The ‘Public interest’, even if viewed with ambiguity or scepticism, has been one of the primary means by which various professional roles of planners have been justified. Many objections to the concept have been advanced by writers in planning academia. Notwithstanding these, ‘public interest’ continues to be mobilised, to justify, defend or argue for planning interventions and reforms. This has led to arguments that planning will have to adopt and recognise some form of public interest in practice to legitimise itself. This paper explores current debates around public interest and social justice and advances a vision of the public interest informed by complexity theory. The empirical context of the paper is the poverty alleviation programme, the Kudumbashree project in Kerala, India.
AlexanderER (2002) The public interest in planning: From legitimation to substantive plan evaluation. Planning Theory193: 226–249.
2.
AminAMasseyDThriftN (2000) Cities for the Many Not the Few, Bristol: Policy Press.
3.
ArrowKJ (1973) Values and collective decision making. In: PhelpsES (ed.) Economic Justice, Suffolk: Penguin Modern Economic Readings.
4.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London: Routledge and Kegan PaulTranslated by Nice R.
5.
BrettJA (2006) “We sacrifice and eat less”: The structural complexities of microfinance participation. Human Organization65(1): 8–19.
6.
CairneyP (2012) Complexity theory in political science and public policy. Political Studies Review10(3): 346–358.
7.
CampbellHMarshallR (2002) Utilitarianism's bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory1(2): 163–187.
8.
ChantS (2008) ‘The feminisation of poverty’ and the ‘feminisation’ of anti-poverty programmes: Room for revision?’. Journal of Development Studies44(2): 165–197.
9.
ChathukulamJThottunkelAK (2010) The Sen in the neo-liberal developmental programmes of Kerala. International Journal of Rural Management6(2): 161–192.
Chettiparamb A (2014) Complexity theory and planning: Examining ‘fractals' for organising policy domains in planning practice. Planning Theory 13(1): 5–25.
12.
Chettiparamb A and Kokkranikkal J (2012) Responsible tourism and sustainability: The case of Kumarakom in Kerala, India. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 4(3): 302–326.
13.
Chettiparamb A (2011) Kudumbashree Project, Kerala, India: A Meta-governance analysis. World Planning Schools Conference, Perth, 3–9 July.
14.
Chettiparamb A (2006) Bottom-up planning and the future of planning education in India. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(2): 185–194.
15.
Chettiparamb A (2005) Fractal spaces in planning and governance. Town Planning Review 76(3): 317–340.
16.
DevikaJThampiBV (2007) Between ‘empowerment’ and ‘liberation’: The Kudumbashree Initiative in Kerala. Indian Journal of Gender Studies14(1): 33–60.
17.
Duffy-TumaszA (2009) Paying back comes first: Why repayment means more than business in rural Senegal. Gender & Development17(2): 243–254.
18.
FlyvbergB (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
ForesterJ (1988) Planning in the Face of Power, Oakland: University of California Press.
20.
Fraser N (2003) Recognition or redistribution? In: Farrelly C (ed.) Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader. London: Sage Publications.
21.
GantJ (2005) Rethinking the public interest as a planning concept. Plan Canada45(2): 48–50.
22.
GlaserBGStraussAL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
23.
HartHLA (1973) Rawls on liberty and its priority. The University of Chicago Law Review40(3): 534–555.
24.
HarveyD (1973) Social Justice and the City, London: Edward Arnold.
HealeyP (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B23(2): 217–234.
27.
HeywoodP (1990) Social justice and planning for the public interest. Urban Policy and Research8(2): 60–68.
28.
InnesJ (2004) Consensus building: Clarification for critics. Planning Theory3(1): 5–20.
29.
JakimowTKilbyP (2006) Empowering women: A critique of the blueprint for self-help groups in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies13(3): 375–400.
30.
John J (2009) A study on Kudumbashree project – A poverty eradication programme in Kerala. Performance, impact and lessons for other states. Kerala Development Society, New Delhi. Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54187175/Kudumbashree-of-Kerala-JACOB (accessed 6 June 2013).
LinJSLeeP (2011) Performance management in public organizations: A complexity perspective. International Public Management Review12(2): 81–96.
37.
LingamL (2006) Gender, households and poverty: Tracking mediations of macro-adjustment programmes. Economic and Political Weekly41(20): 1989–1998.
38.
MoroniS (2004) Towards a reconstruction of the public interest criterion. Planning Theory3(2): 151–171.
39.
Murphy E and Foz-Rogers L (2015) Perceptions of the common good in planning. Cities 42: 231–241.
40.
MurthyRKSagayamJRengalakshmi (2008) Gender, efficiency, poverty reduction, and empowerment: Reflections from an agriculture and credit programme in Tamil Nadu, India. Gender & Development16(1): 101–116.
41.
NussbaumM (2008) Female capabilities, female human beings. In: PoggeTMollendorfD (eds) Global Justice; Seminal Essays, St Paul: Paragon House, pp. 495–551.
42.
Oommen MA (2008) Microfinance and poverty alleviation: The case of Kerala's Kudumbashree' Working Paper No 17. Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES), Kochi, Kerala, India. Available at: http://csesindia.org/admin/modules/cms/docs/publication/17.pdf (accessed 6 June 2013).
43.
Ozer B and Seker G (2013) Complexity theory and public policy: A new way to put new public management and governance in perspective. The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences 18(1): 89–102.
44.
PatnaikP (2014) ‘Demise of the planning commission?Economic and Political WeeklyXLIX(29): 10–13.
45.
PatnaikP (2015) From the planning commission to the NITI Aayog. Economic and Political WeeklyL(4): 10–12.
46.
RaghavanVP (2009) Micro-credit and empowerment: A study of Kudumbashree projects in Kerala, India. Journal of Rural Development28(4): 469–484.
47.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
RoyA (2009) Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanisation. Planning Theory8(1): 76–87.
49.
SandelMJ (2003) The procedural republic and the unencumbered self. In: FarrellyC (ed.) Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, London: Sage Publications.
50.
SandercockL (2000) Towards Cosmopolis, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
51.
SenA (2008) Equality of what? In: PoggeTMollendorfD (eds) Global Justice; Seminal Essays, St Paul: Paragon House, pp. 61–81.
52.
SivaramakrishnanKC (2011) Re-visioning Indian cities: The urban renewal mission, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
53.
SoraufFJ (1957) The public interest reconsidered. The Journal of Politics19(4): 616–639.
54.
SpeakS (2012) Planning for the needs of the urban poor in the global South: The value of a feminist approach. Planning Theory11(4): 343–360.
55.
ThomasH (2000) Race and Planning: The UK Experience, London: UCL Press.
56.
VargheseJRamankuttyV (2012) Governability framework for the evaluation and implementation of complex public health functions. Evaluation Review36(4): 303–319.
57.
VidyarthiVWilsonAP (2008) Development from Within, Herndon, VA: Apex Foundation.
58.
WalzerM (2003) Complex equality. In: FarrellyC (ed.) Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, London: Sage publications.
59.
WilliamsGThampiBVNarayanaD (2011) Performing participatory citizenship – Politics and power in Kerala's Kudumbashree Programme. Journal of Development Studies47(8): 1261–1280.
60.
WilliamsGThampiBVNarayanaD (2012) The politics of defining and alleviating poverty: State strategies and their impacts in rural Kerala. Geoforum43(5): 991–1001.
61.
YoungIM (2003) The ideal of community and the politics of difference. In: FarrellyC (ed.) Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, London: Sage publications.
62.
YunusM (2004) Grameen bank, microcredit and millennium development goals. Economic and Political Weekly39(36): 4077–4080.
63.
ZukinS (1991) Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disneyworld, Oakland: University of California Press.
