•  
  •  
 
European Spatial Research and Policy

Abstract

The present paper evaluates Hungarian strategic urban planning from the perspective of well-being. It conceptualises well-being in line with Amartya Sen’s capability approach (CA). We argue that the CA provides a meaningful concept of common good or public interest for evaluation. The open-ended nature of CA allows one to embrace the complexity of strategic planning, but it is definite enough to provide a clear normative framework for evaluation. We base our conclusions on 49 interviews with various local actors in three second-tier cities. We conclude that the CA-based evaluation can supplement the dominantly used conformance or performance-based evaluation approaches. We also found that instead of depicting an unachievable ideal state, the CA is able to provide guidance for feasible steps to further well-being.

Keywords

urban strategic planning, capability approach (CA), well-being, agency, Hungary

Language

eng

References

ALBRECHTS, L. (2004), ‘Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined’, Environment and Planning B, 31 (5), pp. 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3065

ALBRECHTS, L. (2006), ‘Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia’, Environment and Planning A, 38 (6), pp. 1149–1170. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37304

ALEXANDER, E.R. (2002a), ‘Planning Rights: Toward Normative Criteria for Evaluating Plans’, International Planning Studies, 7 (3), pp. 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356347022000001871

ALEXANDER, E.R. (2002b), ‘The public interest in planning: from legitimation to substantive plan evaluation’, Planning Theory, 1 (3), pp. 226–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100303

ARNSTEIN, S.R. (1969), ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of American Planning Association, 35 (4), pp. 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

BAJMÓCY, Z. and GÉBERT, J. (2014), ‘Arguments for deliberative participation in local economic development’, Acta Oeconomica, 64 (3), pp. 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1556/AOecon.64.2014.3.3

BAJMÓCY, Z., GÉBERT, J. and MÁLOVICS, Gy. (eds.) (2017), Helyi gazdaságfejlesztés a képességszemlélet alapján, JATEPress, Szeged.

BARTA, Gy. (2009), ‘Integrált városfejlesztési stratégia: a városfejlesztés megújítása’, Tér és Társadalom, 23 (3), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.23.3.1253

BASTA, C. (2016), ‘From justice in planning toward planning for justice: A capability approach’, Planning Theory, 15 (2), pp. 190–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215571399

BASTA, C. (2017), ‘On Marx’s human significance, Harvey’s right to the city, and Nussbaum’s capability approach’, Planning Theory, 16 (4), pp. 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216641153

BIGGERI, M. and FERRANNINI, A. (2014), ‘Opportunity gap analysis: Procedures and methods for applying the capability approach in development initiatives’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15 (1), pp. 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2013.837036

BRINKMANN, S. and KVALE, S. (2015), InterViews. Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, Third edition, Sage, Los Angeles–London–New Delhi–Singapore–Washington DC.

CAMPBELL, H. and MARSHALL, R. (2002), ‘Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning’, Planning Theory, 1 (2), pp. 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100205

CSANÁDI, G., CSIZMADY, A. and KŐSZEGHY, L. (2010), ‘Nyilvánosság és részvétel a településtervezési folyamatban’, Tér és Társadalom, 24 (1), pp. 15–36. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.24.1.1293

FAINSTEIN, S.S. (2014), ‘The just city’, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18 (1), pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2013.834643

FALUDI, A. (1989), ‘Conformance vs. performance: Implications for evaluation’, Impact Assessment, 7 (2-3), pp. 135–151.

FARAGÓ, L. (2005), A jövőalkotás társadalomtechnikája: a közösségi tervezés elmélete, Dialóg Campus, Pécs–Budapest.

FARAGÓ, L. (2012), ‘Urban regeneration on a «city of culture». The case of Pécs, Hungary’, European Spatial Research and Policy, 19 (2), pp. 103–120. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10105-012-0017-4

FREDIANI, A.A. (2007), ‘Amartya Sen, the World Bank, and the Redress of Urban Poverty: A Brazilian Case Study’, Journal of Human Development, 8 (1), pp. 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880601101473

FREDIANI, A.A., BONI, A. and GASPER, D. (2014), ‘Approaching Development Projects from a Human Development and Capability Perspective’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15 (1), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2013.879014

GASPER, D. (2007), ‘What is the capability approach? Its core, rationale, partners and dangers’, The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36 (3), pp. 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.001

GAVENTA, J. (2006), ‘Finding the spaces for change: a power analysis’, IDS Bulletin, 37 (6), pp. 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x

GÉBERT, J., BAJMÓCY, Z. and MÁLOVICS, Gy. (2017), ‘How to Evaluate Local Economic Development Projects from a People-Centred Perspective? An Analytical Framework Based on the Capability Approach’, Deturope, 9 (2), pp. 4–24.

GP (2007), Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, CEC, German Presidency. Luxembourg.

HAYWARD, C.R. (1998), ‘De-Facing Power’, Polity, 31 (1), pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235365

HAYWARD, C.R. (2000), De-facing power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490255

HEALEY, P. (2003), ‘Collaborative planning in perspective’, Planning Theory, 2 (2), pp. 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030022002

HEALEY, P. (2010), Making better places: The planning project in the twenty-first century, Palgrave, Macmillan, Basingstoke–Hampshire. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01379-8_1

HILLIER, J. (2003), ‘Agonizing over consensus: Why habermasian ideals cannot be real’, Planning Theory, 2 (1), pp. 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005

INNES, J.E. (2004), ‘Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics’, Planning Theory, 3 (1), pp. 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042315

LUKES, S. (2005), Power: A radical view, Macmillan International Higher Education, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80257-5_2

LUX, G. (2015), ‘Minor cities in a metropolitan world: Challenges for development and governance in three Hungarian urban agglomerations’, International Planning Studies, 20 (1–2), pp. 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2014.942491

MAIER, K. (1998), ‘Czech planning in transition: Assets and deficiencies’, International Planning Studies, 3 (3) pp. 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563479808721719

MAIER, K. (2001), ‘Citizen participation in planning: Climbing a ladder?’, European Planning Studies, 9 (6), pp. 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120073775

MAIER, K. (2012), ‘Europeanization and Changing Planning in East-Central Europe: An Easterner’s View’, Planning Practice and Research, 27 (1), pp. 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661596

MASTOP, H. and FALUDI, A. (1997), ‘Evaluation of strategic plans: the performance principle’, Environment and Planning B, 24 (6), pp. 815–832. https://doi.org/10.1068/b240815

MEZEI, C. (2006), ‘Helyi gazdaságfejlesztés Közép-Kelet-Európában’, Tér és Társadalom, 20 (3), pp. 95–108. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.20.3.1069

MURPHY, E. and FOX-ROGERS, L. (2015), ‘Perceptions of the common good in planning’, Cities, 42 (B), pp. 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.07.008

NEWMAN, P. (2008), ‘Strategic spatial planning: Collective action and moments of opportunity’, European Planning Studies, 16 (10), pp. 1371–1383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802420078

OLIVEIRA, V. and PINHO, P. (2010), ‘Evaluation in urban planning: advances and prospects’, Journal of Planning Literature, 24 (4), pp. 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412210364589

PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, I., BODOR, Á., FINTA, I., GRÜNHUT, Z., KACZIBA, P. and ZONGOR, G. (2017), ‘Farewell to decentralisation: The Hungarian story and its general implications’, Croatian and comparative public administration, 16 (4), pp. 789–816. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.16.4.4

PELLISSERY, S. and BERGH, S.I. (2007), ‘Adapting the Capability Approach to Explain the Effects of Participatory Development Programs: Case Studies from India and Morocco’, Journal of Human Development, 8 (2), pp. 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880701371174

PLØGER, J. (2001), ‘Public participation and the art of governance’, Environment and Planning B, 28 (2), pp. 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2669

RAUSCHMAYER, F., OMANN, I. and FRÜHMANN, J. (eds.) (2010), Sustainable Development: Capabilities, Needs, and Well-being, Routlegde, London–New York.

RECHNITZER, J. (2019), ‘Nagyvárosok a magyar területi politikában és területfejlesztésben a rendszerváltozástól napjainkig’, Tér és Társadalom, 33 (1), pp. 3–26. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.33.1.3069

ROBEYNS, I. (2005), ‘The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 6 (1), pp. 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266

ROBEYNS, I. (2006), ‘The Capability Approach in Practice’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14 (3), pp. 351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00263.x

SCHISCHKA, J., DALZIEL, P. and SAUNDERS, C. (2008), ‘Applying Sen’s Capability Approach to Poverty Alleviation Programs: Two Case Studies’, Journal of Human Development, 9 (2), pp. 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880802078777

SEN, A.K. (1977), ‘Social choice theory: a re-examination’, Econometrica, 45 (1), pp. 53–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913287

SEN, A.K. (1993), ’Capability and well-being’, [in:] NUSSBAUM, M. and SEN, A.K. (eds.), The quality of life, Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198287976.003.0003

SEN, A.K. (1999), Development as freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

SEN A.K. (2009), The idea of justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjnrv7n

SHAHAB, S., CLINCH, J.P. and O’NEILL, E. (2019), ‘Impact-based planning evaluation: Advancing normative criteria for policy analysis’, Environment and Planning B, 46 (3), pp. 534–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317720446

SUVÁK, A. (2010), ‘Integrated urban development strategies – comparison of European and Hungarian approaches’, Journal of Landscape Studies, 3 (3). pp. 139–146.

TITSCHER, S., MEYER, M., WODAK, R. and VETTER E. (2000), Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.

VARRÓ, K. and FARAGÓ, L. (2016), ‘The politics of spatial policy and governance in post-1990 Hungary: The interplay between European and national discourses of space’, European Planning Studies, 24 (1), pp. 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1066760

First Page

221

Last Page

241

Language

eng

Share

COinS