This article explores the possibilities for using administrative discretion to do planning that reflects urban and regional planners’ own deeply held values. The article first charts the broad character of administrative discretion and the limits of discretion. Potential problems include a lack of accountability, manipulation, unpredictability, intrusiveness, and poor decision making. The second section of the article examines one area of value-based planning—progressive planning. It concludes that administrative discretion may provide enough space for value-based planning, but using discretion for such actions often requires testing a set of ethical and political limits of working within governments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, Bruce
. 1980. Social justice and the liberal state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
Alexander, Larry
, and Maimon Schwartzchild. 1987. Liberalism, neutrality, and equality of welfare vs. equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs16, 1: 85-110.
3.
Altshuler, Alan
. 1965. The city planning process: A political analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4.
Barth, Thomas
. 1992. The public interest and administrative discretion. American Review of Public Administration22, 4: 289-300.
5.
Beatley, Timothy
. 1984. Applying moral principles to growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association50, 4: 459-469.
6.
Behn, Robert
. 1998. What right do public managers have to lead?Public Administration Review58, 3: 209-224.
7.
Booth, Philip
. 1995. Zoning of discretionary action: Certainty and responsiveness in implementing planning policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research14, 2: 103-112.
8.
Brodkin, Evelyn
. 1997. Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review71, 1: 1-33.
9.
Caro, Robert
. 1974. The power broker. New York: Knopf.
10.
City of Toronto Planning and Development Staff, and Gerda Wekerle
. 1992. A working guide for planning and designing safer urban environments. Toronto: Safe City Committee, City of Toronto.
11.
Clavel, Pierre
. 1986. The progressive city: Planning and participation, 1969-1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
12.
Clavel, Pierre
, and Wim Wiewel, eds. 1991. Harold Washington and the neighborhoods: Progressive city government in Chicago, 1983-1987. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
13.
Davidoff, Paul
. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners31, 4: 331-338.
14.
Denhardt, Kathryn
. 1988. The ethics of public service: Resolving moral dilemmas in public organizations. New York: Greenwood.
15.
Dobel, Patrick
. 1998. Political prudence and the ethics of leadership. Public Administration Review58, 1: 74-81.
16.
Dobel, Patrick
. 1990. Integrity in the public service. Public Administration Review50, 3: 354-366.
17.
Dworkin, Ronald
. 1978. Liberalism. In Public and private morality, Stuart Hampshire, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Dworkin, Ronald
. 1977. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Edelman, Murray
. 1988. Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
20.
Fogelsong, Richard
. 1990. Planning for social democracy. Journal of the American Planning Association56, 2: 215-216.
21.
Fogelsong, Richard
. 1986. Planning the capitalist city: The colonial era to the 1920s. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
Forester, John
. 1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
Forsyth, Ann.1999. Constructing suburbs: Competing voices in a debate over urban growth. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Gordon and Breach.
24.
Forsyth, Ann.
. 1997. Five images of a suburb: Perspectives on a new urban development. Journal of the American Planning Association63, 1: 45-60.
25.
Giddens, Anthony
. 1979. Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
Gilboy, Janet
. 1992. Penetrability of administrative systems: Political “casework” and immigration inspections. Law and Society Review26, 2: 273-314.
27.
Gondim, Linda
. 1988. Planning practice within public bureaucracy: A new perspective on the roles of planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research7, 3: 163-172.
28.
Goodin, Robert
. 1988. Reasons for welfare: The political theory of the welfare state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
Harper, Thomas
, and Stanley Stein. 1992. The centrality of normative ethical theory to contemporary planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research11, 2: 105-116.
30.
Hayden, Dolores
. 1995. The power of place. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
Heskin, Alan
. 1991. The struggle for community. Boulder, CO: Westview.
32.
Howe, Elizabeth
. 1994. Acting on ethics in city planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
33.
Howe, Elizabeth
. 1992. Professional roles and the public interest in planning. Journal of Planning Literature6, 3: 230-248.
34.
Howe, Elizabeth
, and Jerome Kaufman. 1981. The values of contemporary American planners. Journal of the American Planning Association47, 3: 266-275.
35.
Howe, Elizabeth
. 1979. The ethics of contemporary American planners. Journal of the American Planning Association45, 3: 243-255.
36.
Innes, Judith
. 1996. Planning through consensus building. Journal of the American Planning Association62, 4: 460-472.
37.
Jowell, Jeffrey
. 1973. The legal control of administrative discretion. Public Law18: 178-220.
38.
Krueckeberg, Donald
. 1983. The culture of planning. In Introduction to planning history in the United States, Donald Krueckeberg, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
39.
Krumholz, Norman
. 1982. A retrospective view of equity planning: Cleveland 1969-1979. Journal of the American Planning Association48, 2: 163-174.
40.
Krumholz, Norman
, and Pierre Clavel. 1994. Reinventing cities: Equity planners tell their stories. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
41.
Krumholz, Norman
, and John Forester. 1990. Making equity planning work: Leadership in the public sector. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
42.
Lipsky, Michael
. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
43.
Little, Jo.1994. Gender, planning and the policy process. Oxford: Pergamon.
44.
Marris, Peter
. 1997. The politics of uncertainty. London: Routledge.
45.
Moore, Mark
. 1985. Realms of obligation and virtue. In Ethics in planning, Martin Wachs, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
46.
Nozick, Robert
. 1974. Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
47.
Pynoos, Jon.1986. Breaking the rules: Bureaucracy and reform in public housing. New York: Plenum.
48.
Rawls, John
. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
49.
Reardon, Kenneth
. 1998. Enhancing the capacity of community-based organizations in East St. Louis. Journal of Planning Education and Research17, 4: 323-333.
50.
Reich, Robert
. 1988. Policy making in a democracy. In The power of public ideas, Robert Reich, ed. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
51.
Schön, Donald
. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
52.
Schön, Donald
, and Martin Rein. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
53.
Seely, John
. 1963. Social science? Some probative problems. In Sociology on trial, Maurice Stein and Arthur Vidich, eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
54.
Simmons, Louise
. 1996. Dilemmas of progressives in government: Playing Solomon in an age of austerity. Economic Development Quarterly10, 2: 159-171.
55.
Spicer, Michael
. 1993. On Hayek and public administration: An argument for discretion within rules. Administration and Society25, 1: 46-59.
56.
Takata, Susan
. 1986. Discretion within the county parole bureaucracy: A theoretical synthesis of the interactionist and phenomenological perspectives. Studies in Symbolic Interaction7, B: 405-429.
57.
Tewdyr-Jones, Mark
. 1995. Development control and the legitimacy of planning decisions. Town Planning Review66, 2: 163-181.
58.
Titmuss, Richard
. 1971. Welfare “rights,” law and discretion. Political Quarterly42, 2: 113-132.
59.
Vickers, Geoffrey
. 1965. The art of judgment: A study of policy making. London: Harper and Row.
60.
Waldron, Jeremy
. 1989. Legislation and moral neutrality. In Liberal neutrality, Robert Goodin and Andrew Reeve, eds. London: Routledge.
61.
Waldron, Jeremy
. n.d. The law in theory and practice in British politics. Unpublished manuscript. New York: Columbia University.
62.
Warwick, Donald
. 1981. The ethics of administrative discretion. In Public duties: The moral obligations of government officials, Joel Fleishman, Lance Liebman, and Mark Moore, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
Watson, Sophie
, ed. 1990. Playing the state: Australian feminist interventions. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
64.
Whitzman, Carolyn
. 1992. Taking back planning: Promoting women’s safety in public places: The Toronto experience. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research9, 2: 169-179.
65.
Wilson, David
. 1989. Toward a revised urban managerialism: Local managers and community development block grants. Political Geography Quarterly8, 1: 21-41.
66.
Wiseman, Leslie
. 1992. Discrimination by design: A feminist critique of the man-made environment. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
67.
Yeatman, Anna
, ed. 1990. Bureaucrats, technocrats and femocrats: Essays on the contemporary Australian state. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
68.
Young, Iris Marion
. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
