In Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian cities and urban regions, strategic approaches in urban planning have been developed by introducing different kinds of informal strategic plans. The means of improving the strategic quality of urban and regional planning have thus been searched from outside the statutory land use planning system, determined by the national planning laws. Similar development has also taken place elsewhere. When strategic plans are prepared outside the statutory planning system, these processes also lack the legal guarantee for openness, fairness and accountability. This is a serious legitimacy problem. In this article, the problem is examined theoretically and conceptually by combining democracy-and governance-theoretical perspectives. With this framework, four different approaches to legitimacy are derived: accountability, inclusiveness, liberty and fairness. The article concludes that strategic urban planning must find a balance between the four approaches to legitimacy. Concerning political processes, this requires agonistic acknowledgement of different democracy models, excluding neither deliberative nor liberalist arguments. Concerning administrative processes, it requires acknowledgement of the interdependence of statutory and informal planning instruments and the necessity of developing planning methods for their mutual complementarity-thus avoiding the detachment of informal strategic planning into a parallel planning "system".

The article seeks to elaborate on Forester's notion of planner as a 'deliberative practitioner', aiming to add sensitivity to the institutional conditions of planning, focusing especially on Finland. In terms of trust, the concept of deliberative practitioner mostly focuses on interpersonal trust as a planner's resource in mediating particular interests. Thereby, when applied to the Finnish context, institutional trust may be undermined as a key resource for the Finnish planner's jurisdiction, justifying his/her proactive role and authority in bringing broader concerns to the planning agenda. This undermining prevents the acknowledgement of important institutional resources that the Finnish planner has in coping with the tensions between communicative ideals and the neoliberal realities. A more context-sensitive and institutionally responsive theory of communicative planning is needed, to help the planning professionals and other stakeholders conceive the deliberative ideals as supportive for the planners' institutionally strong agency. Hence the notion of "deliberative bureaucrat." The article seeks to develop an outline for such a theory by drawing on studies on legal culture, sociology of professions, deliberative democracy theory and the concept of trust.

The article reviews the development of communicative planning theory in relation to deliberative democracy theory. The latter has evolved since its “first generation” of Habermas and Rawls, to incorporate more pragmatic and contextual considerations to the theory, in response to criticisms that parallel those on communicative planning theory. The contemporary “third generation” of deliberative democracy theory has relaxed on the consensus goal, considering deliberation as legitimate even when the parties advocate their own interests in intense negotiations. The article discusses how this development has been reflected in communicative planning theory, concentrating especially on John Forester's critical pragmatism. It further examines the concept of trading zone and its linkages to this theoretical development.

During the past decades, the concept of public interest has been severely criticized. It nevertheless remains to be a key normative reference point against which public planning may be evaluated and justified. The article claims that there are multiple conceptions of public interest that coexist in everyday planning practice. These conceptions are grounded in the age-old debate on the duties of the State. In the article, four different approaches to public interest were recognized on the basis of two dimensions of the concept. These dimensions are individual/collective and regulation/non-regulation. The theoretical assumptions were tested with interview data of Finnish planning professionals. The coexistence of multiple conceptions of public interest was revealed. This ambiguity makes public interest dubious as a rhetorical tool. Without the explication of the discursive context, the concept is largely devoid of meaning. Thus, when truly seeking justification to planning decisions, with reference to "public interest", the explication of the context and the discursive framework applied is necessary.

Contemporary urban planning with linear administrative processes, based on the ideals of predictability and control, have come to its end. Even public participatory planning has struggled to incorporate the input of engaged citizens to urban development and the co-governance of common resources. Self-organized actions of urban activist and mundane everyday life have not been sufficiently addressed in the participatory urban planning processes. However, local initiatives and even the temporary use of urban space have been seen as a contribution to urban development. The problem is that so far we do not have much knowledge about the co-operation ecosystem required for new approaches to urban planning, such as the Expanded urban planning. In this article, I examine two case studies, on the basis of which a co-operation ecosystem for Expanded urban planning is outlined. I argue that such an ecosystem for co-operation can significantly help cities integrate self-organized citizen initiatives to urban and community development. It might, however, also require planners to take a stronger role in enhancing a culture of participation.