In this paper, we distinguish between five modes of redistribution in the allocation of funding for public urban infrastructure, including: the prioritisation of disadvantaged urban areas (area-based redistribution); the prioritisation of infrastructures that support disadvantaged populations (differentiated redistribution); reorganisation of urban infrastructural networks to address issues such as centralisation (systemic redistribution); transformation of infrastructure funding allocation and delivery systems (structural redistribution); and the prioritisation of infrastructures that support a convivial urban culture (relational redistribution). We apply the first three modes of redistribution with a longitudinal comparative analysis of state government infrastructure expenditure in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, from 1999/2000 to 2015/2016. This analysis shows that infrastructure expenditure in Melbourne represented a more just approach to redistribution, in an area-based, differentiated and systemic sense. It highlights the potential and limitations of each mode of analysing redistribution and their combined application as a lens into spatial justice.
DavidsonM (2018) Participatory budgeting, austerity and institutions of democracy: The case of Vallejo, California. City22(4): 551–567.
11.
DearM (1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association58(3): 288–300.
12.
DeFillipisJ (2009) On globalization, competition, and economic justice in cities. In: MarcusePConnollyJNovyJ, et al. (eds) Searching for the Just City: Debates in Urban Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 144–158.
13.
DodsonJSipeN (2008) Shocking the suburbs: Urban location, homeownership and oil vulnerability in the Australian city. Housing Studies23(3): 377–401.
14.
EnrightT (2019) Transit justice as spatial justice: Learning from activists. Mobilities14(5): 665–680.
15.
FainsteinSS (2010) The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16.
FincherRIvesonK (2008) Planning and Diversity in the City: Redistribution, Recognition and Encounter. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
FraserN (1995) From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘post-socialist’ age. New Left Review212: 68.
18.
GilroyP (2006) Multiculture in times of war: An inaugural lecture given at the London School of Economics. Critical Quarterly48(4): 27–45.
19.
GleesonBRandolphB (2002) Social disadvantage and planning in the Sydney context. Urban Policy and Research20(1): 101–107.
20.
GrahamS (2010) When infrastructures fail 1. In: GrahamS (ed.) Disrupted Cities: When Infrastructure Fails. London: Routledge, pp. 13–59.
21.
GrahamSMarvinS (2002) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.
22.
HarveyD (1973) Social Justice and the City. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
23.
HaydenD (1980) What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on housing, urban design, and human work. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society5(3): 170–187.
24.
HendersonSR (2019) Outer metropolitan areas and infrastructure deficits: Policy dynamics on the edge of Melbourne, Australia. Cities90: 24–31.
25.
IvesonKFincherRGleesonB (2018) Iris Marion Young and urban geographies of difference. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography100(3): 287–293.
26.
JessopB (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State. Oxford: Polity Press.
27.
LefebvreH (1968) Le droit á la ville. Paris: Anthropos.
28.
LevyFMeltsnerAJWildavskyAB (1974) Urban Outcomes: Schools, Streets, and Libraries. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
29.
McCruddenC (2004) Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes. Natural Resources Forum28(4): 257–267.
30.
McFarlandP (2015) The peri-urban land-use planning tangle: An Australian perspective. International Planning Studies20(3): 161–179.
31.
McGuirkPO’NeillP (2002) Planning a prosperous Sydney: The challenges of planning urban development in The New Urban Context. Australian Geographer33(3): 301–316.
32.
MarcuseP (2009) From justice planning to commons planning. In: MarcusePConnollyJNovyJ, et al. (eds) Searching for the Just City: Debates in Urban Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 111–122.
PawsonHDavisonGWieselI (2012) Addressing Concentrations of Disadvantage: Policy, Practice and Literature Review. AHURI Final Report No. 190. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
37.
PereiraRHSchwanenTBanisterD (2017) Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transport Reviews37(2): 170–191.
38.
RandolphBTiceA (2017) Relocating disadvantage in five Australian cities: Socio-spatial polarisation under neo-liberalism. Urban Policy and Research35(2): 103–121.
39.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
RobertsDJCatungalJP (2018) Neoliberalizing social justice in infrastructure revitalization planning: Analyzing Toronto's More Moss Park project in its early stages. Annals of the American Association of Geographers108(2): 454–462.
41.
SandercockLForsythA (1992) A gender agenda: New directions for planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association58(1): 49–59.
WieselILiuFBuckleC (2018) Locational disadvantage and the spatial distribution of government expenditure on urban infrastructure and services in metropolitan Sydney (1988–2015). Geographical Research56(3): 285–297.
47.
YoungIM (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
