Trust and the Public Interest in the Micropolitics of Planning Practice

Abstract

In neoliberal democracies, regulatory planning systems are often characterized by tension between (1) efforts to treat developers as consumers and (2) the regulatory aspect of planning, frequently involving decisions that sacrifice individual interests in favor of a collective but ill-defined “public interest.” This unresolved tension creates a crisis of trust, as the underlying values of the planning system are rarely made explicit. Using an ethnographic methodology to investigate the embedded nature of trust relationships in one planning office, this article suggests that the prerequisite for invigorating trust in planning is a careful and coherent theorization of the relationship of individual to collective interests.

Perceptions of the common good in planning

“…In the late 1990s, Campbell and Marshall (1998) found (using focus groups of panning professionals in the UK) that the 'public interest' had little meaning in practice given the move towards entrepreneurial forms of governance in the UK. More recently, Tait (2011) used an ethnographic approach to investigate trust and the public interest in planning practice. His research uncovered the fractured nature of perceptions of the common good among stakeholders in the planning system.…”

In the public interest? Planning in the Peak District National Park

“…A similar lack of coherence has been evident in the English context; over time planners have found it difficult to know who they are obligated to and where public involvement should sit in planning activities (Campbell and Marshall, 2002b;2000;Healey and Underwood, 1977). In the practice of making decisions about specific planning proposals, the public interest was suggested to be either about protecting public space or promoting economic growth, definitions that are not easily reconciled 7 (Tait, 2011). Similarly, research in the Republic of Ireland suggests that planners found it difficult to define the concept, despite feeling that it acted as a guiding principle in their work (Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2015).…”

“…A continued decline in trust in the contemporary context is driven by perceptions that planning activities continue to be technocratic in nature, and dominated by powerful interests (Tait, 2011;Swain and Tait, 2007). Equally planners are considered to know how to encourage the public to participate in planning, but not why they should encourage participation (Campbell and Marshall, 2002b).…”

Przestrzeń miasta postsocjalistycznego jako dobro wspólne. Przegląd koncepcji teoretycznych

“…Murphy i Fox-Rogers (2015: 233) piszą wprost o "małej liczbie badań empirycznych analizujących rolę wspólnego dobra w praktyce (…), [choć] od dawna uważa się tę kwestię za istotną pod wzglę-dem instytucjonalnym oraz dla zastosowania w planowaniu". Jeśli już zdarzają się opracowania na ten temat, skupiają się one zwykle na zaledwie jednej lub dwóch grupach miejskich graczy: planistów (Howe 1992;Murphy, Fox-Rogers 2015) czy też planistów i decydentów (Tait 2011). W konsekwencji wiedza na temat mechanizmów rządzących zachowaniem użytkowników miejskiego dobra wspólnego jest niedostateczna i utrudnia podejmowanie działań zaradczych, przeciwdziałających niekorzystnym tendencjom.…”