What can urban policies and planning really learn from John Rawls? A multi-strata view of institutional action and a canvas conception of the just city

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING Planning Theory Pub Date : 2023-03-13 DOI:10.1177/14730952231163274
Stefano Moroni
{"title":"What can urban policies and planning really learn from John Rawls? A multi-strata view of institutional action and a canvas conception of the just city","authors":"Stefano Moroni","doi":"10.1177/14730952231163274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most influential theories of justice in planning theory and practice has been, without doubt, that of John Rawls. The very idea of the just city is indebted to Rawls’s view. However, the way in which Rawlsian theory of justice has been imported into planning often seems debatable. This article aims to discuss this aspect critically. The objective is not merely to discuss certain planning approaches inspired by Rawls; it is also to investigate, in more general terms, what meaning and role (any theory of) justice could and should have for planning and urban policies. In revisiting John Rawls’s view, the article is structured around two points: first, a critical discussion on how Rawls’s theory of justice has been generally applied to urban policies and planning; second, an exploration of an alternative way to interpret and apply certain Rawlsian insights (often undervalued) in this field. The article is not intended to defend and recommend Rawls’s normative theory as a whole (i.e. in its entirety), but to evidence certain Rawlsian contributions of a general nature that are particularly important. Nor is it the aim of this article to contribute directly to the development of a specific substantive idea of the just city; instead, it is to highlight fundamental methodological and analytical caveats that are crucial in this regard. Rather than a “theory of the just city”, this article develops a “meta-theory of the just city”: that is, an approach specifying precautions and conditions for any coherent and convincing just city theory.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952231163274","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

One of the most influential theories of justice in planning theory and practice has been, without doubt, that of John Rawls. The very idea of the just city is indebted to Rawls’s view. However, the way in which Rawlsian theory of justice has been imported into planning often seems debatable. This article aims to discuss this aspect critically. The objective is not merely to discuss certain planning approaches inspired by Rawls; it is also to investigate, in more general terms, what meaning and role (any theory of) justice could and should have for planning and urban policies. In revisiting John Rawls’s view, the article is structured around two points: first, a critical discussion on how Rawls’s theory of justice has been generally applied to urban policies and planning; second, an exploration of an alternative way to interpret and apply certain Rawlsian insights (often undervalued) in this field. The article is not intended to defend and recommend Rawls’s normative theory as a whole (i.e. in its entirety), but to evidence certain Rawlsian contributions of a general nature that are particularly important. Nor is it the aim of this article to contribute directly to the development of a specific substantive idea of the just city; instead, it is to highlight fundamental methodological and analytical caveats that are crucial in this regard. Rather than a “theory of the just city”, this article develops a “meta-theory of the just city”: that is, an approach specifying precautions and conditions for any coherent and convincing just city theory.
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
城市政策和规划能从罗尔斯那里学到什么?制度行为的多层次视角和公正城市的画布概念
毫无疑问,在规划理论和实践中最有影响力的正义理论之一是约翰·罗尔斯的理论。“正义之城”这一概念的产生得益于罗尔斯的观点。然而,罗尔斯的正义理论被引入计划的方式似乎经常是有争议的。本文旨在对这方面进行批判性的讨论。目的不仅仅是讨论受罗尔斯启发的某些规划方法;更一般地说,它还将调查正义(任何理论)对于规划和城市政策能够和应该具有什么意义和作用。在回顾约翰·罗尔斯的观点时,本文围绕两点展开:首先,批判性地讨论罗尔斯的正义理论如何被普遍应用于城市政策和规划;其次,探索另一种方式来解释和应用罗尔斯在这一领域的某些见解(通常被低估)。这篇文章并不是要捍卫和推荐罗尔斯的规范理论作为一个整体(即全部),而是要证明罗尔斯在一般性质上的某些贡献是特别重要的。本文的目的也不是直接促进正义之城的具体实质性概念的发展;相反,它要强调在这方面至关重要的基本方法和分析警告。本文不是“正义城市理论”,而是发展了“正义城市元理论”:即为任何连贯和令人信服的正义城市理论指明预防措施和条件的方法。
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