Spatially-relevant sectoral
planning); (3) internal plans by utility companies (as advance provision for the aforementioned
municipal/national plans and as strategic plans (▷ Strategic planning) in the sense of corporate
objectives). Following on from Becker and Wendt (1977), Moss (2011: 79) describes the duties of
infrastructure planning as the technical and social ▷ Provision of local public infrastructure to
territories, which should enable the best possible use of space to ensure the access of all users
(households, businesses, public institutions, etc.) to reliable, comprehensive, affordable and
sustainable infrastructure services. According to Beckmann (1988: 78), infrastructure planning
has four objectives: (1) the development of land for anthropogenic uses, (2) the management of
functional and spatial differentiations, (3) the safeguarding of participation options (specific to
both sub-regions and players) as well as (4) the management of anthropogenic environmental
uses.
The ▷ Planning of infrastructures is highly fragmented within the technical and social
categories and is very diversely organised according to sector. Overall, sectoral infrastructure
planning is not standardised and takes place on the basis of sectoral duties and measures
(cf. Reitzig 2011: 387). It has been described as highly fragmented from as far back as the 1970s
(cf. Zohlnhöfer 1970: 705). As early as 1983, Kühn (1983: 434) criticised the lack of qualified staff,
far-sighted strategies and the relevant capacities in urban administrations for the planning of social

7
 Infrastructure

infrastructures. Huge differences can be seen in sectoral infrastructure planning in terms of both
the responsibilities and the extent to which they are rooted in institutions, as well as in the huge
diversity of players. Some infrastructure planning makes use of formalised procedures (such as in
▷ Planning approval), but for many (e.g. hospital requirements planning) neither the procedure
nor its conclusive form (e.g. administrative act) is regulated. Even though local authorities may
be responsible for an infrastructure service, sectoral planning can take place at state level, as is
the case with sewage or even hospital plans (cf. Libbe/Köhler/Beckmann 2010: 92). Furthermore,
planning within each sector varies immensely across social and technical infrastructures: the
sectoral planning of social infrastructure is often characterised by the fact that it does not include
any separate stipulations relating to land law (▷ Land law).

3.2 Infrastructural coordination through spatial planning

While it is true that early initiatives and large-scale urban planning (reconstruction) projects were
rooted in the planning of infrastructures, and that technical infrastructure in particular was a
point of reference for further ▷ Urban development and a structural basis for ▷ Urban design
thanks to its networks and facilities (cf. Neuman/Smith 2010), sectoral infrastructure planning is
nowadays not only discretely organised, but also often takes the form of downstream, reactive
departmental planning. Consequently, such interests are only taken into account in spatial
development planning at a late stage (cf. Moss 2011: 73 et seq.; Hühner 2011: 231 et seq.; Schiller/
Siedentop 2005; Neuman/Smith 2010). However, spatial planning has the formal responsibility of
coordinating how space is used by the individual areas of infrastructure and their interaction. In
this respect, ▷ Spatial planning (Raumordnung) not only takes infrastructure issues into account,
but also uses them in its strategies. Thus, social and technical infrastructures are an important
aspect in the central-place theory (▷ Central place) as well as in point-axial development
strategies. At the same time, however, spatial planning also finds itself in an inter-sectoral
position to ensure cross-sectoral coordination of sectoral infrastructure planning (Einig 2011: 96).
Spatially-coordinating comprehensive planning is expected to optimise the overall systems and
the subsystems according to the ▷ Settlement structure (Tietz 2005: 1244) in order to achieve a
spatial burden sharing and coordination of competing uses (cf. Tietz 2007).
There are various formal regulations here, which provide for a ▷ Weighing of interests and
weighting of sectoral infrastructural issues for ▷ Urban land-use planning. Section 4 of the
Federal Spatial Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz, ROG) and the spatial planning clauses in the
individual sectoral laws ensure the implementation of spatial planning stipulations in the sector-
specific infrastructure planning for supra-local spatial planning. However, coordination deficits in
planning practice continue to arise. For example, in spite of its higher ranking authority, spatial
planning is not usually actively involved in strategy, but rather often adopts existing sectoral
infrastructural aspects by way of information only. Conversely, the provision of infrastructure is
often criticised for being reactive ‘containment planning’ following behind settlement planning
(cf. Schiller/Siedentop 2005: 83) without formulating its own spatial planning objectives. Overall,
coordination between the infrastructure systems and with settlement development is made much
more difficult by sectoral planning, which is highly sector-based and primarily geared towards
business economics (cf. Tietz 2011: 6). Furthermore, ‘diverging interests between planners and
(private) infrastructure operators’ are often reflected in a deficient ‘information policy’ (Moss 2011:
84). In particular given current challenges such as ▷ Shrinking cities and urban redevelopment,

8
Infrastructure

however, long-term ‘considerations on infrastructure and urban development in the context of

city-wide strategies’ (Libbe 2009: 31) are eclipsing the project-based cooperation of the past.

4 Outlook: trends and challenges

Considering current trends, social discussions and political objectives, the priority tasks in future
will vary between and within the social and technical areas of infrastructure (as well as the
coordination requirements between these). On the one hand social infrastructure facilities (such
as child care) continue to shape the level of the small-scale locational advantage of municipalities.
Furthermore, it is expected that the significance of social infrastructure services will grow in
Germany as a result of global challenges such as crises and climate refugees, demographic change
or immigration on the labour market. On the other hand, environmental objectives, resource
conflicts, global environmental changes and aspects of the security of supply are turning attention
back to technical infrastructure issues.
Current infrastructure planning has to grapple with the changes to demographic, financial
and climatic conditions which are very specific at a sub-regional level. This requires individually
and locally adapted infrastructural solutions and a ‘paradigm shift in infrastructure provision’
(Winkel 2008: 41). In particular the debates around demographic change, together with changed
household structures, socio-spatial polarisation and changes in societal values (cf. Libbe/
Köhler/Beckmann 2010: 199 et seq.), and the debate around spatially equivalent infrastructure
across different regions will continue. In the case of social infrastructure, questions about the
sustainability and (close-to-home) accessibility as well as the shift of services between the age-
specific user groups must be resolved (cf. Schmidt 2010; Federal Institute for Research on Building,
Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt-und Raumforschung,
BBSR) 2012: 36-52). In the area of technical infrastructures, the viability, financial feasibility and
(ecological) follow-up costs of the infrastructure which has, in most cases, been in place for a long
time, must be examined. In the meantime, the wide range of innovative technologies which are
ready for use and the market offer new possibilities for spatially adapted and environmentally-
friendly supply solutions. All areas of infrastructure are faced with further financial challenges at
an operational level as reinvestment and modernisation requirements rise (cf. Schneider 2009).
Obstacles include the limited fiscal margins of the federal states (▷ State finances) and the local
authorities (▷ Municipal finances), as well as the altered return expectations of private commercial
and competitive infrastructure providers. Admittedly, the ▷ Privatisation of infrastructure
provision has slowed down considerably in past years and the first infrastructure companies
have recently been remunicipalised (cf. Becker/Beveridge/Naumann 2015). However, the trend
towards the deregulation of infrastructure provision and the expansion of European domestic
markets for infrastructure services continues. In the case of technical infrastructures in particular,
the influence of the European Union on the market design, environmental re-regulation and the
expansion of trans-European networks is likely to increase in future.
In this respect, the content and forms of national and subnational infrastructure policy
and planning must be critically examined. At the same time, intersectoral coordination of the
individual branches of infrastructure will have to take on a central role to enable sustainable
spatial development objectives (▷ Sustainability), as well as a system transformation including

9
 Infrastructure

the entire energy, material, financial and human-capital potential. This means that strategic
municipal infrastructure management and integrated spatial planning and coordination will
become more important. This applies first and foremost within the technical infrastructures, but is
also very relevant across all sectors, as is becoming clear from the dovetailing of public transport
with changed health care and school locations (cf. Winkel 2009: 121).
Given the wide-ranging changes in the infrastructure sector, both the past relationships
between the key players (state and local authorities, traditional and new infrastructure providers,
users) as well as traditional service standards and solutions for towns and rural areas (▷ Rural
areas) must be critically examined (cf. Moss 2010: 224). Not only will this present new challenges
for infrastructure policy and planning, it will also put classic infrastructure theory to the test in
terms of its traditional basic assumptions, categories and patterns of thinking. Future research
and the players within politics an planning who are responsible for solving these challenges will
have to pay particular attention to the heterogenous developments and characteristics of social
and technical infrastructures.

References

BBR – Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (Ed.) (2005): Raumordnungsbericht 2005.
Bonn. = Reports of the BBR 21.
BBSR – Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (Ed.)
(2012): Raumordnungsbericht 2011. Bonn.
Becker, C.; Wendt, H. (1977): Die technische Infrastruktur – ihre Bedeutung als Standortfaktor.
In: Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 121 (1), 27-35.
Becker, S.; Beveridge, R., Naumann, M. (2015): Remunicipalization in German cities: Contesting
neo-liberalism and reimagining urban governance? In: Space and Polity 19 (1), 76-90.
Beckmann, K. J. (1988): Vom Umgang mit dem Alltäglichen – Aufgaben und Probleme der
Infrastrukturplanung. Inaugural Lecture. Karlsruhe. = Schriftenreihe des Instituts für
Städtebau und Landesplanung, University Fridericiana of Karlsruhe 21.
Bode, I. (2013): Die Infrastruktur des postindustriellen Wohlfahrtsstaats – Organisation, Wandel,
gesellschaftliche Hintergründe. Wiesbaden.
Bogumil, J. (2011): Verwaltungsreformen auf Länderebene und ihre Auswirkungen auf die
Kommunen. In: Dahme, H.-J.; Wohlfahrt, N. (Eds): Handbuch Kommunale Sozialpolitik.
Wiesbaden, 65-73.
Borchard, K. (1983): Gemeinbedarf. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung
/ Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association (Ed.): Grundriß der
Stadtplanung. Hanover, 180-198.
Buhr, W. (2003): What is infrastructure? – Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge. Siegen. =
Discussion Paper 107-03.

10
Infrastructure

Einig, K. (2011): Koordination infrastruktureller Fachplanungen durch die Raumordnung.

In: Tietz, H.-P.; Hühner, T. (Eds): Zukunftsfähige Infrastruktur und Raumentwicklung –
Handlungserfordernisse für Ver- und Entsorgungssysteme. Hanover, 95-116. = Forschungs-
und Sitzungsberichte der ARL 235.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2007): Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: Problems, causes,
cures. In: Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34 (4), 578-597.
Frey, R. L. (1972): Infrastruktur – Grundlagen der Planung öffentlicher Investitionen. Tübingen. =
Hand- und Lehrbücher aus dem Gebiet der Sozialwissenschaften.
Frey, R. L. (1979): Die Infrastruktur als Mittel der Regionalpolitik – Eine wirtschaftstheoretische
Untersuchung zur Bedeutung der Infrastrukturförderung von entwicklungsschwachen
Regionen in der Schweiz. Bern. = Publications of the Swiss National Science Foundation from
the National Research Programmes 1.
Frey, R. L. (2005): Infrastruktur, In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung /
Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association (Ed.): Handwörterbuch der
Raumordnung. Hanover, 469-475.
Goodman, A. S.; Hastak, M. (2006): Infrastructure planning handbook – Planning, engineering,
and economics. New York.
Graham, S.; Marvin, S. (2001): Splintering urbanism – Networked infrastructures, technological
mobilities and the urban condition. London/New York.
Grande, E.; Eberlein, B. (2000): Der Aufstieg des Regulierungsstaats im Infrastrukturbereich:
zur Transformation der Politischen Ökonomie der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
In: Czada, R.; Wollmann, H. (Eds): Von der Bonner zur Berliner Republik? Opladen, 631-650.
Henckel, D. (1985): Soziale Infrastruktur. Anpassung oder Rückbau? In: Stadtbauwelt (86),
920-924.
Hermes, G. (1998): Staatliche Infrastrukturverantwortung – Rechtliche Grundstrukturen
netzgebundener Transport- und Übertragungssysteme zwischen Daseinsvorsorge und
Wettbewerbsregulierung am Beispiel der leitungsgebundenen Energieversorgung in Europa.
Tübingen. = Jus publicum 29.
Holtkamp, L. (2011): Kommunale Haushaltspolitik bei leeren Kassen. In: Aus Politik und
Zeitgeschichte (7-8), 13-19.
Hühner, T. (2011): Einblicke in die Praxis – Erfahrungen aus den Beispielregionen. In:
Tietz, H.-P.; Hühner, T. (Eds): Zukunftsfähige Infrastruktur und Raumentwicklung –
Handlungserfordernisse für Ver- und Entsorgungssysteme. Hanover, 230-242. = Forschungs-
und Sitzungsberichte der ARL 235.
Jochimsen, R. (1966): Theorie der Infrastruktur – Grundlagen der marktwirtschaftlichen
Entwicklung. Tübingen.
Jochimsen, R. (1995): Infrastruktur. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung /
Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association (Ed.): Handwörterbuch der
Raumordnung. Hanover, 490-498.

11
 Infrastructure

Klemmer, P. (1993): Infrastruktur. In: Dichtl, E.; Issing, O. (Eds): Vahlens großes Wirtschaftslexikon.
Volume 1: A-K. Munich, 984-986.
Kloß, C.; Bieber, D. (2008): Demografischer Wandel und Infrastruktur – zentrale
Herausforderungen, Saarbrücken.
Koziol, M. (2004): Folgen des demographischen Wandels für die kommunale Infrastruktur.
In: Difu – Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH (German Institute of Urban Affairs)
(Ed.): Demographischer Wandel in Kommunen (Im Brennpunkt). Berlin, 69-83. = Deutsche
Zeitschrift für Kommunalwissenschaften 2004/I.
Krautscheid, A. (Ed.) (2009): Die Daseinsvorsorge im Spannungsfeld von europäischem
Wettbewerb und Gemeinwohl – Eine sektorspezifische Betrachtung. Wiesbaden.
Kühn, D. (1983): Städtische Sozialplanung und soziale Infrastruktur. In: ARL – Akademie für
Raumforschung und Landesplanung / Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz
Association (Ed.): Grundriß der Stadtplanung. Hanover, 428-441.
Lauwe, P.; Riegel, C. (2008): Schutz kritischer Infrastrukturen – Konzepte zur
Versorgungssicherheit. In: IzR – Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 1/2.2008, 113-125.
Libbe, J. (2009): Infrastrukturplanung als kommunale Aufgabe: Aktuelle Herausforderungen und
Handlungsbedarfe. In: Difu – Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH (German Institute of
Urban Affairs) (Ed.): Die Zukunft der städtischen Infrastrukturen (Im Brennpunkt). Berlin.
17-36. = Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kommunalwissenschaften 2008/II.
Libbe, J.; Köhler, H.; Beckmann, K. J. (2010): Infrastruktur und Stadtentwicklung – Technische
und soziale Infrastrukturen – Herausforderungen und Handlungsoptionen für Infrastruktur-
und Stadtplanung. Berlin. = Edition Difu – Stadt, Forschung, Praxis 10.
Monstadt, J. (2004): Die Modernisierung der Stromversorgung. Regionale Energie- und
Klimapolitik im Liberalisierungs- und Privatisierungsprozess. Wiesbaden.
Monstadt, J. (2009): Conceptualizing the political ecology of urban infrastructures: insights from
technology and urban studies. In: Environment and Planning A 41 (8), 1924-1942.
Moss, T. (2010): Intermediäre Organisation und die Governance stadttechnischer
Infrastruktursysteme im Wandel. In: Kilper, H. (Ed.): Governance und Raum. Baden-Baden,
213-233.
Moss, T. (2011): Planung technischer Infrastruktur für die Raumentwicklung: Ansprüche
und Herausforderungen in Deutschland. In: Tietz, H.-P.; Hühner, T. (Eds): Zukunftsfähige
Infrastruktur und Raumentwicklung – Handlungserfordernisse für Ver- und
Entsorgungssysteme. Hanover, 73-94. = Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte der ARL 235.
Naumann, M.; Moss, T. (2012): Neukonfiguration regionaler Infrastrukturen – Chancen und
Risiken neuer Kopplungen zwischen Energie- und Abwasserinfrastruktursystemen.
Müncheberg. = ELaN Discussion Paper.
Neu, C. (Ed.) (2009): Daseinsvorsorge – Eine gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Annäherung.
Wiesbaden.

12
Infrastructure

Neuman, M.; Smith, S. (2010): City planning and infrastructure: Once and future partners.
In: Journal of Planning History 9 (1), 21-42.
Pfaff, M.; Asam, W.; Behnken, R.; Blivice, S. (1980): Integrierte Infrastrukturplanung: Eine
Einführung. In: Pfaff, M.; Asam, W. (Eds): Integrierte Infrastrukturplanung zur Verbesserung
der Lebensbedingungen in Städten und Gemeinden. Berlin. 11-29. = Schriften des
Internationalen Instituts für Empirische Sozialökonomie 3.
Reitzig, F. (2011): Fachplanungen, insbesondere raumbedeutsame Fachplanungen.
In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung / Academy for Territorial
Development in the Leibniz Association (Ed.): Grundriss der Raumordnung und
Raumentwicklung. Hanover, 387-392.
Schader-Stiftung (Ed.) (2001): Die Zukunft der Daseinsvorsorge – Öffentliche Unternehmen im
Wettbewerb. Darmstadt. = Gesellschaftswissenschaften <> Praxis.
Schiller, G.; Siedentop, S. (2005): Infrastrukturfolgekosten der Siedlungsentwicklung unter
Schrumpfungsbedingungen. In: disP – The Planning Review 41 (160), 83-93.
Schmidt, M. (2010): Wechselwirkungen zwischen demografischer Entwicklung und
Daseinsvorsorge unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Wohnstandortfaktoren –
Untersuchungen am Beispiel des Rheingau-Taunus-Kreises. Kaiserslautern. = Materialien zur
Regionalentwicklung und Raumordnung 30.
Schmidt, M. (2013): Regional Governance und Infrastruktur – Kooperationen in der Wasserver-
und Abwasserentsorgung am Beispiel der Stadtregionen Frankfurt/M, Berlin und Ruhr.
Detmold.
Schmidt-Relenberg, N. (1968): Soziologie und Städtebau – Versuch einer systematischen
Grundlegung. Stuttgart/Bern.
Schneider, S. (2009): Der kommunale Investitionsbedarf und seine Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten.
In: Difu – Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH (German Institute of Urban Affairs) (Ed.):
Die Zukunft der städtischen Infrastrukturen (Im Brennpunkt). Berlin, 55-76. = Deutsche
Zeitschrift für Kommunalwissenschaften 2008/II.
Schön, D. A. (1990): Disparitäten der sozialen Infrastruktur in der Stadt – Determinanten ihrer
Entstehung und Entwicklung. Frankfurt am Main. = Europäische Hochschulschriften, Series
22, Volume 201.
Smith, K. (2011): Economic infrastructures and innovation systems. In: Edquist, C. (Ed.): Systems
of innovation – Technologies, institutions and organizations. London, 86-106. = Science,
technology and the international political economy series.
Stohler, J. (1965): Zur rationalen Planung der Infrastruktur. In: Konjunkturpolitik 11, 279-308.
Tietz, H.-P. (2005): Ver- und Entsorgung. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und
Landesplanung / Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association (Ed.):
Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung. Hanover, 1239-1245.
Tietz, H.-P. (2007): Systeme der Ver- und Entsorgung – Funktionen und räumliche Strukturen.
Wiesbaden.

13
 Infrastructure

Tietz, H.-P. (2011): Funktion und Struktur von Ver- und Entsorgungssytemen im Wandel.
In: Tietz, H.-P.; Hühner, T. (Eds): Zukunftsfähige Infrastruktur und Raumentwicklung –
Handlungserfordernisse für Ver- und Entsorgungssysteme. Hanover, 5-18. = Forschungs- und
Sitzungsberichte der ARL 235.
Tsohatzopoulos, A.; Gliwa, A.; Nagl, H. (2011): Elemente sozialer Infrastruktur – Auflistung
vorhandener und notwendiger Bausteine einer sozialen Infrastruktur. Berlin.
Vosgerau, H.-J. (1970): Wachstumstheorie und reale langfristige Perspektiven der
wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. In: Jochimsen, R.; Simonis, U. E. (Eds): Theorie und Praxis der
Infrastrukturpolitik. Berlin, 3-32. = Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, Gesellschaft für
Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften 54.
Wegener, M. (1980): Die Bedeutung des Infrastrukturbereichs in Stadt- und Regionalmodellen.
In: Pfaff, M.; Asam, W. (Eds): Integrierte Infrastrukturplanung zur Verbesserung
der Lebensbedingungen in Städten und Gemeinden. Berlin, 33-56. = Schriften des
Internationalen Instituts für Empirische Sozialökonomie 3.
Winkel, R. (2008): Öffentliche Infrastrukturversorgung im Planungsparadigmenwandel,
In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung (1/2), 41-47.
Winkel, R. (2009): Innovative Konzepte im Bereich sozialer Infrastruktur. In: Difu – Deutsches
Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH (German Institute of Urban Affairs) (Ed.): Die Zukunft der
städtischen Infrastrukturen (Im Brennpunkt). Berlin, 117-134. = Deutsche Zeitschrift für
Kommunalwissenschaften 2008/II.
Zapf, K. (2005): Soziale Infrastruktur. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung
/ Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association (Ed.): Handwörterbuch der
Raumordnung. Hanover, 1025-1031.
Zohlnhöfer, W. (1970): Lokalisierung und Institutionalisierung der Infrastrukturplanung im
föderativen System – Das Beispiel der Gemeinschaftsaufgaben in der BRD. In: Jochimsen, R.;
Simonis, U. E. (Eds): Theorie und Praxis der Infrastrukturpolitik. Berlin, 681-712. = Schriften
des Vereins für Socialpolitik, Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften 54.

Additional literature

Frey, R. L. (1978): Infrastruktur. In: Albers, W. (Eds): Handwörterbuch der Wirtschaftswissenschaft.

Stuttgart, 200-210.
Monstadt, J.; Naumann, M. (2004): Neue Räume technischer Infrastruktursysteme –
Forschungsstand und -perspektiven zu räumlichen Aspekten des Wandels der Strom- und
Wasserversorgung in Deutschland. Berlin.
Moss, T.; Naumann, M.; Wissen, M. (Eds) (2008): Infrastrukturnetze und Raumentwicklung –
Zwischen Universalisierung und Differenzierung. Munich. = Ergebnisse sozial-ökologischer
Forschung 10.

14
Infrastructure

Neuman, M. (2011): Infrastructure planning for sustainable cities. In: Geographica Helvetica 66
(2), 100-107.
Winkel, R. (1989): Infrastruktur in der Stadt- und Regionalplanung – Eine Untersuchung der
Einflußfaktoren und Rahmenbedingungen. Frankfurt am Main. = Campus Forschung 627.

Last update of the references: December 2016

15