Institutionalization of public interest in planning: Evolving mechanisms of public representation in China’s urban regeneration policymaking

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING Planning Theory Pub Date : 2023-10-03 DOI:10.1177/14730952231206418
Nannan Zhao, June Wang, Yuting Liu
{"title":"Institutionalization of public interest in planning: Evolving mechanisms of public representation in China’s urban regeneration policymaking","authors":"Nannan Zhao, June Wang, Yuting Liu","doi":"10.1177/14730952231206418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How to capture, represent, and materialize public interest in urban planning has gone through multiple rounds of experimentation, crystallizing a number of regulatory regimes of planning in different historical and political-economic contexts. However, how to define the “public” and capture the public interest in urban planning remains problematic in both planning practices and democratic theory. Therefore, drawing upon Dewey and Habermas’s view of the public sphere, this paper introduces a scale perspective to examine the subjects in planning and the power framing process in defining the public in urban regeneration policymaking. First, this paper revisits the current debates on the concept of public interest and identifies three interpretations of public interest materialization: utilitarian, unitary, and communicative. Second, this paper illustrates the institutionalization process of public interest in China’s urban planning system. We critically examine the evolving mechanisms of public representation in China’s urban regeneration policymaking since 1949. The institutionalization of public interest in China shows distinguished trajectories from the Western countries. These differences are caused by different values that define the scale of “public” in different socio-political contexts. Given the emerging communicative turn in China, we found a hybrid norm of public interest as reflected in the recent “co-production” model of urban regeneration. The contribution of this paper is threefold: 1) highlights the validity of the public interest concept by introducing a scale sensitivity to analyze the subjects in planning; 2) complements public interest typology by identifying a hybrid norm in China that weaves between unitary and communicative interpretations; 3) revisits Dewey’s democratization theory by conceptualizing the institutionalization of public interest in semi-authoritarian China that is determined across the scales of subjects in planning, the ever-changing political-economic contexts, and the planning application in established rules.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952231206418","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

How to capture, represent, and materialize public interest in urban planning has gone through multiple rounds of experimentation, crystallizing a number of regulatory regimes of planning in different historical and political-economic contexts. However, how to define the “public” and capture the public interest in urban planning remains problematic in both planning practices and democratic theory. Therefore, drawing upon Dewey and Habermas’s view of the public sphere, this paper introduces a scale perspective to examine the subjects in planning and the power framing process in defining the public in urban regeneration policymaking. First, this paper revisits the current debates on the concept of public interest and identifies three interpretations of public interest materialization: utilitarian, unitary, and communicative. Second, this paper illustrates the institutionalization process of public interest in China’s urban planning system. We critically examine the evolving mechanisms of public representation in China’s urban regeneration policymaking since 1949. The institutionalization of public interest in China shows distinguished trajectories from the Western countries. These differences are caused by different values that define the scale of “public” in different socio-political contexts. Given the emerging communicative turn in China, we found a hybrid norm of public interest as reflected in the recent “co-production” model of urban regeneration. The contribution of this paper is threefold: 1) highlights the validity of the public interest concept by introducing a scale sensitivity to analyze the subjects in planning; 2) complements public interest typology by identifying a hybrid norm in China that weaves between unitary and communicative interpretations; 3) revisits Dewey’s democratization theory by conceptualizing the institutionalization of public interest in semi-authoritarian China that is determined across the scales of subjects in planning, the ever-changing political-economic contexts, and the planning application in established rules.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
规划中的公共利益制度化:中国城市更新决策中公众代表的演变机制
如何在城市规划中捕捉、代表和实现公众利益已经经历了多轮的实验,在不同的历史和政治经济背景下形成了许多规划监管制度。然而,如何界定城市规划中的“公众”并捕捉公众利益,在规划实践和民主理论中都是一个问题。因此,借鉴杜威和哈贝马斯关于公共领域的观点,本文引入了一个尺度视角来研究规划中的主体,以及在城市更新政策制定中定义公共的权力框架过程。首先,本文回顾了当前关于公共利益概念的争论,并确定了公共利益物化的三种解释:功利主义、单一主义和交际主义。其次,阐述了公共利益在中国城市规划体系中的制度化过程。我们批判性地考察了自1949年以来中国城市更新政策制定中公众代表的演变机制。中国公共利益制度化的轨迹与西方国家截然不同。这些差异是由不同社会政治背景下定义“公共”尺度的不同价值观造成的。鉴于中国正在出现的交流转向,我们发现了一种公共利益的混合规范,这反映在最近的城市更新“合作生产”模式中。本文的贡献体现在三个方面:1)通过引入尺度敏感性来分析规划主体,突出了公共利益概念的有效性;2)通过在中国识别一种交织在单一解释和交际解释之间的混合规范来补充公共利益类型学;3)通过概念化半威权中国公共利益的制度化,重新审视杜威的民主化理论,这种制度化是由规划主体的尺度、不断变化的政治经济背景和规划在既定规则中的应用所决定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Planning Theory
Planning Theory REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
20.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Planning Theory is an international peer-reviewed forum for the critical exploration of planning theory. The journal publishes the very best research covering the latest debates and developments within the field. A core publication for planning theorists, the journal will also be of considerable interest to scholars of human geography, public administration, administrative science, sociology and anthropology.
期刊最新文献
Promoting socio-spatial and cognitive justice through critical pedagogies Planning as an instituting process. Overcoming Agamben’s despair using Esposito’s political ontology The contradictory field of community organizing in the United States: A theoretical framework Institutionalization of public interest in planning: Evolving mechanisms of public representation in China’s urban regeneration policymaking Power dynamics and self-organizing urbanism. A comment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1