Town Planning Review

The role of planning and the role of planners: political dimensions, ethical principles, communicative interaction

Town Planning Review (2020), 91, (6), 563–576.

Abstract

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

References

ABRAM, S. (2004), ‘Personality and professionalism in a Norwegian district council’, Planning Theory, 3, 21-40. Google Scholar

ALBRECHTS, L. (2003a), ‘Planning and power: towards an emancipatory planning approach’, Environment and Planning C, 2, 905-24. Google Scholar

ALBRECHTS, L. (2003b), ‘Reconstructing decision-making: planning versus politics’, Planning Theory, 2, 249-68. Google Scholar

ALEXANDER, E. R. (2002), ‘The public interest in planning: from legitimation to substantive plan evaluation’, Planning Theory, 1, 226-49. Google Scholar

ALEXANDER, E. R. (2005), ‘Institutional transformation and planning: from institutionalization theory to institutional design’, Planning Theory, 4, 209-23. Google Scholar

ALEXANDER, E. R. (2006), ‘Institutional design for sustainable development’, Town Planning Review, 77, 1-27. Google Scholar

ALEXANDER, E. R. (2007), ‘Institutionalist perspectives on planning: Why? Where? How?’, in N. Verma (ed.), Institutions and Planning, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 37-60. Google Scholar

ALLISON, L. (1975), Environmental Planning, London, Allen & Unwin. Google Scholar

ALTERMAN, R. (1992), ‘A transatlantic view of planning education and professional practice’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12, 39-54. Google Scholar

BARRETT, C. (2018), Everyday Ethics for Practicing Planners, London, Routledge. Google Scholar

BENSON, J. (2019a), ‘Deliberative democracy and the problem of tacit knowledge’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 18, 76-97. Google Scholar

BENSON, J. (2019b), ‘Knowledge and communication in democratic politics: markets, forums and systems’, Political Studies, 67, 422-39. Google Scholar

BICKENBACH, J. and HENDLER, S. (1994), ‘The moral mandate of the planning profession’, in H. Thomas (ed.), Values and Planning, Aldershot, Avebury, 162-77. Google Scholar

BIRCH, E. L. (1994), ‘From civic worker to city planner: women and planning, 1890 to 1980’, in D. A. Krueckeberg (ed.), The American Planner, New Brunswick, Center for Urban Policy Research, 469-506. Google Scholar

BIRCH, E. L. and SILVER, C. (2009), ‘One hundred years of city planning’s enduring and evolving connections’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 75, 113-22. Google Scholar

BOLAN, R. S. (1983), ‘The structure of ethical choice in planning practice’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 3, 23-34. Google Scholar

BOOTH, P. (2003), Planning by Consent: The Origins and Nature of British Developmental Control, London, Routledge. Google Scholar

BROOKS, M. P. (1988), ‘Four critical junctures in the history of the urban planning profession: an exercise in hindsight’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 54, 241-48. Google Scholar

BUITELAAR, E. (2007), The Cost of Land Use Decisions: Applying Transaction Cost Economics to Planning & Development, Oxford, Blackwell. Google Scholar

CABANNES, Y. (2004), ‘Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy’, Environment and Urbanization, 16, 27-46. Google Scholar

CAMPBELL, H. (2012), ‘“Planning ethics” and rediscovering the idea of planning’, Planning Theory, 11, 379-99. Google Scholar

CAMPBELL, H. and MARSHALL, R. (1998), ‘Acting on principle: dilemmas in planning practice’, Planning Practice & Research, 13, 117-28. Google Scholar

CAMPBELL, H. and MARSHALL, R. (2002), ‘Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning’, Planning Theory, 1, 163-87. Google Scholar

CAMPBELL, H. and MARSHALL, R. (2005), ‘Professionalism and planning in Britain’, Town Planning Review, 76, 191-214. Google Scholar

CHERRY, G. E. (1982), The Politics of Town Planning, London, Longman. Google Scholar

CHIODELLI, F. (2012), ‘Re-politicizing space through technical rules’, Planning Theory, 11, 115-27. Google Scholar

CRUFT, R. (2006), ‘Against individualistic justifications of property rights’, Utilitas, 18, 154-72. Google Scholar

CULLINGWORTH, B. (1993), The Political Culture of Planning: American Land Use Planning in Comparative Perspective, London, Routledge. Google Scholar

CULLINGWORTH, B. (1997), Planning in the USA: Policies, Issues and Processes, London, Routledge. Google Scholar

EASTON, D. (1960), The Political System, New York, Alfred A. Knopf. Google Scholar

ELLICKSON, R. C. and BEEN, V. L. (2005), Land Use Controls: Cases and Materials, New York, Aspen. Google Scholar

EPTING, S. (2016), ‘The moral dimensions of infrastructure’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 435-49. Google Scholar

ERKIP, F. B. (1997), ‘The distribution of urban public services: the case of parks and recreational services in Ankara’, Cities, 14, 353-61. Google Scholar

FAINSTEIN, S. S. (2000), ‘New directions in planning theory’, Urban Affairs Review, 35, 451-78. Google Scholar

FAINSTEIN, S. S. and FAINSTEIN, N. I. (1971), ‘City planning and political values’, Urban Affairs Quarterly, 6, 341-62. Google Scholar

FISCHER, F. and FORESTER, J. (ed.) (1993), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, London, UCL. Google Scholar

FISCHLER, R. (2000), ‘Communicative planning theory: a Foucauldian assessment’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 358-68. Google Scholar

FISCHLER, R. (2012), ‘Fifty theses on urban planning and urban planners’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32, 107-14. Google Scholar

FRASER, N. (1990), ‘Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy’, Social Text, 25-26, 56-80. Google Scholar

FRIEDMANN, J. (2003), ‘Why do planning theory?’, Planning Theory, 2, 7-10. Google Scholar

FUNG, A. (2003), ‘Recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11, 338-67. Google Scholar

FUNG, A. (2006), ‘Varieties of participation in complex governance’, Public Administration Review, 66, 66-75. Google Scholar

GAUS, G. F. (2008), ‘The (severe) limits of deliberative democracy as the basis for political choice’, Theoria, 55, 26-53. Google Scholar

GERBER, E. R. and PHILLIPS, J. H. (2004), ‘Direct democracy and land use policy: exchanging public goods for development rights’, Urban Studies, 41, 463-79. Google Scholar

GODWIN, M. L. (2018), ‘Studying participatory budgeting’, State and Local Government Review, 50, 132-44. Google Scholar

GUZZETTA, J. D. and BOLLENS, S. A. (2003), ‘Urban planners’ skills and competencies: are we different from other professions? Does context matter? Do we evolve?’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 96-106. Google Scholar

HARRIS, B. (1997), ‘The theory of planning and of its profession’, Environment and Planning B, 24, 483-89. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. (1992), ‘Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory’, Town Planning Review, 63, 143. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. (1996), ‘The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation’, Environment and Planning B, 23, 217-34. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. (1999), ‘Deconstructing communicative planning theory: a reply to Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger’, Environment and Planning A, 31, 1129-35. Google Scholar

HOEKVELD, G. and NEEDHAM, B. (2013), ‘Planning practice between ethics and the power game: making and applying an ethical code for planning agencies’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37, 1638-53. Google Scholar

HOWE, E. (1990), ‘Normative ethics in planning’, Journal of Planning Literature, 5, 123-50. Google Scholar

HOWE, E. (1994), Acting on Ethics in City Planning, New Brunswick, NJ, The Center for Urban Policy Research. Google Scholar

HUXLEY, M. (2000), ‘The limits to communicative planning’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 369-77. Google Scholar

HUXLEY, M. and YIFTACHEL, O. (2000), ‘New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 333-42. Google Scholar

IKEDA, S. (2004), ‘Urban interventionism and local knowledge’, Review of Austrian Economics, 17, 247-64. Google Scholar

INNES, J. E. and BOOHER, D. E. (2015), ‘A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses’, Planning Theory, 14, 195-213. Google Scholar

JANIN RIVOLIN, U. (2008), Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: an unbearable cohabitation’, Planning, Practice & Research, 23, 167-86. Google Scholar

JANIN RIVOLIN, U. (2012), ‘Planning systems as institutional technologies: a proposed conceptualization and the implications for comparison’, Planning Practice and Research, 27, 63-85. Google Scholar

KARPOWITZ, C. F., RAPHAEL, C. and HAMMOND, A. S., IV (2009), ‘Deliberative democracy and inequality: two cheers for enclave deliberation among the disempowered’, Politics & Society, 37, 576-615. Google Scholar

KEECH, W. R. and MUNGER, M. C. (2015), ‘The anatomy of government failure’, Public Choice, 164, 1-42. Google Scholar

KIERNAN, M. J. (1983), ‘Ideology, politics, and planning: reflections on the theory and practice of urban planning’, Environment and Planning B, 10, 71-87. Google Scholar

KLOSTERMAN, R. E. (1985), ‘Arguments for and against planning’, Town Planning Review, 56, 5-20. Google Scholar

LAURIAN, L. (2007), ‘Deliberative planning through citizen advisory boards: five case studies from military and civilian environmental cleanups’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 415-34. Google Scholar

LAYMAN, D. (2016), ‘Robust deliberative democracy’, Critical Review, 28, 494-516. Google Scholar

LEAVITT, J. (1980), ‘The history, status, and concerns of woman planners’, Signs, 5, S226-30. Google Scholar

LEVY, J. M. (2013), Contemporary Urban Planning, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson. Google Scholar

LOH, C. G. and ARROYO, R. L. (2017), ‘Special ethical considerations for planners in private practice’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 83, 168-79. Google Scholar

LOW, N. (1991), Planning, Politics and the State: Political Foundations of Planning Thought, London, Unwin Hyman. Google Scholar

MACDONALD, K., SANYAL, B., SILVER, M., NG, M. K., HEAD, P., WILLIAMS, K., WATSON, V. and CAMPBELL, H. (2004), ‘Challenging theory, changing practice: critical perspectives on the past and potential of professional planning’, Planning Theory and Practice, 15, 95-122. Google Scholar

MARGALIT, T. and KEMP, A. (2019), ‘Stratified and defensive planning democracy: hearings on objections to plans in nine Israeli cities’, Urban Studies, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018810321. Google Scholar

MARQUETTI, A., SCHONERWALD DA SILVA, C. E. and CAMPBELL, A. (2012), ‘Participatory economic democracy in action: participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, 1989-2004’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 44, 62-81. Google Scholar

MATSUSAKA, J. G. (2005), ‘Direct democracy works’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 185-206. Google Scholar

MAZZA, L. (1993), ‘Attivista e gentiluomo?’, Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, 48, 29-62. Google Scholar

MAZZA, L. (1995), ‘Technical knowledge, practical reason and the planner’s responsibility’, Town Planning Review, 66, 389-410. Google Scholar

MAZZA, L. and BIANCONI, M. (2014), ‘Which aims and knowledge for spatial planning? Some notes on the current state of the discipline’, Town Planning Review, 85, 513-32. Google Scholar

MORONI, S. (2012), ‘Why nomocracy: structural ignorance, radical pluralism and the role of relational rules’, Progress in Planning, 77, 46-59. Google Scholar

MORONI, S. (2018), ‘Constitutions, laws and practices: ethics of planning and ethics of planners’, in W. Salet (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Institutions and Planning in Action, London, Routledge, 185-95. Google Scholar

MORONI, S. (2019), ‘Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning’, Planning Theory, 18, 5-23. Google Scholar

MUERS, S. (2004), ‘Deliberative democracy and urban regeneration: justification and evaluation’, Public Policy and Administration, 19, 34-56. Google Scholar

NEEDHAM, B. (2006), Planning, Law and Economics, London, Routledge. Google Scholar

NEEDHAM, B., BUITELAAR, E. and HARTMANN, T. (2019), Planning, Law and Economics, London, Routledge. Google Scholar

NEUMAN, M. and SMITH, S. (2010), ‘City planning and infrastructure: once and future partners’, Journal of Planning History, 9, 21-42. Google Scholar

NOZICK, R. (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York, Basic Books. Google Scholar

OZAWA, C. P. and SELTZER, E. P. (1999), ‘Taking our bearings: mapping a relationship among planning practice, theory, and education’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 257-66. Google Scholar

PEATTIE, L. R. (1978), ‘Politics, planning, and categories: bridging the gap’, in R. W. Burchell and G. Sternlieb (eds), Planning Theory in the 1980s, New Brunswick, CUPR, 83-93. Google Scholar

PENNINGTON, M. (2002), ‘A Hayekian liberal critique of collaborative planning’, in P. Allmendinger and M. Tewdwr-Jones (eds), Planning Futures, London, Routledge, 187-205. Google Scholar

PENNINGTON, M. (2003), ‘Hayekian political economy and the limits of deliberative democracy’, Political Studies, 51, 722-39. Google Scholar

PENNINGTON, M. (2004), ‘Citizen participation, the knowledge problem and urban land use planning’, Review of Austrian Economics, 17, 213-31. Google Scholar

POXON, J. (2001), ‘Shaping the planning profession of the future: the role of planning education’, Environment and Planning B, 28, 563-80. Google Scholar

RANTANEN, H. and KAHILA, M. (2009), ‘The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge’, Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1981-90. Google Scholar

RAWLS, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Google Scholar

SAGER, T. (2006), ‘The logic of critical communicative planning: transaction cost alteration’, Planning Theory, 5, 223-54. Google Scholar

SALET, W. (2019), Public Norms and Aspirations: The Turn to Institutions in Action, London, Routledge. Google Scholar

SAVINI, F. (2011), ‘The endowment of community participation: institutional settings in two urban regeneration projects’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35, 949-68. Google Scholar

SCHILLER, T. (ed.) (2011), Local Direct Democracy in Europe, Wiesbaden, VS Verlag. Google Scholar

SELTZER, E. and OZAWA, C. P. (2002), ‘Clear signals: moving on to planning’s promise’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 77-86. Google Scholar

SIEGAN, B. (1997), Property and Freedom: The Constitution, the Courts, and Land-Use Regulation, New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction. Google Scholar

SIMMIE, J. (1974), Citizens in Conflict, London, Hutchinson. Google Scholar

SIMMIE, J. (1993), Planning at the Crossroads, London, UCL Press. Google Scholar

SINTOMER, Y., HERZBERG, C. and RÖCKE, A. (2008), ‘Participatory budgeting in Europe: potentials and challenges’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32, 164-78. Google Scholar

SKELCHER, C. and TORFING, J. (2010), ‘Improving democratic governance through institutional design: civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe’, Regulation & Governance, 4, 71-91. Google Scholar

SMITH, G. (2001), ‘Taking deliberation seriously: institutional design and green politics’, Environmental Politics, 10, 72-93. Google Scholar

SMITH, G. and WALES, C. (2000), ‘Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy’, Political Studies, 48, 51-65. Google Scholar

SMITH, M. E. (2007), ‘Form and meaning in the earliest cities: a new approach to ancient urban planning’, Journal of Planning History, 6, 3-47. Google Scholar

SOMIN, I. (2010), ‘Deliberative democracy and political ignorance’, Critical Review, 22, 253-79. Google Scholar

SORENSEN, A. (2015), ‘Taking path dependence seriously: an historical institutionalist research agenda in planning history’, Planning Perspectives, 30, 17-38. Google Scholar

TÄNNSJÖ, T. (2008), Understanding Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Theory, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar

TEWDWR-JONES, M. and ALLMENDINGER, P. (1998), ‘Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning’, Environment and Planning A, 30, 1975-89. Google Scholar

TROY, P. N. (1981), ‘Introduction’, in P. N. Troy (ed.), Equity in the City, Sidney, Allen & Unwin, 9-20. Google Scholar

UPTON, R. (2002), ‘Planning praxis: ethics, values and theory’, Town Planning Review, 73, 253-69. Google Scholar

VASU, M. L. (1979), Politics and Planning, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. Google Scholar

VIGAR, G. (2012), ‘Planning and professionalism: knowledge, judgement and expertise in English planning’, Planning Theory, 11, 361-78. Google Scholar

WEBSTER, C. and LAI, L. W. C. (2003), Property Rights, Planning and Markets, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. Google Scholar

WEITZ, J. (2015), The Ethical Planning Practitioner, New York, Routledge. Google Scholar

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

Details

Author details

Moroni, Stefano