During the past decades, the concept of public interest has been severely criticized. It nevertheless remains to be a key normative reference point against which public planning may be evaluated and justified. The article claims that there are multiple conceptions of public interest that coexist in everyday planning practice. These conceptions are grounded in the age-old debate on the duties of the State. In the article, four different approaches to public interest were recognized on the basis of two dimensions of the concept. These dimensions are individual/collective and regulation/non-regulation. The theoretical assumptions were tested with interview data of Finnish planning professionals. The coexistence of multiple conceptions of public interest was revealed. This ambiguity makes public interest dubious as a rhetorical tool. Without the explication of the discursive context, the concept is largely devoid of meaning. Thus, when truly seeking justification to planning decisions, with reference to “public interest”, the explication of the context and the discursive framework applied is necessary.
Alexander, E. R. (2002). The Public Interest in Planning: From Legitimation to Substantive Plan Evaluation. Planning Theory, 1, 226-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100303
Bohman, J. (1998). Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6, 400-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00061
Brueckner, J. K. (2011). Lectures on Urban Economics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Backlund, P., & Mantysalo, R. (2010). Agonism and Institutional Ambiguity. Ideas on Democracy and the Role of Participation in the Development of Planning Theory and Practice—The Case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9, 333-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210373684
Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2002a). Utilitarianism’s Bad Breath? A Re-Evaluation of the Public Interest Justification for Planning. Planning Theory, 1, 163-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100205
Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2002b). Values and Professional Identities in Planning Practice. In P. Allmendinger, & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory (pp. 93-109). London: Routledge.
Cohen, J. (1998). Democracy and Liberty. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative Democracy (pp. 185-231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139175005.010
Douglass, B. (1980). The Common Good and the Public Interest. Political Theory, 8, 103-117.
Flathman, R. E. (1966). The Public Interest: An Essay Concerning the Normative Discourse of Politics. New York: Wiley.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press.
Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826339
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms, Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Havelock, E. A. (1957). The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society’s Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies, 54, 486-508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x
Hytonen, J. (2016). The Problematic Relationship of Communicative Planning Theory and Nordic Legal Culture. Planning Theory, 15, 223-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214549618
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Oxford: Routledge.
Jarenko, K. (2013). The Local Co-Governance Approach in the Herttoniemi Neighbourhood as a Deliberative System. In L. Horelli (Ed.), New Approaches to Urban Planning. Insights from Participatory Communities (pp. 45-64). Helsinki: Aalto University.
Laurian, L. (2009). Trust in Planning: Theoretical and Practicextental Considerations for Participatory and Deliberative Planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 10, 369-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903229810
Leino, H. (2006). Kansalaisosallistuminen ja kaupunkisuunnittelun dynamiikka [Citizen Participation and the Dynamics of Town Planning] (p. 1134). Tampere: University of Tampere.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The Intelligence of Democracy. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Mansbridge, J. (1998). On the Contested Nature of the Public Good. In W. W. Powell, & E. S. Clemens (Eds.), Private Action and the Public Good (pp. 3-19). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mantysalo, R., & Jarenko, K. (2014). Communicative Planning Theory Following Deliberative Democracy Theory: Critical Pragmatism and the Trading Zone Concept. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3, 38-50. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2014010104
Moroni, S. (2004). Towards a Reconstruction of the Public Interest Criterion. Planning Theory, 3, 151-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204044779
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Patterson, O. (1999). Liberty against the Democratic State: On the Historical and Contemporary Sources of American Distrust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and Trust (pp. 151-207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511659959.006
Puustinen, S. (2006). Suomalainen kaavoittajaprofessio ja suunnittelun kommuni-katiivinen kaanne. Vuorovaikutuksen liittyvat ongelmat ja mahdollisuudet suurten kaupunkien kaavoittajien nakokulmasta [The Finnish Planning Profession and the Communicative Turn in Planning]. Espoo, Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus-ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja A 34, Teknillinen korkeakoulu.
Puustinen, S., Hirvonen, J., Niemi, P., & Mantysalo, R. (2013). Selvitys alueiden-kayton suunnittelun ja ohjauksen voimavaroista [Report on the Resources Available for Land Use Planning and Guidance]. Helsinki: Ymparistoministerion raportteja 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1245437
Puustinen, S., Mantysalo, R., Hytonen, J., & Jarenko, K. (2017). The “Deliberative Bureaucrat”: Deliberative Democracy and Institutional Trust in the Jurisdiction of the Finnish Planner. Planning Theory & Practice, 18, 71-88.
Rawls, J. (1993/1996). Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1997). The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review, 64, 765-805. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600311
Rousseau, J.-J. (2003/1762). On the Social Contract. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Sager, T. (2013). Reviving Critical Planning Theory. Dealing with Pressure, Neo-Liberalism, and Responsibility in Communicative Planning. London: Routledge.
Staffans, A. (2004). Vaikuttavat asukkaat. Vuorovaikutus ja paikallinen tieto kaupunki-suunnittelun haasteina [Influential Residents. Interaction and Local Knowledge Challenging Urban Planning and Design]. Espoo, Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus-ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja A 29. Teknillinen korkeakoulu.
Stenius, H. (2012). Paradoxes of the Finnish Political Culture. In J. P. árnason, & B. Wittrock (Eds.), Nordic Paths to Modernity (pp. 207-228). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Tait, M. (2011). Trust and the Public Interest in the Micropolitics of Planning Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31, 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11402628
Thornley, A. (1991). Urban Planning under Thatcherism. London: Routledge.
Wallin, S. (2013). Urban Complexity Challenging Urban Planning. In L. Horelli (Ed.), New Approaches to Urban Planning. Insights from Participatory Communities. Helsinki: Aalto University.
The Varying Interpretations of Public Interest: Making Sense of Finnish Urban Planners’ Conceptions — Oak Academic Publishing