“Social justice” and “public interest” have traditionally been fundamental concepts for most planning theories. The planning literature about these concepts has become a complex set of interpretations that make it difficult to explain the relationship between the two concepts. The current article attempts to shed light on this conceptual confusion about the relationship between these concepts by using the meta-synthesis method. This meta-synthesis leads to the identification of four distinct perspectives “Utilitarians,” “Democratic Proceduralists,” “Structuralists,” and “Post-structuralists.” Each of which places them in different positions from each other according to their distinct definitions of these concepts.
AlexanderE. R.1992. Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts, and Issues. New York: Taylor & Francis.
2.
AlexanderE. R.2002a. “Planning Rights: Toward Normative Criteria for Evaluating Plans.” International Planning Studies7 (3): 191–212.
3.
AlexanderE. R.2002b. “The Public Interest in Planning: From Legitimation to Substantive Plan Evaluation.” Planning Theory1 (3): 226–49.
4.
AlexanderE. R.2010. “Planning, Policy and the Public Interest: Planning Regimes and Planners’ Ethics and Practices.” International Planning Studies15 (2): 143–62.
5.
AllmendingerP.2001. Planning in Postmodern Times. London: Routledge.
6.
AllmendingerP.2002. “Towards a Post-positivist Typology of Planning Theory.” Planning Theory1 (1): 77–99.
7.
AltshulerA.1965. “The Goals of Comprehensive Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners31 (3): 186–95.
8.
AnsaloniF.TedeschiM.2016. “Ethics and Spatial Justice: Unfolding Non-Linear Possibilities for Planning Action.” Planning Theory15 (3): 316–32.
9.
BeckC. T.2002. “A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Research.” MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/child Nursing27 (4): 214–21.
10.
BenchS.DayT.2010. “The User Experience of Critical Care Discharge: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Nursing Studies47 (4): 487–99.
11.
BenhabibS.1997. “Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. by Jürgen Habermas (Review by: Seyla Benhabib).” The American Political Science Review91 (3): 725–26.
12.
BenthamJ.1970. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). Edited by BurnsJ. HHartH. L. A.London: Athlone Press.
13.
BrennerN.MarcuseP.MayerM., eds. 2012. Cities for People, Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City. London: Routledge.
14.
BrodieJ. M.2007. “Reforming Social Justice in Neoliberal Times.” Studies in Social Justice1 (2): 93–107.
15.
BurtonE.2003. “Housing for an Urban Renaissance: Implications for Social Equity.” Housing Studies18 (4): 537–62.
16.
CampbellH.2006. “Just Planning: The Art of Situated Ethical Judgment.” Journal of Planning Education and Research26 (1): 92–106.
17.
CampbellH.MarshallR.2002. “Utilitarianism’s Bad Breath? A Re-evaluation of the Public Interest Justification for Planning.” Planning Theory1 (2): 163–87.
18.
CampbellH.MarshallR.2006. “Towards Justice in Planning: A Reappraisal.” European Planning Studies14 (2): 239–52.
19.
CardosoR.Breda-VázquezI.2007. “Social Justice as a Guide to Planning Theory and Practice: Analyzing the Portuguese Planning System.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research31 (2): 384–400.
20.
CastellsM.1977. The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach (No. 1). London: Edward Arnold.
21.
ChambersS.1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
22.
ChettiparambA.2015. “Articulating Public Interest Through Complexity Theory.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy34 (7): 1284–1305.
23.
CheyneC.2015. “Changing Urban Governance in New Zealand: Public Participation and Democratic Legitimacy in Local Authority Planning and Decision-Making 1989–2014.” Urban Policy and Research33 (4): 416–32.
24.
ClarkB. S.ElliottJ. E.2001. “John Stuart Mill’s Theory of Justice.” Review of Social Economy59 (4): 467–90.
25.
ConnollyJ.SteilJ.2009. “Introduction: Finding Justice in the City.” In Searching for the Just City, edited by MarcuseP.ConnollyJ.NovyJ.OlivioI.PotterC., 21–36. London: Routledge.
26.
CustersB.RanchordasS.2019. “Reuse of Data in Smart Cities: Legal and Ethical Frameworks for Big Data in the Public Arena.” In Appropriate Use of Data in Public Space: Essay Collection, edited by FeldbergF.HaaseR.Van HoeselP.HopmanM.KapteinM.KloostermanK.RanchordasS.Van TimmerenA.VeltmanT.VosselmanJ.YehA., 9–35. Den Haag: NL Digitaal.
27.
DadashpoorH.AlvandipourN.2020. “A Genealogy of the Five Schools of Justice in Planning Thought.” Habitat International101:102189.
28.
DadashpoorH.SheydayiA.2021. “Defining Public Interest in Planning: A Review.” Journal of Planning Literature36 (4): 543–61.
29.
DavidoffP.1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners31 (4): 331–38.
30.
DikeçM.2001. “Justice and the Spatial Imagination.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space33 (10): 1785–1805.
DikeçM.2012. “Space as a Mode of Political Thinking.” Geoforum43 (4): 669–76.
33.
DryzekJ. S.2002. Deliberative Democracy and beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
EdwardsG. A.2015. “Justice, Neoliberal Natures, and Australia’s Water Reforms.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers40 (4): 479–93.
35.
FainsteinN. I.FainsteinS. S.1979. “New Debates in Urban Planning: The Impact of Marxist Theory within the United States.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research3 (1–3): 381–403.
36.
FainsteinS. S.1997. “Justice, politics and the creation of urban space”. In The Urbanization of Injustice, edited by MerrifieldA.SwyngedouwE., 18–44. New York: New York University Press.
37.
FainsteinS. S.1996. “Justice, Politics, and the Creation of Urban Space. In The Urbanization of Injustice, edited by MerrifieldA.SwyngedouwE. 18–44. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
38.
FainsteinS. S.2003. “New Directions in Planning Theory.” In Readings in Planning Theory, edited by FainsteinS.CampbellS., 173–195. Malden: Blackwell
39.
FainsteinS. S.2005. “Cities and Diversity: Should We Want It? Can We Plan for It?”Urban Affairs Review41 (1): 3–19.
40.
FainsteinS. S.2009. “Planning and the Just City.” In Searching for the Just City, edited by MarcuseP.ConnollyJ.NovyJ.OlivoI.PotterC.SteilJ., 39–59. London: Routledge.
41.
FainsteinS. S.2010. The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
42.
FainsteinS. S.2014. “The Just City.” International Journal of Urban Sciences18 (1): 1–18.
43.
FalconiT. M.2016. “Organizational Listening.” In The Sage Encyclopedia of Corporate Reputation, edited by CarrollC. E. 543–46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
FincherR.IvesonK.2008. Planning and Diversity in the City: Redistribution, Recognition and Encounter. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
45.
FincherR.IvesonK.2012. “Justice and Injustice in the City.” Geographical Research50 (3): 231–41.
46.
FitzpatrickT.2011. Welfare Theory: An Introduction to the Theoretical Debates in Social Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
47.
FlathmanR.1966. The Public Interest: An Essay Concerning the Normative Discourse of Politics. New York: John Wiley.
48.
FlyvbjergB.1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
49.
FoglesongR. E.1996. “Planning the Capitalist City.” In Readings in Planning Theory, edited by CampbellS.FainsteinS, 2nd ed., 169–75. Oxford: Blackwell.
50.
ForesterJ.1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
51.
ForesterJ.2012. “From Good Intentions to Critical Pragmatism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning, edited by WeberR.CraneR.285–305. New York: Oxford University Press.
52.
FraserN.1995. “Recognition or Redistribution? A Critical Reading of Iris Young’s Justice and the Politics of Difference.” Journal of Political Philosophy3 (2): 166–80.
53.
FriedmannJ.1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
54.
GrabowS.HeskinA.1973. “Foundations for a Radical Concept of Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners39 (2): 106–14.
55.
GrahamS.HealeyP.1999. “Relational Concepts of Space and Place: Issues for Planning Theory and Practice.” European Planning Studies7 (5): 623–46.
56.
GunderM.2006. “Sustainability: Planning’s Saving Grace or Road to Perdition?”Journal of Planning Education and Research26 (2): 208–21.
57.
HabermasJ.1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Jürgen Habermas. Translated by McCarthyT.London: Heinemann.
58.
HabermasJ.1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: The Critique of Functional Reason. Translated by McCarthyT.London: Heinemann.
59.
HabermasJ.1993. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
60.
HabermasJ.1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Translated by RehgW.Cambridge: MIT Press.
61.
HabermasJ.2018. Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Hoboken: John Wiley.
62.
HareR. M.1992. “Justice and Equality.” In Justice: Alternative Political Perspective, edited by SterbaJ. P, 2nd ed., 185–99. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
63.
HartH.1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64.
HarveyD.1973. Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold.
65.
HarveyD.1992. “Social Justice, Postmodernism and the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research16 (4): 588–601.
66.
HarveyD.1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
67.
HarveyD.2003. “The Right to the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research27 (4): 939–41.
68.
HarveyD.PotterC.2009. “The Right to the Just City.” In Searching for the Just City: Debates in Urban Theory and Practice, edited by MarcuseP.ConnollyJ.NovyJ.OlivoI.PotterC.SteilJ., 40–51. London: Routledge.
69.
HealeyP.1992. “Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” The Town Planning Review63:143–62.
HeldV. P.1972. The Public Interest and Individual Interests. New York: Basic Books.
73.
HeywoodP.1990. “Social Justice and Planning for the Public Interest.” Urban Policy and Research8 (2): 60–68.
74.
HillierJ.2002. Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London: Routledge.
75.
HoldenM.2017. “Public Interest.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, edited by TurnerB. S.Kyung-SupC.EpsteinC. F.KivistoP.OuthwaiteW.RyanJ. M., 1–2.Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
76.
HossainS.HackenbrochK.2019. “Whose Interest Finally Counts? The Statutory Production of Urban Space at the Fringes of Dhaka, Bangladesh.” Planning Theory18 (2): 167–90.
77.
HoweE.1992. “Professional Roles and the Public Interest in Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature6 (3): 230–48.
78.
InnesJ. E.1995. “Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice.” Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (3): 183–89.
79.
InnesJ. E.1996. “Planning through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal.” Journal of the American Planning Association62 (4): 460–72.
80.
InnesJ. E.BooherD. E.2015. “A Turning Point for Planning Theory? Overcoming Dividing Discourses.” Planning Theory14 (2): 195–213.
81.
IsraelE.FrenkelA.2018. “Social Justice and Spatial Inequality: Toward a Conceptual Framework.” Progress in Human Geography42 (5): 647–65.
82.
KloskoG.1993. History of Political Theory: An Introduction. Vol. 1. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
83.
KlostermanR. E.1980. “A Public Interest Criterion.” Journal of the American Planning Association46 (3): 323–33.
84.
KnightJ.JackK.1992. Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85.
LaraA. P.Da CostaE. M.FurlaniT. Z.YigitcanlaT.2016. “Smartness That Matters: Towards a Comprehensive and Human-Centered Characterization of Smart Cities.” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity2 (2): 8.
86.
LefebvreH.1996. “The Right to the City.” In Writings on Cities, edited by KofinanE.LebasE., 63–184. Cambridge: Blackwell.
87.
LennonM.2017. “On ‘the Subject’ of Planning’s Public Interest.” Planning Theory16 (2): 150–68.
88.
LichfieldN.1964. “Cost-Benefit Analysis in Plan Evaluation.” The Town Planning Review35 (2): 159–69.
89.
LichfieldN.1971. “Cost-Benefit Analysis in Planning: A Critique of the Roskill Commission.” Regional Studies5 (3): 157–83.
90.
LiedmanS. E.1993. From Plato to the Fall of Communism: The History of Political Ideas. Stockholm: Bonnier Alba
91.
LindblomC. E.1959. “The Science of “Muddling Through.””Public Administration Review19:79–88.
92.
MalekJ. A.LimS. B.PalutturiS.2021. “The Ethics of Smart City Planning: Examining Post-utilitarianism in Malaysian Blueprints.” In 2021 International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS), 1–5. IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9533225.
93.
MarcuseP.2009a. “From Critical Urban Theory to the Right to the City.” City13 (2–3): 185–97.
94.
MarcuseP., ed. 2009b. Searching for the Just City. New York: Routledge.
95.
MarcuseP.2015. “Gentrification, Social Justice, and Personal Ethics.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research39 (6): 1263–69.
96.
PMarcuseConnollyJ.NovyJ.OlivoI.PotterC.SteilJ., eds. 2009. Searching for the Just City: Debates in Urban Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
97.
MartensK.2006. “Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Social Justice.” Berkeley Planning Journal19:1–17.
MarxK.EngelsF.1848. Communist Party Manifesto: Published February 1848. London: Printed in the office of the “Educational Society for Workers” by J.E. Burghard
100.
MattilaH.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.
101.
MattilaH.2018. “Public Participation and Legitimacy Management in Planning: A Habermasian Perspective to Finnish Welfarist Planning Tradition.” Geographical Annals: Series B, Human Geography100 (4): 309–28.
102.
MayerM.2012. “The “Right to the City” in Urban Social Movements.” In Cities for People, Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City, edited by BrennerN.MarcuseP.MayerM., 63–85. London: Routledge.
103.
McDougallG.1982. “Theory and Practice: A Critique of the Political Economy Approach to Planning.” In Planning Theory: Prospects for the 1980s, edited by HealeyP.McDougallG.ThomasM. J., 258–71. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
104.
MelaA.ToldoA.2019. “Understanding Differences: Different Approaches, Intersectionality and Justice.” In Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities, edited by MelaA.ToldoA., 33–43. Cham: Springer.
105.
MeyersonM.BanfieldE. G.1955. Politics, Planning and the Public Interest: The Case of Public Housing in Chicago. New York: Free Press.
106.
MillJ. S. [1861] 1957. “Utilitarianism.” In Utilitarianism and Other Essays, edited by MillJ. S.BenthamJ., 272–338. London: Penguin Books.
107.
MoonJ. D.1995. “Practical Discourse and Communicative Ethics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Habermas. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy, edited by WhiteS. K., 143–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
108.
MoroniS.2004. “Towards a Reconstruction of the Public Interest Criterion.” Planning Theory3 (2): 151–71.
109.
MoroniS.2016. “The Ethics Behind Evaluation: Lichfield’s Approach and Utilitarianism.” In Evaluation in Planning, edited by AlexanderE. R., 21–38. London: Routledge.
110.
MoroniS.2019. “The Just City. Three Background Issues: Institutional Justice and Spatial Justice, Social Justice and Distributive Justice, the Concept of Justice and Conceptions of Justice.” Planning Theory19 (3): 251–67.
111.
MurphyE.Fox-RogersL.2015. “Perceptions of the Common Good in Planning.” Cities42:231–41.
112.
MusgraveR. A.1973. Public Finance in Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
113.
NozickR.1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
114.
NussbaumM.1979. Aristotle’s On the Motion of Animals. 1st ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press
115.
O’NeillO.2000. Bounds of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
116.
OlsonM.1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, with a New Preface and Appendix. Vol. 124. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
117.
ParkerS.2015. Urban Theory and the Urban Experience: Encountering the City. London: Routledge.
118.
PatersonB. L.ThorneS. E.CanamC.JillingsC.2001. Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research: A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis. Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
119.
PefferR. G.2014. Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
RawlsJ.1967. “Distributive Justice.” In Philosophy, Politics and Society, edited by LaslettP.RuncimanW. G., 219–34. Oxford: Blackwell.
122.
RawlsJ.1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
123.
RawlsJ.1982. “Social Unity and Primary Goods.” In Utilitarianism and Beyond, edited by SenA.WilliamsB., 159–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
124.
RichardsonJ. L.2008. “The Ethics of Neoliberal Institutionalism. In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Reus-SmitC.SnidalC., 222–32. New York: Oxford University Press.
125.
SagerT.1990. Communicate or Calculate: Planning Theory and Social Science Concepts in a Contingency Perspective (Dissertation 11). Stockholm: Nordic Institute for Studies in Urban and Regional Planning.
126.
SagerT.2009. “Planners’ Role: Torn between Dialogical Ideals and Neo-Liberal Realities.” European Planning Studies17 (1): 65–84.
127.
M. J.Sandel, ed. 1984. Liberalism and Its Critics. New York: New York University Press.
128.
SandelowskiM.BarrosoJ.2006. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer.
129.
SandercockL.1998. Towards Cosmopolis. Chichester: John Wiley.
130.
SchoenwandtW.2016. Planning in Crisis? Theoretical Orientations for Architecture and Planning. London: Routledge.
131.
SenA.1992. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
132.
SheydayiA.DadashpoorH.2022. “The Public Interest-Schools of Thought in Planning.” Progress in Planning165:100647.
133.
ShortJ. R.2014. Urban Theory: A Critical Assessment. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
134.
SmithD. M.1997. “Back to the Good Life: Towards an Enlarged Conception of Social Justice.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space15:19–35.
135.
SmithD. M.1998. “How Far Should We Care? On the Spatial Scope of Beneficence.” Progress in Human Geography22:15–38.
136.
SmithD. M.2002. “Social Justice and the South African City.” In Understanding the City: Contemporary and Future Perspectives, edited by EadeJ.MeleC., 66–81. Oxford: Blackwell.
137.
SojaE. W.2009. “The City and Spatial Justice.” Justice spatiale/Spatial Justice1 (1): 1–5.
138.
SojaE. W.2010. Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
139.
SteinS. M.HarperT. L.2002. “The Rawlsian “Political Liberal” Basis of Dialogical/Communicative Planning.” Paper presented at the Association of European Schools of Planning Congress, Volos, Greece, July 11–13.
140.
SterbaJ. P.1992. Justice: Alternative Political Perspectives. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
141.
StraussL.1953. Natural Right and History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
142.
TajbakhshK.2001. The Promise of the City: Space, Identity and Politics in Contemporary Social Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.
143.
Taşan-KokT.2012. “Introduction: Contradictions of Neoliberal Urban Planning.” In Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning, edited by Taşan-KokT.BaetenG., 1–19. Dordrecht: Springer.
144.
TaylorN.1998. “Mistaken Interests and the Discourse Model of Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association64 (1): 64–75.
145.
TebbleAdam James. 2002. “What Is the Politics of Difference?”Political Theory30 (2): 259–81.
146.
Tewdwr-JonesM.AllmendingerP.2002. “Communicative Planning, Collaborative Planning and the Post-positivist Planning Theory Landscape.” In Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, edited by AllmendigerP.Tewdwr-JonesM., 206–16. London: Routledge.
147.
WalzerM.1983. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Oxford: Blackwell.
