Public interest as the main content and purpose of planning is a fuzzy concept in planning literature. The body of literature on the public interest is so complex and diverse that makes it difficult to define and use the concept. In this study, the various definitions are categorized to achieve a framework of the definition of public interest. In addition to being more comprehensive than previous studies, this categorization identifies the main dimensions of a comprehensive definition of public interest. It provides a suitable context for theorists and professionals to have a clear framework for defining the public interest.
AlbrechtsLouis. 2015. “Ingredients for a More Radical Strategic Spatial Planning.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design42 (3): 510–25.
2.
AlbrechtsLouisBarbanenteAngelaMonnoValeria. 2019. “From Stage-managed Planning towards a More Imaginative and Inclusive Strategic Spatial Planning.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space37 (8): 1489–506.
3.
AlexanderErnest R.1992. Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts, and Issues. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
4.
AlexanderErnest R.2002a. “The Public Interest in Planning: From Legitimation to Substantive Plan Evaluation.” Planning Theory1 (3): 226–49.
5.
AlexanderErnest R.2002b. “Planning Rights: Toward Normative Criteria for Evaluating Plans.” International Planning Studies7 (3): 191–212.
6.
AlexanderErnest R.2004. “Capturing the Public Interest: Promoting Planning in Conservative Times.” Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (1): 102–06.
7.
AlexanderErnest R.2007. “Planning Rights and Their Implications.” Planning Theory6 (2): 112–26.
8.
AlexanderErnest R.2010. “Planning, Policy and the Public Interest: Planning Regimes and Planners’ Ethics and Practices.” International Planning Studies15 (2): 143–62.
9.
AlexanderErnest R.MazzaLuigiMoroniStefano. 2012. “Planning without Plans? Nomocracy or Teleocracy for Social-spatial Ordering.” Progress in Planning77 (2): 37–87.
10.
AltshulerAlan. 1965. “The Goals of Comprehensive Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners31 (3): 186–95.
BenthamJeremy. 1973. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation: In the Utilitarians. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
22.
BondSophie. 2011. “Negotiating a ‘Democratic Ethos’ Moving Beyond the Agonistic–communicative Divide.” Planning Theory10 (2): 161–86.
23.
BoothPhilip. 2002. “From Property Rights to Public Control: The Quest for Public Interest in the Control of Urban Development.” Town Planning Review73 (2): 153–70.
24.
BozemanBarry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
25.
BradleyQuintin. 2019. “Public Support for Green Belt: Common Rights in Countryside Access and Recreation.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning21 (6): 692–701.
26.
BrownAlisonMsokaColmanDankocoIbrahima. 2015. “A Refugee in My Own Country: Evictions or Property Rights in the Urban Informal Economy.” Urban Studies52 (12): 2234–49.
27.
CampbellHeatherMarshallRobert. 2000. “Moral Obligations, Planning, and the Public Interest: A Commentary on Current British Practice.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27 (2): 297–312.
28.
CampbellHeatherMarshallRobert. 2002. “Utilitarianism’s Bad Breath? A Re-evaluation of the Public Interest Justification for Planning.” Planning Theory1 (2): 163–87.
29.
CaulfieldJaniceMinneryOhn. 1994. “Planning as Legitimation: A Study of the Brisbane Strategy Plans.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research18 (4): 673–89.
30.
CerquettiMaraNanniCaterinaVitaleCarmen. 2019. “Managing the Landscape as a Common Good? Evidence from the Case of “Mutonia” (Italy).” Land Use Policy87:104022.
31.
ChambersSimone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
32.
ChettiparambAngelique. 2018. “Meta-operations, Autopoiesis and Neo-systems Thinking: What Significance for Spatial Planners?” Planning Theory17 (4): 628–43.
33.
CheyneChristine. 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.
34.
ClarkeJohn. 2004. “Dissolving the Public Realm? The Logics and Limits of Neo-liberalism.” Journal of Social Policy33 (1): 27–48.
35.
ConnollyWilliam E.2002. Identity, Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
36.
CullingworthBarryNadinVincent. 2003. Town and Country Planning in the UK. New York: Routledge.
37.
CuthbertAlexander R.1991. “For a Few Dollars More: Urban Planning and the Legitimation Process in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research15 (4): 575–93.
38.
DaggerRichard. 1997. Civic Virtues: Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.
39.
DavidNina P. 2019. “The Role of the Development Management Framework in the Implementation of Flexible Planning Tools: Insights from a Tale of a Local Planned Unit Development Project.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, First Published 29 January 2019: 1–18.
40.
DavoudiSiminGallandDanielSteadDominic. 2020. “Reinventing Planning and Planners: Ideological Decontestations and Rhetorical Appeals.” Planning Theory19 (1): 17–37.
41.
DownsAnthony. 1962. “The Public Interest: Its Meaning in a Democracy.” Social Research29:1–36.
42.
DryzekJohn S.1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
DryzekJohn S.2002. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.
44.
FallethEva IreneHanssenGro SandkjaerSaglieInger Lise. 2010. “Challenges to Democracy in Market-oriented Urban Planning in Norway.” European Planning Studies18 (5): 737–53.
45.
FlathmanRichard. 1966. The Public Interest: An Essay Concerning the Normative Discourse of Politics. New York: John Wiley.
46.
FlyvbjergBent. 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
47.
ForesterJohn. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: The University of California Press.
48.
ForesterJohn. 1993. Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice. New York: SUNY Press.
49.
ForesterJohn. 1998. “Rationality, Dialogue and Learning: What Community and Environmental Mediators Can Teach Us about the Practice of Civil Society?” In Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age, edited by DouglasM.FriedmanJ., 213–26. New York: Wiley.
50.
Fox-RogersLindaMurphyEndaGristBerna. 2011. “Legislative Change in Ireland: A Marxist Political Economy Critique of Planning Law.” Town Planning Review82 (6): 639–68.
51.
FriedmannJohn. 1989. “Planning in the Public Domain: Discourse and Praxis.” Journal of Planning Education and Research8 (2): 128–30.
52.
FriedmannJohnNisbetRobertGansHerbert J.1973. “The Public Interest and Community Participation: Toward a Reconstruction of Public Philosophy.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners39 (1): 2–12.
53.
GauppPeter G.1969. “Community Organization and the Public Interest.” Community Mental Health Journal5 (3): 233–39.
54.
GewirthAlan. 1986. “Professional Ethics: The Separatist Thesis.” Ethics96 (2): 282–300.
55.
GoldmanAlan H.1980. The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
56.
GrantJill. 1994. “On Some Public Uses of Planning ‘Theory’: Rhetoric and Expertise in Community Planning Disputes.” Town Planning Review65 (1): 59.
57.
GrantJill. 2005. “Rethinking the Public Interest as a Planning Concept.” Plan Canada45 (2): 48–50.
58.
GrazianoLuigi. 1996. “On Special Interests, Public Interests, and Unequal Representation.” International Political Science Review17 (3): 307–17.
59.
GualiniEnrico, ed. 2015. Planning and Conflict: Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments. London, UK: Routledge.
60.
GunderMichael. 2003. “Passionate Planning for the Others’ Desire: An Agonistic Response to the Dark Side of Planning.” Progress in Planning60 (3): 235–319.
61.
HabermasJürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Bostone: Beacon Press.
62.
HabermasJürgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 2: The Critique of Functional Reason, translated by T. McCarthy. London, UK: Heinemann.
63.
HabermasJürgen. 1993. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, translated by
CroninC.. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
64.
HabermasJürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, translated by William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: Polity, 514–15.
65.
HäikiöLiisa. 2007. “Expertise, Representation and the Common Good: Grounds for Legitimacy in the Urban Governance Network.” Urban Studies44 (11): 2147–62.
66.
HanssenGro S.2010. “Ensuring Local Community Interests in Market-oriented Urban Planning? The Role of Local Politicians.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28 (4): 714–32.
67.
HarmonMichael Mont. 1969. “Administrative Policy Formulation and the Public Interest.” Public Administration Review29 (5): 483–491.
68.
HealeyPatsy. 1992. “Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” Town Planning Review63 (2): 143.
69.
HealeyPatsy. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London, UK: Macmillan International Higher Education.
70.
HeldVirginia. 1970. The Public Interest and Individual Interests. New York: Basic Books.
71.
HeldVirginia. 1984. Rights and Goods. New York: Free Press.
72.
HendriksCarolyn M.2009. “Policy Design without Democracy? Making Democratic Sense of Transition Management.” Policy Sciences42 (4): 341.
73.
HeywoodPhil. 1990. “Social Justice and Planning for the Public Interest.” Urban Policy and Research8 (2): 60–68.
74.
HillierJean. 2002. Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-use Planning, vol. 5. New York: Psychology Press.
75.
HillierJean. 2003. “Agonizing Over Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals Cannot Be Real.” Planning Theory2 (1): 37–59.
76.
HopkinsDiane. 2010. “Planning a City through ‘Dialogue’: Deliberative Policy-making in Action in Western Australia.” Urban Policy and Research28 (3): 261–76.
77.
HossainShahadatHackenbrochKirsten. 2018. “Whose Interest Finally Counts? The Statutory Production of Urban Space at the Fringes of Dhaka, Bangladesh.” Planning Theory18 (2): 167–90.
78.
HoweElizabeth. 1992. “Professional Roles and the Public Interest in Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature6 (3): 230–48.
79.
HoweElizabeth. 1994. Acting on Ethics in City Planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
80.
HoweElizabethKaufmanJerome. 1979. “The Ethics of Contemporary American Planners.” Journal of the American Planning Association45 (3): 243–55.
81.
HsiehHsiu-FangShannonSarah E.2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research15 (9): 1277–88.
82.
HytönenJonne. 2016. “The Problematic Relationship of Communicative Planning Theory and the Finnish Legal Culture.” Planning Theory15 (3): 223–38.
83.
InnesJudith E.1995. “Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice.” Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (3): 183–89.
84.
InnesJudith E.1996. “Planning through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal.” Journal of the American Planning Association62 (4): 460–72.
85.
InnesJudith E.BooherDavid E.2015. “A Turning Point for Planning Theory? Overcoming Dividing Discourses.” Planning Theory14 (2): 195–213.
JamalKarimBowieNorman E.1995. “Theoretical Considerations for a Meaningful Code of Professional Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics14 (9): 703–14.
88.
KlaufusChristien. 2018. “Cemetery Modernization and the Common Good in Bogotá.” Bulletin of Latin American Research37 (2): 206–21.
89.
KleinJohannesMäntysaloRaineJuholaSirkku. 2016. “Legitimacy of Urban Climate Change Adaptation: A Case in Helsinki.” Regional Environmental Change16 (3): 815–26.
90.
KlostermanRichard E.1980. “A Public Interest Criterion.” Journal of the American Planning Association46 (3): 323–33.
91.
KnightJack. 1992. Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
92.
LennonMick. 2017. “On ‘the Subject’ of Planning’s Public Interest.” Planning Theory16 (2): 150–68.
93.
LennonMick. 2019. “On Issues of Plurality and Practice in Considering Planning’s Public Interest.” Planning Theory18 (2): 265–68.
94.
LeysWayne A.PerryCharner M.1959. Philosophy and the Public Interest. Symposium of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association, Madison, WI.
95.
LichfieldNathaniel. 1960. “Cost-benefit Analysis in City Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners26 (4): 273–79.
96.
LichfieldNathaniel. 1964. “Cost-Benefit Analysis in Plan Evaluation.” The Town Planning Review35 (2): 159–169.
97.
LichfieldNathaniel. 1971. “Cost-benefit Analysis in Planning: A Critique of the Roskill Commission.” Regional Studies5 (3): 157–83.
98.
LichfieldNathaniel. 1988. Economics in Urban Conservation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
LichfieldNathaniel. 1996. Community Impact Evaluation. London, UK: University College Press.
101.
LohCarolyn G.ArroyoRodney L.2017. “Special Ethical Considerations for Planners in Private Practice.” Journal of the American Planning Association83 (2): 168–79.
102.
MaidmentChristopher. 2016. “In the Public Interest? Planning in the Peak District National Park.” Planning Theory15 (4): 366–85.
103.
MargalitTaliaKempAdriana. 2019. “Stratified and Defensive Planning Democracy: Hearings on Objections to Plans in Nine Israeli Cities.” Urban Studies56 (16): 3504–21.
104.
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.
105.
MattilaHanna. 2018. “Public Participation and Legitimacy Management in Planning: A Habermasian Perspective to Finnish Welfarist Planning Tradition.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography100 (4): 309–28.
106.
MattilaHanna. 2020. “Habermas Revisited: Resurrecting the Contested Roots of Communicative Planning Theory.” Progress in Planning141:100431.
107.
MaysNicholasPopeCatherinePopayJennie. 2005. “Systematically Reviewing Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence to Inform Management and Policy-making in the Health Field.” Journal of Health Services Research & Policy10 (1_suppl): 6–20.
108.
MazzaLuigi. 1990. “Planning as a Moral Craft.” Planning Theory2 (3): 47–50.
109.
McAuslanPatrick. 1980. The Ideologies of Planning Law. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
110.
McKayStephen. 2010. “Efficacy and Ethics: An Investigation into the Role of Ethics, Legitimacy and Power in Planning.” Town Planning Review81 (4): 425–44.
111.
McKayStephenMurrayMichaelHuiLiu Ping. 2011. “Pitfalls in Strategic Planning: Lessons for Legitimacy.” Space and Polity15 (2): 107–24.
112.
MeyersonMartinBanfieldEdward C.1955. Politics, Planning, and the Public Interest: The Case of Public Housing in Chicago. New York: Free Press.
113.
MillJohn Stuart. (1861) 1962. “Utilitarianism.” In Utilitarianism, edited by WarnockM.251–321. London, UK: Fontana Press.
114.
MooreTerry. 1978. “Why Allow Planners to Do What They Do? A Justification from Economic Theory.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners44 (4): 387–98.
115.
MoroniStefano. 2004. “Towards a Reconstruction of the Public Interest Criterion.” Planning Theory3 (2): 151–71.
116.
MoroniStefano. 2006. “The Ethics behind Evaluation: Lichfield’s Approach and Utilitarianism.” In Urban and Regional Planning and Development Series, edited by AlexanderE. R.21–38. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
117.
MoroniStefano. 2018. “Public Interest.” In The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory, edited by GunderM.MadanipourA.WatsonV., 69–80. London, UK: Routledge.
118.
MoroniStefano. 2019. “Constitutional and Post-constitutional Problems: Reconsidering the Issues of Public Interest, Agonistic Pluralism and Private Property in Planning.” Planning Theory18 (1): 5–23.
119.
MouffeChantal. 1995. “Post-Marxism: Democracy and Identity.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space13 (3): 259–65.
120.
MouffeChantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. New York: Verso.
121.
MouffeChantal.2013. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. New York: Verso Books.
122.
MualamNirAltermanRachelle. 2018. “Looking into the ‘Black Box’ of Heritage Protection: Analysis of Conservation Area Disputes in London through the Eyes of Planning Inspectors.” International Journal of Heritage Studies24 (6): 599–618.
123.
MurphyEndaFox-RogersLinda. 2015. “Perceptions of the Common Good in Planning.” Cities42:231–41.
124.
NozickRobert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
125.
OchejePaul D.2007. “‘In the Public Interest’: Forced Evictions, Land Rights and Human Development in Africa.” Journal of African Law51 (2): 173–214.
126.
OlsonMancur. 2012. “The Logic of Collective Action [1965].” In Contemporary Sociological Theory, edited by CraigCalhounJosephGerteisJamesMoodyStevenPfaffIndermohanVirk, 124–128. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
127.
OlssonKrister. 2008. “Citizen Input in Urban Heritage Management and Planning: A Quantitative Approach to Citizen Participation.” Town Planning Review79 (4): 371–94.
128.
OppenheimFelix E.1975. “II. Self-interest and Public Interest.” Political Theory3 (3): 259–76.
129.
PacioneMichael. 1990. “Private Profit and Public Interest in the Residential Development Process: A Case Study of Conflict in the Urban Fringe.” Journal of Rural Studies6 (1): 103–16.
130.
PacioneMichael. 2013. “Private Profit, Public Interest and Land Use Planning—A Conflict Interpretation of Residential Development Pressure in Glasgow’s Rural–Urban Fringe.” Land Use Policy32:61–77.
131.
PenningtonMark. 2000. Planning and the Political Market: Public Choice and the Politics of Government Failure. London, UK: A&C Black.
132.
PenpecioğluMehmetTaşan-KokTuna. 2016. “Alienated and Politicized? Young Planners’ Confrontation with Entrepreneurial and Authoritarian State Intervention in Urban Development in Turkey.” European Planning Studies24 (6): 1037–55.
133.
PløgerJohn. 2004. “Ethics in Norwegian Planning: Legitimacy, Ambivalence, Rhetoric.” Planning, Practice & Research19 (1): 49–66.
134.
PløgerJohn. 2018. “Conflict and Agonism.” In The Handbook of Planning Theory, edited by GunderM.MadanipourA.WatsonV., 264–75. New York: Routledge.
135.
RawlsJohn. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
136.
RawlsJohn. 1982. “Social Unity and Primary Goods.” In Utilitarianism and Beyond, edited by SenAmartyaWilliamsBernard, 159–85. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
137.
ReadeEric. (1997) 2013. “Planning in the Future or Planning of the Future.” In Town Planning into the 21st Century, edited by BlowersAndyEvansBob, 83–116. New York: Routledge.
138.
RousseauDenise M.ManningJoshuaDenyerDavid. 2008. “11 Evidence in Management and Organizational Science: Assembling the Field’s Full Weight of Scientific Knowledge through Syntheses.” Academy of Management Annals2 (1): 475–515.
139.
Royal Town Planning Institute. 2007. Code of Professional Conduct. London, UK: RTPI.
SagerTore Øivin. 2011. “Neo-liberal Urban Planning Policies: A Literature Survey 1990–2010.” Progress in Planning76 (4): 147–99.
142.
SagerTore Øivin. 2012a. “Collective Action: Balancing Public and Particularistic Interests.” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning, edited by WeberR.CraneR., 25–45. New York: Oxford University Press.
143.
SagerTore Øivin. 2012b. Reviving Critical Planning Theory: Dealing with Pressure, Neo-liberalism, and Responsibility in Communicative Planning. New York: Routledge.
144.
SagerTore Øivin. 2012a. “Collective Action: Balancing Public and Particularistic Interests.” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning, edited by WeberRachelCraneRandall, 25–45. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
145.
SaletWillem. 2019. “The Making of the Public.” Planning Theory18 (2): 260–64.
146.
SamuelsonPaul A.1995. “Diagrammatic Exposition of a Theory of Public Expenditure.” In Essential Readings in Economics, edited by SaulEstrinMarinAlan, 159–171. London, UK: Palgrave.
147.
SandercockLeonieBridgmanRae. 1999. “Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research8 (1): 108.
148.
SandercockLeonieDoveyKim. 2002. “Pleasure, Politics, and the “Public Interest”: Melbourne’s Riverscape Revitalization.” Journal of the American Planning Association68 (2): 151.
149.
SchubertGlendon. 1960. The Public Interest. New York: Free Press.
150.
ShevellarLyndaJohnsonLaurelLyonsKristen. 2015. “Re-imagining the Practices of Town, Social and Community Planning in Australia: Opportunities for Planning in Neoliberal Policy Settings.” Australian Planner52 (4): 266–76.
151.
Šmid HribarMatejaKozinaJaniBoleDavidUrbancMimi. 2018. “Public Goods, Common-pool Resources, and the Commons: The Influence of Historical Legacy on Modern Perceptions in Slovenia as a Transitional Society.” Urbani Izziv29 (1): 96–109.
152.
SoraufFrank J.1956. “State Patronage in a Rural County.” The American Political Science Review50 (4): 1046–56.
153.
SoraufFrank J.1957. “The Public Interest Reconsidered.” The Journal of Politics19 (4): 616–39.
154.
South African Planning Institute. 2005. Code of Conduct. Durban, South Africa: SAPI.
155.
SteeleWendy. 2020. The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory, edited by GunderMichaelMadanipourAliWatsonVanessa. Oxon: Routledge, 361.
156.
StollmanIsrael. 1979. The Values of the City Planner. The Practice of Local Government Planning. Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 20.
157.
TaitMalcolm. 2011. “Trust and the Public Interest in the Micropolitics of Planning Practice.” Journal of Planning Education and Research31 (2): 157–71.
158.
TaitMalcolm. 2012. “Building Trust in Planning Professionals: Understanding the Contested Legitimacy of a Planning Decision.” Town Planning Review83 (5): 597–618.
159.
TaitMalcolm. 2016. “Planning and the Public Interest: Still a Relevant Concept for Planners?” Planning Theory15 (4): 335–43.
160.
TaylorNigel. 1998. “Mistaken Interests and the Discourse Model of Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association64 (1): 64–75.
161.
TaylorZack. 2019. “Pathways to Legitimacy.” Planning Theory18 (2): 214–36.
162.
TranfieldDavidDenyerDavidSmartPalminder. 2003. “Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-informed Management Knowledge by Means of a Systematic Review.” British Journal of Management14 (3): 207–22.
163.
TugwellRexford G.1940. “Implementing the General Interest.” Public Administration Review1 (1): 32–49.
164.
van der MolenPaul. 2015. “Property and Administration: Comparative Observations on Property Rights and Spatial Planning with Some Cases from the Netherlands.” Administration & Society47 (2): 171–96.
165.
VasuM.1979. Politics and Planning. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
166.
WamsleyGary L.GoodsellCharles T.RohrJohn A.StiversCamilla M.WhiteOrion F.WolfJames F.2016. “Public Administration and the Governance Process: Shifting the Political Dialogue.” The Constitutional School of American Public Administration, edited by StephanieNewboldDavidH., 98–118. Routledge.
WinklerTanja. 2011. “On the Liberal Moral Project of Planning in South Africa.” In Urban Forum, 22: 135–148. The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-011-9110-4.
