Urban Strategic Planning from the Perspective of Well-Being: Evaluation of the Hungarian Practice

Zoltán Bajmócy; Judit Gébert; György Málovics; Boglárka Méreiné Berki; Judit Juhász

doi:10.18778/1231-1952.27.1.10

Authors

Zoltán Bajmócy University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungary
Judit Gébert Judit JUHÁSZ, University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungary
György Málovics Judit JUHÁSZ, University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungary
Boglárka Méreiné Berki Judit JUHÁSZ, University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungary
Judit Juhász Judit JUHÁSZ, University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungary

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.1.10

Keywords:

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

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ALBRECHTS, L. (2004), ‘Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined’, Environment and Planning B, 31 (5), pp. 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3065 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1989.9726017

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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3235365

HAYWARD, C.R. (2000), De-facing power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490255 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1066760