How public interest is constituted in planning practice varies according to the local context. Using state-socialist and post-socialist cases in Belgrade, Serbia, we explore the shift in the realization of public interest as a basis for planning standards regarding provision of public land use and services. The research looks at trends for planning standards on two case studies, and reveals the underlying norms of this local interpretation of public interest via interviews with planning professionals and residents. The results suggest not only the persistence of the top-down unitary approach to public interest in planning but also a deterioration in prescribed standards.
AlexanderErnest R.2002. “The Public Interest in Planning: From Legitimation to Substantive Plan Evaluation.” Planning Theory1 (2): 226–49.
2.
American Planning Association, SteinerFrederick R.ButlerKent. 2012. Planning and Urban Design Standards. New York: John Wiley.
3.
BauerMartin. 1996. “The Narrative Interview.” LSE Methodology Institute Papers, Qualitative Series, No. 1. London: London School of Economics.
4.
BengsChrister.2005. “Planning Theory for the Naïve?” European Journal of Spatial Development 18: 1–10.
5.
BrymanAlan. 2016. Social Research Methods. 5th ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
CampbellHeatherMarshallRobert. 2002. “Utilitarianisms’ Bad Breath? A Re-evaluation of the Public Interest Justification for Planning.” Planning Theory1 (2): 163–87.
7.
CassinelliC. W.1958. “Some Reflections on the Concept of the Public Interest.” Ethics69 (1): 48–61.
8.
ChettiparambAngelique. 2015. “Articulating ‘Public Interest’ through Complexity Theory.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space34:1284–1305.
9.
ČolićNatašaDželebdžićOmiljena. 2018. “Beyond Formality: A Contribution toward Revising the Participatory Planning Practice in Serbia.” SPATIUM International Review39:17–25.
10.
ČolićRatka. 2014. “Evaluation of the Capacity Development of Actors within Participatory Planning Process.” SPATIUM International Review31:45–50.
11.
Compulsory Land Purchase Act. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 53/95, Official Gazette of the Republic of Yugoslavia, no. 16/2001—Federal Court Resolution and Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia nos. 20/2009 and 55/2013—Constitutional Court Resolution, 106/2016.
DabovićTijanaNedović-BudićZoricaĐorđevićDejan. 2019. “Pursuit of Integration in the Former Yugoslavia’s Planning.” Planning Perspectives34 (2): 215–41.
14.
DimitrijevićVojinPaunovićMilan. 1997. Ljudska prava (Human rights). Beograd: Beogradski centar za ljudska prava.
15.
DželebdžićOmiljenaJokićVesna. 2014. “A Rank Size Rule in the Urban System in Serbia—Contribution to the Discussion on Polycentricity.” In Obnova strateškog prostornog mišljenja, istraživanja i upravljanja u Srbiji—knjiga2, edited byJasna Petrić, Miodrag Vujošević, Miroljub Hadžić, and Branislav Bajat, 138–54. Belgrade: IAUS – Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia.
FlyvbjergBentLandmanToddSchramSanford. 2012. Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
FranklinAimee L.2001. “Serving the Public Interest? Federal Experiences with Participation in Strategic Planning.” American Review of Public Administration31 (2): 126–38.
20.
GyörgyCsomósFarkasJenő ZsoltKovácsZoltán. 2020. “Access to Urban Green Spaces and Environmental Inequality in Post-socialist Cities.” Hungarian Geographical Bulletin69 (2): 191–207.
HirtSonia. 2012. “Mixed Use by Default: How the Europeans (Don’t) Zone.” Journal of Planning Literature27 (4): 375–93.
26.
HirtSonia. 2015. “Planning during Post-socialism.” International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences18:187–92.
27.
HochCharles J.DaltonLinda C.SoFrank S.2000. The Practice of Local Government Planning. 3rd ed.Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
28.
HodgkinsonIan R.HannibalClaireKeatingByron W.BuxtonRosamund ChesterBatemanNicola. 2017. “Toward a Public Service Management: Past, Present, and Future Directions.” Journal of Service Management28 (5): 998–1023.
29.
HoweElizabeth. 1992. “Professional Roles and the Public Interest in Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature6 (3): 230–48.
30.
KamatSangeeta. 2004. “The Privatization of Public Interest: Theorizing NGO Discourse in a Neoliberal Era.” Review of International Political Economy11 (1): 155–76.
31.
KaulIngeGrunbergIsabelleSternMarc A.2009. Global Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
KlostermanRichard E.1980. “A Public Interest Criterion.” Journal of the American Planning Association46 (3): 323–33.
33.
KunzmannKlaus R.2013. “Strategic Planning: A Chance for Spatial Innovation and Creativity.” The Planning Review49 (3): 28–31.
34.
LandmanTodd. 2012. “Phronesis and Narrative Analysis.” In Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis, edited by FlyvbjergBentLandmanToddSchramSanford, 27–47. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Lazarević-BajecNada. 2009. “Rational or Collaborative Model of Urban Planning in Serbia: Institutional Limitations.” Serbian Architectural Journal 1: 81–106.
36.
LennonMick. 2017. “On ‘the subject’ of planning’s public interest.” Planning Theory16 (2): 150–68.
37.
Lex Specialis—Law to Encourage the Construction Industry of the Republic of Serbia in Times of Economic Crisis. 2011. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, nos. 45/10, 99/11.
38.
LongNorton E.1959. “Planning and Politics in Urban Development.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners25 (4): 167–69.
39.
MattilaHanna. 2016. “Can Collaborative Planning Go beyond Locally-Focused Notions of the ‘Public Interest’? The Potential of Habermas’ Concept of ‘Generalizable Interest’ in Pluralist and Trans-scalar Planning Discourses.” Planning Theory15 (4): 344–65.
40.
MurphyEndaFox-RogersLinda. 2015. “Perceptions of the Common Good in Planning.” Cities42 (pt. B): 231–41.
41.
NadinVincentMaldonadoAna Maria FernándezZonneveldWilSteadDominicDąbrowskiMarcinPiskorekKasiaSarkarAlankrita, et al. 2018. “COMPASS: Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe.” ESPON EGTC.
42.
Nedović-BudićZoricaCavrićBranko. 2006. “Waves of Planning: A Framework for Studying the Evolution of Planning Systems and Empirical Insights from Serbia and Montenegro.” Planning Perspectives31 (4): 393–425.
43.
Nedović-BudićZoricaZekovićSlavkaVujoševićMiodrag. 2012. “Land Privatization and Management in Serbia—Policy in Limbo.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research29 (4): 306–17.
44.
PerićAna. 2020. “Public Engagement under Authoritarian Entrepreneurialism: The Belgrade Waterfront Project.” Urban Research & Practice13 (2): 213–27.
45.
PerovićMiloš R. 2008. Iskustva prošlosti (Experiences of the past). Beograd: Građevinska knjiga.
46.
PerryJames L.WiseLois Recascino. 1990. “The Motivational Bases of Public Service.” Public Administration Review50 (3): 367–73.
47.
PetovarKsenija. 2003. Naši gradovi izmedju države i gradjanina (Our cities between State and Citizens). Beograd: Cicero.
48.
Planning and Construction Act. 2020. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, nos. 72/2009, 81/2009-correction, 64/2010-Constitutional Court Resolution, 24/2011, 121/2012, 42/2013-Constitutional Court Resolution, 50/2013-Constitutional Court Resolution, 98/2013-Constitutional Court Resolution, 132/2014, 145/2014, 83/2018, 31/2019, 37/2019, 9/2020.
49.
Public Services Act. 2014. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, nos. 42/91, 71/94, amend. 79 amend. 81, amend. 82/2005, and amend. 83/2014.
50.
PuustinenSariMäntysaloRaineJarenkoKaroliina. 2017. “The Varying Interpretations of Public Interest: Making Sense of Finnish Urban Planners’ Conceptions.” Current Urban Studies5:82–96.
51.
SandercockLeonieDoveyKim. 2002. “Pleasure, Politics and the ‘Public Interest’: Melbourne’s Riverscape Revitalization.” Journal of the American Planning Association68 (2): 151–64.
52.
SchramSanford. 2012. “Phronetic Social Science: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” In Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis, edited by FlyvbjergBentLandmanToddSchramSanford, 15–26. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SlaevAleksandar D.Nedović-BudićZoricaKrunićNikolaPetrićJasnaDaskalovaDiliana. 2018. “Suburbanization and Sprawl in Post-socialist Belgrade and Sofia.” European Planning Studies26 (7): 1389–1412.
54.
Spatial Development Act of Croatia. 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, nos. 153/13 65/17, 114/18, 39/19, 98/19.
55.
StaničićFrane. 2018. “Differentiating Public Interest, General Interest and Interests of the Republic of Croatia in the Context of Legal Public Limitations of Ownership Rights.”Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu55 (1/2018): 111–29.
56.
SteadDominicde VriesJochemTasan-KokTuna. 2015. “Planning Cultures and Histories: Influences on the Evolution of Planning Systems and Spatial Development Patterns.” European Planning Studies23 (11): 2127–32.
57.
Sustainable Urban Development Strategy of Serbia Until 2030. 2019. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 47/19.
58.
TaitMalcom. 2011. “Trust and the Public Interest in the Micropolitics of Planning Practice.” Journal of Planning Education and Research31 (2): 157–71.
59.
TaitMalcom. 2016. “Planning and the Public Interest: Still a Relevant Concept for Planners?” Planning Theory15 (4): 335–43.
60.
TsenkovaSasha. 2014. “Planning Trajectories in Post-socialist Cities: Patterns of Divergence and Change.” Urban Research & Practice7 (3): 278–301.
61.
Van StraalenFennie M.WittePatrick A.BuitelaarEdwin. 2017. “Self-organisation in Oosterwold, Almere: Challenges With Public Goods and Externalities.”Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie108 (4): 503–11.
62.
YumatleCarla. 2014. “Pluralism.” In The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, edited by GibbonsMichael T., 1–19. Hoboken: John Wiley.
63.
ZekovićSlavkaMaričićTamara. 2020. “Contemporary Governance of Urban Mega-projects: A Case Study of the Belgrade Waterfront.” Territory, Politics, Governance. Published electronicallyJuly14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1774410.
