‘Planning ethics’ 1 and rediscovering the idea of planning 2

Abstract

This paper is inspired by Sue Hendler’s considerable contributions to the field of ethics and planning. There can be few more insightful vantage points from which to view planning than through exploration of the field’s engagement with ethics. A perspective derived from ethics helps to cut through the analytical noise, to expose often troubling but fundamental issues about the very nature of planning. This paper examines how ethical concerns have been, and are being, understood in planning, and the profound questions which are posed about past, present and future intellectual and professional priorities. It concludes that the planning community needs to rediscover its ethical voice and its confidence in the idea of planning.

Keywords

Ethics planning theory professional ethics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beckett

(1983) Worstwood Ho. London: John Calder.

Bickenbach

Hendler

(1994) The moral mandate of the ‘profession’ of planning. In: Thomas

(ed.) Values and Planning. Aldershot: Avebury, 162–177.

Bolan

(1983) The structure of ethical choice in planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 3: 23–34.

Campbell

(2002) Planning: an idea of value. Town Planning Review 73(3): 271–288.

Campbell

(ed.) (2005a) Interface: Reflexivity and the planning academic: challenges and responsibilities. Planning Theory and Practice 6(2): 235–253.

Campbell

(ed.) (2005b) Interface: The darker side of local communities: is this the real world of planning? Planning Theory and Practice 6(4): 519–543.

Campbell

(2006) Just planning: the art of situated ethical judgment. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(1): 92–106.

Campbell

(2012) Planning to change the world: between knowledge and action lies synthesis. Journal of Planning Education and Research 32(2) (forthcoming).

Campbell

Marshall

(1999) Ethical frameworks and planning theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23(3): 464–478.

10.

Campbell

Marshall

(2000) Moral obligations, planning and the public interest: a commentary on current British practice. Environment and Planning B 27(2): 297–312.

11.

Campbell

Marshall

(2005) The changing conception of professionalism in planning. Town Planning Review 76(2): 191–214.

12.

Davidoff

(1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 31(4): 331–338.

13.

Evans

(1993) Why we no longer need a planning profession. Planning Practice and Research 8(1): 9–15.

14.

Fainstein

(2000) New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review 35(4): 451–78.

15.

Fainstein

(2010) The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

16.

Flyvbjerg

(1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy and Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Forester

(1999) The Deliberative Practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

18.

Forester

(2009) Editorial: Learning from the process versus outcomes debate. Planning Theory and Practice 10(4): 429–433.

19.

Forester

(2012) Learning to improve practice: lessons from practice stories and practitioners’ own discourse analysis. Planning Theory and Practice 13(1): (forthcoming).

20.

Friedmann

(2000) The good city: in defense of utopian thinking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(2): 460–472.

21.

Harper

Stein

(1992) The centrality of normative ethical theory to contemporary planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 11(2): 105–116.

22.

Healey

(1985) The professionalism of planning in Britain: its form and consequences. Town Planning Review 56(4): 492–507.

23.

Healey

(1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

24.

Healey

Underwood

(1978) Professional ideals and planning practice: a report on research into planners’ ideals in practice in London Borough Planning Departments. Progress in Planning 9: 73–127.

25.

Hendler

(1990) Professional codes as bridges between planning and ethics: a case study. Plan Canada 3: 22–29.

26.

Hendler

(1991a) Do professional codes legitimate planners’ values? In: Thomas

Healey

(eds) Dilemmas of Planning Practice, Ethics Legitimacy and the Validation of Knowledge. Aldershot: Avebury, 156–167.

27.

Hendler

(1991b) Ethics in planning: the views of students and practitioners. Journal of Planning Education and Research 10(2): 99–105.

28.

Hendler

(ed.) (1995a) Planning Ethics: A Reader in Planning Theory, Practice and Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

29.

Hendler

(1995b) Introduction. In: Hendler

(ed.) Planning Ethics: A Reader in Planning Theory, Practice and Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, xvii–xx.

30.

Hendler

(1995c) Introduction to Part I. In: Hendler

(ed.) Planning Ethics: A Reader in Planning Theory, Practice and Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 1–10.

31.

Hendler

(2005) Towards a feminist code of planning ethics. Planning Theory and Practice 6(1): 53–69.

32.

Hoch

(1993) Commentary on ‘The centrality of normative ethical theory to contemporary planning theory’. Journal of Planning Education and Research 12(2): 93.

33.

Hoch

(1994) What Planners Do: Power, Politics, and Persuasion. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.

34.

Howe

(1990) Normative ethics in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 5(2): 123–150.

35.

Howe

(1992) Professional roles and the public interest in planning. Journal of Planning Literature 6(3): 230–248.

36.

Howe

(1994) Acting on Ethics in City Planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

37.

Howe

Kaufman

(1979) The ethics of contemporary American planners. Journal of the American Planning Association 45(3): 243–255.

38.

Howe

Kaufman

(1981) The values of contemporary American planners. Journal of the American Planning Association 47(3): 266–278.

39.

Kaufman

(1981) Ethics and planning: some insights from the outside. Journal of the American Planning Association 47(2): 196–199.

40.

Kaufman

(1985) American and Israeli planners: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of the American Planning Association 51(3): 352–364.

41.

Kaufman

(1993) Reflections on teaching three versions of a planning ethics course. Journal of Planning Education and Research 12(2): 107–115.

42.

Klosterman

(1978) Foundations for normative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 44(1): 37–46.

43.

Krumholz

Forester

(1990) Making Equity Planning Work: Leadership in the Public Sector. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

44.

Lo Piccolo

Thomas

(2008) Research ethics in planning: a framework for discussion. Planning Theory 7(1): 7–23.

45.

Lo Piccolo

Thomas

(eds) (2009) Ethics and Planning Research. Farnham: Ashgate.

46.

Lucy

(1988) American Planning Association’s ethical principles include simplistic planning theories. Journal of the American Planning Association 54(2): 147–149.

47.

Marcuse

(1976) Professional ethics and beyond: values in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 42(3): 264–274.

48.

Marquand

(2004) Decline of the Public. Cambridge: Polity Press.

49.

MacIntyre

(1985) After Virtue. 2nd edn. London: Duckworth.

50.

MacIntyre

(1990) Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

51.

Newman

J H

(1873)[2009] The Idea of a University. Dublin: Ashfield Press.

52.

O’Neill

(2002) A Question of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Raadschelders

(2011) The study of public administration in the United States. Public Administration 89(1): 140–155.

54.

Rankin

(2010) Reflexivity and post-colonial critique: toward an ethics of accountability in planning praxis. Planning Theory 9(3): 181–199.

55.

Reade

(1987) British Town and Country Planning. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

56.

Roy

(2006) Praxis in the time of empire. Planning Theory 5(1): 7–29.

57.

Royal Town Planning Institute (2001) A New Vision for Planning: Delivering Sustainable Communities, Settlements and Places – The Need for Action. Available at: www.rtpi.org.uk/download/245/RTPI-New-Vision-for-Planning.pdf (accessed 26 August 2011).

58.

Royal Town Planning Institute (2003) RTPI Education Commission Report. London: Royal Town Planning Institute.

59.

Sandel

(2009) Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do. London: Allen Lane.

60.

Sanyal

(2002) Globalization, ethical compromise and planning theory. Planning Theory 1(2): 116–123.

61.

Sen

(2009) The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.

62.

Tallis

(1997) Enemies of Hope: A Critique of Contemporary Pessimism. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.

63.

Taylor

(1992) Professional ethics in town planning: what is a code of professional conduct for? Town Planning Review 63(3): 227–241.

64.

Thomas

(ed.) (1994) Values and Planning. Aldershot: Avebury.

65.

Thomas

(1994) Introduction. In: Thomas

(ed.) Values and Planning. Aldershot: Avebury, 1–11.

66.

Thomas

Healey

(eds) (1991) Dilemmas of Planning Practice, Ethics Legitimacy and the Validation of Knowledge. Aldershot: Avebury.

67.

Upton

(2002) Planning praxis: ethics, values and theory. Town Planning Review 73(3): 253–269.

68.

Wachs

(1982) Ethical dilemmas in forecasting for public policy. Public Administration Review 42(2): 562–567.

69.

Wachs

(ed.) (1985) Ethics in Planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

70.

Wachs

(1989) When planners lie with numbers. Journal of the American Planning Association 55(4): 476–479.

71.

Wachs

(1995) Foreword. In: Hendler

(ed.) Planning Ethics: A Reader in Planning Theory, Practice and Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, xiii–xv.

72.

Watson

(2003) Conflicting rationalities: implications for planning theory and ethics. Planning Theory and Practice 4(4): 395–407.