Public Planner – A Deliberative Authority

References

• Alexander, E. R. (2002). The public interest in planning: From legitimation to substantive plan evaluation. Planning Theory, 1(3), 226–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100303
   Google Scholar
• Allen, A. (1998). Rethinking Power. Hypatia, 13(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01350.x
   Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P. (2009). Planning theory (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2013). The evolution and trajectories of English spatial governance: ‘Neoliberal’ episodes in planning. Planning Practice & Research, 28(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.699223
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy. Participatory politics of a new age. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bengs, C. (2005). Planning theory for the naïve? European Journal of Spatial Development, 3(7), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5148363
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1996). Planning and the design and use of forums, arenas, and courts. In S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, & R. W. Burchell (Eds.), Explorations in planning theory (pp. 462–482). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2002). Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory, 1(2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100205
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, H. (2006). Just planning. The art of situated ethical judgment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06288090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dadashpoor, H., & Sheydayi, A. (2021). Defining public interest in planning: A review. Journal of Planning Literature, 6(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122211018379
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elstub, S. (2010). The third generation of deliberative democracy. Political Studies Review, 8, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2010.00216.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eranti, V. (2014). Oma etu ja yhteinen hyvä paikallisessa kiistassa tilasta [Own interest and common good in a local dispute of space]. Sosiologia, 51(1), 21–38.
   Google Scholar
• Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fainstein, N., & Fainstein, S. (2013). Restoring just outcomes to planning concerns. In N. Carmon & S. Fainstein (Eds.) City in the twenty-first century: Policy, planning and people: promoting justice in urban development (pp. 43–64). University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power. The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1998). Rationality, dialogue and learning: What community and environmental mediators can teach us about the practice of civil society. https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/fit117/documents/samples_planning/RationalityDialogueLearning.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Encouraging participatory planning processes. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences. Dramas of mediating public disputes. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2013). Planning in the face of conflict: The surprising possibilities of facilitative leadership. APA Planners Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J., Susskind, L., Umemoto, K., Matsuura, M., Paba, G., Perrone, C., & Mäntysalo, R. (2011). Learning from practice in the face of conflict and integrating technical expertise with participatory planning: Critical commentaries on the practice of planner-architect Laurence Sherman. Planning Theory & Practice, 12(2), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2011.586810
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grange, K. (2017). Planners – a silenced profession? The politicisation of planning and the need for fearless speech. Planning Theory, 16(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215626465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunder, M. (2010). Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory, 9(4), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210368878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. The MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Haugaard, M. (2012). Rethinking the four dimensions of power: Domination and empowerment. Journal of Political Power, 5(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2012.660810
   Google Scholar
• Haugaard, M. (2015). Concerted power over. Constellations, 22(1), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haugaard, M. (2018). Justification and the four dimensions of power. Journal of Political Power, 11(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2018.1433759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate. Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602303814821
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2009). In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory and Practice, 10(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903417191
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2015a). Civic capacity, place governance and progressive localism. In S. Davoudi & A. Madanipour (Eds.), Reconsidering localism (pp. 105–125). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2015b). Epilogue: People, place and shaping futures: Struggling for practically relevant understanding. In J. Hillier & J. Metzger (Eds.), Connections. Exploring contemporary planning theory and practice with Patsy Healey (pp. 439–443). Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Heinilä, A., Pölönen, I., & Belinskij, A. (2021). Yhteistoiminnallisuus ympäristöoikeudellisissa suunnittelumenettelyissä [Collaborative governance in environmental planning procedures]. Ympäristöpolitiikan ja -oikeuden vuosikirja, XIV, 49–116.
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoekveld, G., & Needham, B. (2013). Planning practice between ethics and the power game: Making and applying an ethical code for planning agencies. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1638–1653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01146.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hytönen, J. (2016). The problematic relationship of communicative planning theory and nordic legal culture. Planning Theory, 15(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214549618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042315
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2015). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 14(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213519356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopomaa, T., Peltonen, L., & Litmanen, T. (Eds.) (2008). Ei meidän pihallemme! Paikalliset kiistat tilasta [Not to our backyard! Local disputes of space]. Gaudeamus.
   Google Scholar
• Krumholz, N., & Forester, J. (1990). Making equity planning work: Leadership in the public sector. Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die: What history reveals about our future. Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Maidment, C. S. (2015). Planning in the public interest? Looking for the ‘public interest’ in English plan-making [PhD thesis]. University of Sheffield. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/12319/1/Planning%20in%20the%20Public%20Interest%20-%20Christopher%20Maidment.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Maidment, C. (2016). In the public interest? Planning in the peak District National Park. Planning Theory, 15(4), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216662093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., Thompson, D. F., & Warren, M. E. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems. Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1–26). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., & Saglie, I.-L. (2010). Private influence preceding public involvement. Planning Theory and Practice, 11(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2010.500123
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Saglie, I.-L., & Cars, G. (2011). Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: Defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in Nordic land-use planning. European Planning Studies, 19(12), 2109–2126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.632906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., & Jarenko, K. (2014). Communicative planning theory following deliberative democracy theory: Critical pragmatism and the trading zone concept. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2014010104
   Google Scholar
• Mattila, H. (2016). Can collaborative planning go beyond locally focused notions of the “public interest”? The potential of Habermas’s concept of “generalizable interest” in pluralist and trans-scalar planning discourses. Planning Theory, 15(4), 344–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216640568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattila, H. (2020). Habermas revisited: Resurrecting the contested roots of communicative planning theory. Progress in Planning, 141, 100431–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2019.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, A. (2017). Critical elitism: Deliberation, democracy, and the problem of expertise. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2004). Towards a reconstruction of the public interest criterion. Planning Theory, 3(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204044779
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2010). An evolutionary theory of institutions and a dynamic approach to reform. Planning Theory, 9(4), 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210368778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2017). The public interest. In M. Gunder, A. Madanipour, & W. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of planning theory (pp. 69–80). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2019). Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: Reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning. Planning Theory, 18(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218760092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. (2020). The role of planning and the role of planners: political dimensions, ethical principles, communicative interaction. Town Planning Review, 91(6), 563–576. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2020.85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morriss, P. (2002). Power: A philosophical analysis. Manchester University Press. (First edition 1987).
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of political power. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107(3), 232–262.
   Google Scholar
• Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pløger, J. (2018). Conflict and agonism. In M. Gunder, A. Madanipour, & V. Watson (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of planning theory (pp. 264–275). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell, M. (2006). Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies, 43(11), 1921–1941. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600897826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory, 8(2), 140–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209102232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puustinen, S., Mäntysalo, R., & Jarenko, K. (2017a). The varying interpretations of public interest: Making sense of Finnish urban planners’ conceptions. Current Urban Studies, 05(01), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2017.51006
   Google Scholar
• Puustinen, S., Mäntysalo, R., Hytönen, J., & Jarenko, K. (2017b). The “deliberative bureaucrat”: Deliberative democracy and institutional trust in the jurisdiction of the Finnish planner. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1245437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rowlands, J. (1997). Questioning empowerment: Working with women in Honduras. Oxfam.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2013). Reviving critical planning theory. Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2009). Planners’ role: Torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities. European Planning Studies, 17(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802513948
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2017). Communicative planning. In M. Gunder, A. Madanipour, & V. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of planning theory (pp. 93–104). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Salet, W. (2018a). Public norms and aspirations. The turn to institutions in action. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Salet, W. (Ed.) (2018b). The Routledge handbook of institutions and planning in action. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Salet, W. (2019). The making of the public. Planning Theory, 18(2), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219840922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valtonen, E., Falkenbach, H., & Viitanen, K. (2017). Development-led planning practices in a plan-led planning system: Empirical evidence from Finland. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1301885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. American Political Science Review, 90(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. (1999). Democracy theory and trust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 310–345). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1921/1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1921.)
   Google Scholar
• Westin, M. (2022). The framing of power in communicative planning theory: Analysing the work of John Forester, Patsy Healey and Judith Innes. Planning Theory, 21(2), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211043219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wullweber, J. (2015). Global politics and empty signifiers: The political construction of high technology. Critical Policy Studies, 9(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2014.918899
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar