Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: Reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning

Abstract

In the field of planning theory the discussion often seems to assume that all problems – for example, ethical or political ones – pertain to a single level or dimension. In fact, different and clearly separate “levels”, which raise problems of different kinds, can be distinguished. A “multi-level” approach therefore seems necessary. The underlying idea is that it is essential to distinguish more sharply between two analytical levels: the constitutional and post-constitutional levels. These levels are here understood mainly as analytical levels; that is, as standpoints that anyone can – at any time and even only hypothetically – assume to posit certain problems at the appropriate level and treat them by acknowledging the argumentative requirements suited to that level. This article uses such a multi-level approach to address three fundamental and currently much debated problems of planning theory and practice: the issue of “agonistic pluralism”; the issue of “public interest”; the question of “private ownership (of land)”. The contribution of this article falls within the neoinstitutionalist approaches to planning. The belief is that these approaches are shedding new light on planning problems and that research in this direction should be expanded. In this regard, this article attempts to make a contribution to this research perspective especially in analytical and methodological terms.

Antifragile planning

“…maximisation of the benefit of the least-advantaged members of society). In the context of planning theory, Moroni (2019) has convincingly argued that the distinction between such level-relative concerns is not only possible, but unavoidable and necessary.…”

“…maximisation of the benefit of the least-advantaged members of society). In the context of planning theory, Moroni (2019) has convincingly argued that the distinction between such level-relative concerns is not only possible, but unavoidable and necessary. So, rather than following Kolers to altogether dismiss antifragility as illiberal, we claim that we need to examine what kind of antifragility may be legitimate to pursue, and, considering its inevitable level-dependency, at what level should it be pursued.…”

Complex private-common property rights in institutional and planning theories

“…Researchers have emphasised the complexity of property rights structures within institutions and organisations (Hodgson, 1998(Hodgson, , 2006Moroni, 2018;North, 1990;Ostrom, 1990Ostrom, , 1999. Whether produced by self-organisation or externally imposed, for example, by the state (Hodgson, 2006), institutional rules serve to coordinate social interactions.…”

Meta-operations, autopoiesis and neo-systems thinking: What significance for spatial planners?

“…This gives us a set of meta-operations that can help the planner’s orientation within the situatedness of contingency. The operation of this stability within contingency can be understood as the operational parallel of ‘constitution and post-constitutional problems’ that Moroni (2018), sets out for normative questions concerning conflict, public interest and private property. Moroni argues that normative questions can only be resolved through a multi-level approach wherein, for instance, consensus is required at the constitutional level even when conflict is admitted in post-constitutional levels; public interest at the constitutional level might evoke the interest of potentially everybody while at the post-constitutional level might still be against the interests of particular groups; and the right to hold property at the constitutional level does not necessarily mean that every person holds a title at the post-constitutional level.…”