a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
accomplished <strong>in</strong> a rati<strong>on</strong>al way, is criticized for a) its utilitarian c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> public<br />
<strong>in</strong>terest, b) due to its approach <strong>of</strong> “planners as scientist”, reducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> activity to a<br />
technical scientific <strong>process</strong> as broken <strong>of</strong>f from policy and c) for its value-free<br />
characteristics (Harper&Ste<strong>in</strong>; 1995; 14) .<br />
The assent <strong>of</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle “public <strong>in</strong>terest” accepted <strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> with utilitarian<br />
ethics <strong>the</strong>ory underly<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>e and <strong>the</strong> belief that social benefits will<br />
be <strong>in</strong>creased via this assent appear to be <strong>the</strong> matters <strong>of</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>. This utilitarian<br />
c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> public <strong>in</strong>terest is emphasized as corresp<strong>on</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g to “...advocate liberal<br />
values, such as freedom or pluralism, and <strong>in</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>s but <strong>on</strong>ly as a means to achieve<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir goal” (Harper&Ste<strong>in</strong>; 1995; 13-14).<br />
As for <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest presented by Rawlsian <strong>the</strong>ory, it evolves up<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> acceptati<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality as differently from <strong>the</strong> Rati<strong>on</strong>al Comprehensive Model. The <strong>justice</strong> as<br />
fairness approach atta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> accepted c<strong>on</strong>text <strong>of</strong> “greater benefits <strong>of</strong> least advantaged”<br />
as c<strong>on</strong>trary to that <strong>of</strong> “greater happ<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> greater number” (Harper&Ste<strong>in</strong>; 1995,<br />
McC<strong>on</strong>ell; 1995).<br />
The <strong>in</strong>terest def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> Rawlsian <strong>the</strong>ory, <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, displays <strong>the</strong> assent <strong>of</strong><br />
unequality toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> ways <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong>se can be overcome. “Justice as fairness”<br />
approach is thought to be used with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>e as <strong>the</strong> “greatest benefits <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> least advantaged allocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> priority <strong>in</strong> implement<strong>in</strong>g plan so that disadvantaged<br />
complicated first” (McC<strong>on</strong>el; 1995).<br />
2. In Rati<strong>on</strong>al Comprehensive Model, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>adequacy <strong>of</strong> a previously-determ<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
abstract understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> mechanism disregard<strong>in</strong>g distributi<strong>on</strong>al <strong>justice</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> resources is emphasized:<br />
C<strong>on</strong>cern<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> resources with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>process</strong> <strong>of</strong> rati<strong>on</strong>al plann<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
<strong>the</strong> approach <strong>of</strong> “... predef<strong>in</strong>ed standarts such as per capita allocati<strong>on</strong> without<br />
c<strong>on</strong>scious attenti<strong>on</strong> to distributi<strong>on</strong>al fairness” is criticized stat<strong>in</strong>g that such an approach<br />
reduces <strong>the</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g costs, but does not take social geography throughout urban<br />
space <strong>in</strong>to c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>. These criteria are regarded as <strong>in</strong>sufficient to accept that<br />
resources are justly distributed throughout <strong>the</strong> urban area (Talen, 1998, 22).<br />
From <strong>the</strong> Rawlsian perspective, <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> to be held <strong>in</strong><br />
relati<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> spatial standards (such as those related with open areas, transportati<strong>on</strong>,<br />
benefit<strong>in</strong>g from transportati<strong>on</strong> facilities etc.) by c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> relative equality <strong>in</strong><br />
society takes place am<strong>on</strong>g <strong>the</strong> proposals c<strong>on</strong>cern<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> methodology <strong>of</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g<br />
(McC<strong>on</strong>nel; 1995, 33-43).<br />
50