The legitimization of planning has, in the period since the Second World War, rested on the proposition that the state’s intervention in land and property development is necessary to safeguard the public interest against private and sectional interests. What constitutes the public interest has always been contentious but its value as a legitimizing concept has increasingly been called into question in the recent past for the reason that it cannot be given operational meaning either by those who make policy or by those who evaluate it. The purpose of this article is to explore the ‘public interest’ justification of planning and whether it has outlived its usefulness in an increasingly fragmented society. Following an introduction, the argument is presented in three stages. First, we explore the concept of ‘interests’ in the modern period. Second, we consider the way in which the ‘public interest’ has been regarded in the planning literature. Third, an evaluative framework is established which distinguishes deontological as well as consequentialist conceptualizations of the public interest through which we seek to demonstrate that it remains the pivot around which debates concerning the role and purpose of planning must revolve.
Planning, as a form of state intervention administered at the local level, is inevitably subject to the pressures and vagaries of governmental and societal change. The recent past has been a particularly turbulent period for local governance and this has inevitably impacted on the role of planning practitioners and the expectations placed upon them. As a consequence, fundamental value questions have arisen concerning the role and purpose of planning and, in addition, the hegemonic status of a unifying ethic of professional responsibility has been called into question. Our aim in this paper is to explore the different obligations which at various times influence the individual planner's behaviour or actions, with the further purpose of exploring the changing nature of planning and the consequent implications for contemporary conceptions of the public interest. The main body of the paper consists of an analysis of the competing tensions of contemporary practice as viewed from the perspective of the obligations owed to individual values, professionalism, employing organisations, politicians, and the public. In the course of this exploration we examine the ways in which these tensions have been influenced and heightened by the reconfiguration of the relationships between the state, society, and the individual which occurred during the 1980s and 1990s as part of the neoliberal agenda of successive Conservative governments in Britain. We conclude by considering the extent to which the notion of the public interest still has value as a legitimising frame of reference for public planning.
The turbulence which characterized the 1980s created uncertainty as to the role and purpose of planning in liberal democracies. Instrumental rationality is no longer defensible as a guiding doctrine and major questions arise concerning the relationship of planning to the market economy and the political process. The realization that the problems confronting planners are not amenable to technocratic solutions has led to recognition of the political and therefore essentially ethical nature of the planning activity. However, whilst there is widespread recognition that fundamental ethical dilemmas underpin both planning practice and theory, little explicit consideration has been given to the nature of the normative frameworks available. The purpose of this paper is to critically review the ethical frames of reference implied in the most influential theories within planning and to evaluate their relevance to practice. The paper highlights the extent to which debate has been, and continues to be, dominated by procedural questions, the rejection of universalism in favour of relativity and subjectivity, and a focus on individual interests rather than more general concern with the common good. Reluctance to engage with debates of a more foundational nature concerning ends and values is questioned and planning theorists are urged to reconnect with the fundamental issue of planning's contribution to the creation of desirable futures. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.