Original scientific paper
Public interest and public benefit in urban and spatial planning
Ksenija Petovar
; Faculty of Architecture and Geography, University of Belgrade, Serbia;
Miodrag Vujošević
; Science Consultant at the Institute for Architecture and Urban Planning of Serbia
Abstract
The changing position of urban and spatial planning in transitional countries presents the
concept of “post-socialist” public interest in all its complexity of meaning. It implies the
need for a wider accepted frame in both theoretical and heuristic planning which brings
under the common denominator the majority of actors. In this way it is possible to define
and balance individual (partial) and common interests in considering, making and carrying
out decisions at different levels of planning. It is obvious that in the present day transition
situation there is very little that can be safely pronounced in advance as having (or
not having) public or general interest. The quality of decisions and their social relevance
essentially depend on the quality of communication and interaction in planning which is
equally important for the constitution of public interest. In the paper there is a simplified
equation between public interest and public benefit which is justified by most authoritative
writers. Also we show the endangered legitimacy of planning which follows the breakdown
of former (“socialist”) public interest. Solving this problem is crucial for the future of planning
not only in the post-socialist transition countries but also for development processes
in advanced democracies, after the collapse of the social state and evident social consequences
of the “New Right approach”. In conditions of a certain kind of social Darwinism,
“proto”, i.e. unstable democracy, “wild” market and “wild” privatisation, undeveloped civil
society, strongly limited public insight and access to the place of action, most actors do not
follow the rules of Habermas’ “unrestrained communication” but behave according to different
social patterns, characterised by individual and group egoism, manipulation and the
so-called “systematic and organized mobilisation of partiality”. In these circumstances an
important question comes up: what, if anything, can be expected from new approaches to
planning, especially from communication i.e. collaborative planning and how can greater
public participation help create better and more democratic planning practices?
Keywords
urban and spatial planning; public interest; public benefit; participation
Hrčak ID:
24962
URI
Publication date:
5.6.2008.
Visits: 4.849 *