{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024818401937046004, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00211864406779661, 'mean_word_length': 4.639931740614334, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Migration Policy in Europe by L. H. KLAASSEN and P. DREWE. Farnborough: D. C. Heath Ltd., Saxon House. 1973. pp. 134

theory, conflict theory and `interpretative sociology' which includes symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodology. These last two are together covered in two pages of text, including the inevitable reference to an undated, unpublished work by Sacks . There follows some attempt to characterise urban sociology (which has no theory) by dividing it into `high' level-that is the European tradition of institutional analysis-or the `low' level of analysing and describing what people appear to be doing. The low level appears to include everything from ecological analysis to race relations. The planning for which this gallop round `social theory' is intended (if we are to believe the title) is dealt with even more summarily. Bailey sees it as a form of social control . Whilst that may be so, the point is neither demonstrated nor elaborated . At one level, indeed, all forms and expressions of organisation and rationality are forms of domination . However, if Mr Bailey wants to be sure that his manuscript reaches his publisher and that he receives his royalty cheques regularly, he must allow for the planning of transportation and communication systems and much else besides . It is difficult to be clear after reading this book what someone who intends to make his living by helping to implement the current Town and Country Planning legislation is expected to do. One clear possibility is to change his profession and to become a teacher in order to develop the conflict perspective and to undermine the professional ideologies of others . Another possibility might be to work for a `revolution' so that those doing the social control would be more likely to be his friends . A further possibility might be to democratise knowledge and for both the reader and Mr Bailey to join forces to give `the people' both social theory and planning techniques so that they can do their own job in their own way. These and other possibilities are not considered by the author . How then is the book going 'to help planners in their own theoretical activity'? For planners (unspecified) to understand more clearly what it means to be `the soft cops' of society, as Goodman puts it, may not necessarily make them more humane, more efficient or more devious . Perhaps the most helpful thing the book could do would be to persuade planners that with sociology in such a conceptual muddle they would do better to spend more time reading economics . As I'm sure the author would agree, there are other, better, books which introduce students to the main elements in contemporary sociological theories. There are also books such as James Simmie's excellent Citizens in Conflict which takes issues such as `participation' or the `public interest', defined by planners as relevant and important for them and then subjects such issues to a rigorous, sociologically informed analysis . In my view this latter approach is right . If one respects the social category outside one's own discipline for whom one is writing, one must start from where they are and then lead them on to whatever one considers is important for them to know. If on the other hand one feels one has URBAN STUDIES