The public interest- schools of thought in planning

IF 5 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Progress in Planning Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.progress.2022.100647
Ailin Sheydayi , Hashem Dadashpoor
{"title":"The public interest- schools of thought in planning","authors":"Ailin Sheydayi ,&nbsp;Hashem Dadashpoor","doi":"10.1016/j.progress.2022.100647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The public interest has traditionally been a key reason for the legitimacy of planning. Although planning theory and practice are always shaped by a particular understanding of the public interest, it is a concept that is decidedly hard to define. Over the past century, from the beginning of modern planning to the present, various theoretical traditions of thinking about the public interest have emerged. In the course of this debate, the public interest as the normative content of planning has lost significance to the point of meaningless concepts. Many attempts have been made to revive the concept, but no studies have yet been conducted to explore and describe schools of thought in planning related to the public interest. In this study, using a meta-theory approach and emphasizing the similarities of previous classifications, we present comprehensive coalitions of the conceptions of public interest in planning as distinct schools of thought. In order to organize in a complex and diverse body of literature, we link these conceptions of public interest with relevant planning theories. In order to understand the evolution of these schools of thought, we traced their origin using a genealogical approach. As a result of applying this meta-theory approach, we arrive at a framework that consists of five different schools of thought. We distinguish utilitarian, justice-oriented, communicative, and elitist schools of thought in the mainstream of planning thought and one emerging school in the global south. Identifying these schools of thought contributes, on the one hand, to a clear understanding of how the public interest is defined and applied in planning theory and, on the other hand, helps theorists and professionals to expand the available knowledge base to understand the interwoven concepts of the public interest and planning.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47399,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Planning","volume":"165 ","pages":"Article 100647"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Planning","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900622000010","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The public interest has traditionally been a key reason for the legitimacy of planning. Although planning theory and practice are always shaped by a particular understanding of the public interest, it is a concept that is decidedly hard to define. Over the past century, from the beginning of modern planning to the present, various theoretical traditions of thinking about the public interest have emerged. In the course of this debate, the public interest as the normative content of planning has lost significance to the point of meaningless concepts. Many attempts have been made to revive the concept, but no studies have yet been conducted to explore and describe schools of thought in planning related to the public interest. In this study, using a meta-theory approach and emphasizing the similarities of previous classifications, we present comprehensive coalitions of the conceptions of public interest in planning as distinct schools of thought. In order to organize in a complex and diverse body of literature, we link these conceptions of public interest with relevant planning theories. In order to understand the evolution of these schools of thought, we traced their origin using a genealogical approach. As a result of applying this meta-theory approach, we arrive at a framework that consists of five different schools of thought. We distinguish utilitarian, justice-oriented, communicative, and elitist schools of thought in the mainstream of planning thought and one emerging school in the global south. Identifying these schools of thought contributes, on the one hand, to a clear understanding of how the public interest is defined and applied in planning theory and, on the other hand, helps theorists and professionals to expand the available knowledge base to understand the interwoven concepts of the public interest and planning.

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
公共利益——规划中的思想流派
公共利益历来是规划合法性的关键原因。尽管规划理论和实践总是受到对公共利益的特定理解的影响,但这是一个很难定义的概念。在过去的一个世纪里,从现代规划开始到现在,出现了各种关于公共利益思考的理论传统。在这场争论的过程中,公共利益作为规划的规范性内容已经失去了意义,变成了毫无意义的概念。人们曾多次尝试复兴这一概念,但尚未有研究探索和描述与公众利益有关的规划思想流派。在本研究中,我们使用元理论方法并强调以往分类的相似性,将规划中的公共利益概念作为不同的思想流派进行了全面的整合。为了在复杂多样的文献中组织,我们将这些公共利益的概念与相关的规划理论联系起来。为了了解这些思想流派的演变,我们用系谱法追溯了它们的起源。应用这种元理论方法的结果是,我们得到了一个由五个不同思想流派组成的框架。我们区分了主流规划思想中的功利主义、正义导向、交流主义和精英主义学派,以及全球南方的新兴学派。识别这些思想流派,一方面有助于清晰地理解公共利益是如何定义和应用于规划理论的,另一方面,有助于理论家和专业人士扩大现有的知识基础,以理解公共利益和规划的相互交织的概念。
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
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
1.60%
发文量
26
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Progress in Planning is a multidisciplinary journal of research monographs offering a convenient and rapid outlet for extended papers in the field of spatial and environmental planning. Each issue comprises a single monograph of between 25,000 and 35,000 words. The journal is fully peer reviewed, has a global readership, and has been in publication since 1972.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Editorial Board Editorial Board Immigrants, slums, and housing policy: The spatial dispersal of the Ethiopian population in Israel Editorial Board
×
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