The purpose of this study is to examine the practice of curriculum planning in AddisrnAbaba University with a particular emphasis on the Department of BusinessrnEducation. To that end, the descriptive survey method is employed, in which bothrnqualitative and quantitative techniques were devised. Moreover, a purposivernsampling technique was chosen whereby 16 and 36 samples were taken from therntotal population sizes of 28 and 177, which constitute the Teaching staff andrnStudent cohort, respectively. The findings of this investigation include lack of wellrndocumented statement of program objectives, diverging responses among thernacademic staff with regard to the derivation and formulation of program objectivesrnand subject area contents, the prevalence of lecture type teaching method,rncurriculum evaluation confined to student exam - not broad enough to serve as arnbase for program review and development, exam questions requiring thernreproduction of lectured materials, the absence of a separate unit/agency tornundertake curriculum planning for this level and types of programs, at Universityrnand National levels, the absence of explicit inter and intra-institutional links, and thernabsence of curriculum planning model across the forgoing institutional levels.rnBased on the forgoing findings, the thesis concludes that the prevailing institutionalrnarrangement has many flaws which impede sustainable program review andrndevelopment. Moreover, the performances of the undergoing programs cannot bernmeasured in full perspectives as they lack clear and shared educational purposes.rnBased on these findings and conclusions, it recommends that there must be arncentral coordinating body at National level entrusted with higher educationrncurriculum planning so that the coordination and integration of manpowerrnrequirements of the relevant socioeconomic sectors across the nation andrneducational efforts at the University and Department levels can be possible. It alsornproposes for the establishment of separate curriculum planning functions at thernUniversity, Faculty, and Department levels. The explanation for this kind ofrnproposition is that such institutional arrangement reduces the possible mismatchesrnbetween demand for competences and the supply of such competences, whenrnlooked at from a national perspective.