Perceptions of the common good in planning

Abstract

Publication informationCities, 42 (Part B): 231-241Publisher Elsevier Item record/more information http://hdl.handle.net/10197/6518 Publisher's statementThis is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Cities. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Cities (VOL 42, ISSUE Part B, (2014) Abstract. There has been plenty of debate in the academic literature about the nature of the common good or public interest in planning. There is a recognition that the idea is one that is extremely difficult to isolate in practical terms; nevertheless, scholars insist that the idea '…remains the pivot around which debates about the nature of planning and its purposes turn ' (Campbell and Marshall, 2002, 181). At the point of first principles, these debates have broached political theories of the state and even philosophies of science that inform critiques of rationality, social justice and power. In the planning arena specifically, much of the scholarship has tended to focus on theorising the move from a rational comprehensive planning system in the 1960s and 1970s, to one that is now dominated by deliberative democracy in the form of collaborative planning. In theoretical terms, this debate has been framed by a movement from what are perceived as objective and elitist notions of planning practice and decision-making to ones that are considered (by some) to be 'inter-subjective' and non-elitist. Yet despite significant conceptual debate, only a small number of empirical studies have tackled the issue by investigating notions of the common good from the perspective of planning practitioners. What do practitioners understand by the idea of the common good in planning? Do they actively consider it when making planning decisions? Do governance/institutional barriers exist to pursuing the common good in planning? In this paper, these sorts of questions are addressed using the case of Ireland. The methodology consists of a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 urban planners working across four planning authorities within the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. The findings show that the most frequently cited definition of the common good is balancing different competing interests and avoiding/minimising the negative effects of development. The results show that practitioner views of the common good are far removed from the lofty ideals of planning theory and reflect the ideological shift of planners within an institution that has been heavily neo-liberalised since the 1970s.

Contestation and conservatism in neighbourhood planning in England: reconciling agonism and collaboration?

“…that localism practiced 'collaboratively' may not be able to promote the integrated thinking needed to deliver sustainable development (see Cowell, 2013). Furthermore, the naïve use of dialogic forms may jeopardise rather than enable the effective defence of a range of interests (Campbell and Marshall, 2002;Murphy and Fox-Rogers, 2015). This could actually prove less inclusive than say, enlightened paternalism.…”

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.…”

Educating Future Planners about Working with Children and Young People

“…Furthermore, assumptions that the public interest represents the aggregate of private interests are taken for granted. So, while current communicative approaches in planning can take stock of different issues and desires during planning processes, structural issues that affect political, social and economic participation or level of influence are uncontested (Fainstein, 2014;Murphy & Fox-Rogers, 2015;Uitermark & Nicholls, 2015). This is a significant issue if planners are to be at the forefront of change with regard to creating better cities for and with children, and thus necessitates appropriately educated planners.…”

“…Scholars' and practitioners' desires to reduce their position of power, recognise differences among their constituents, and treat them equally means they are not necessarily using their position effectively, or for those in need (Uitermark & Nicholls, 2015). When all interests are treated equally, processes and outcomes are reproduced within existing power structures (Murphy & Fox-Rogers, 2015;Uitermark & Nicholls, 2015). With a stronger emphasis on planners to take a neutral position, they end up brokering competing interests rather than addressing inequalities that lead to inequity.…”

“…This is a challenge for educators. Communicative planning draws attention to the validity of different perspectives at the expense of agitating for 'universal' goals or particular notions of the public good and social justice (Murphy & Fox-Rogers, 2015;Uitermark & Nicholls, 2015). Scholars' and practitioners' desires to reduce their position of power, recognise differences among their constituents, and treat them equally means they are not necessarily using their position effectively, or for those in need (Uitermark & Nicholls, 2015).…”