Show simple item record

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

dc.contributor.authorBajmócy, Zoltán
dc.contributor.authorGébert, Judit
dc.contributor.authorMálovics, György
dc.contributor.authorBerki, Boglárka Méreiné
dc.contributor.authorJuhász, Judit
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-09T14:44:07Z
dc.date.available2021-08-09T14:44:07Z
dc.date.issued2020-06-30
dc.identifier.issn1231-1952
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/38511
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEuropean Spatial Research and Policy;1en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjecturban strategic planningen
dc.subjectcapability approach (CA)en
dc.subjectwell-beingen
dc.subjectagencyen
dc.subjectHungaryen
dc.titleUrban Strategic Planning from the Perspective of Well-Being: Evaluation of the Hungarian Practiceen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number221-241
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationBajmócy, Zoltán - University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungaryen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationGébert, Judit - Judit JUHÁSZ, University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungaryen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationMálovics, György - Judit JUHÁSZ, University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungaryen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationBerki, Boglárka Méreiné - Judit JUHÁSZ, University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungaryen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationJuhász, Judit - Judit JUHÁSZ, University of Szeged, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Research Centre, H-6722 Szeged, Kálvária sgt. 1., Hungaryen
dc.identifier.eissn1896-1525
dc.referencesALBRECHTS, L. (2004), ‘Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined’, Environment and Planning B, 31 (5), pp. 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3065en
dc.referencesALBRECHTS, 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/a37304en
dc.referencesALEXANDER, E.R. (2002a), ‘Planning Rights: Toward Normative Criteria for Evaluating Plans’, International Planning Studies, 7 (3), pp. 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356347022000001871en
dc.referencesALEXANDER, E.R. (2002b), ‘The public interest in planning: from legitimation to substantive plan evaluation’, Planning Theory, 1 (3), pp. 226–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100303en
dc.referencesARNSTEIN, S.R. (1969), ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of American Planning Association, 35 (4), pp. 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225en
dc.referencesBAJMÓCY, 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.64.2014.3.3en
dc.referencesBAJMÓCY, Z., GÉBERT, J. and MÁLOVICS, Gy. (eds.) (2017), Helyi gazdaságfejlesztés a képességszemlélet alapján, JATEPress, Szeged.en
dc.referencesBARTA, Gy. (2009), ‘Integrált városfejlesztési stratégia: a városfejlesztés megújítása’, Tér és Társadalom, 23 (3), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.23.3.1253en
dc.referencesBASTA, C. (2016), ‘From justice in planning toward planning for justice: A capability approach’, Planning Theory, 15 (2), pp. 190–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215571399en
dc.referencesBASTA, 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/10.1177/1473095216641153en
dc.referencesBIGGERI, 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/10.1080/19452829.2013.837036en
dc.referencesBRINKMANN, S. and KVALE, S. (2015), InterViews. Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, Third edition, Sage, Los Angeles–London–New Delhi–Singapore–Washington DC.en
dc.referencesCAMPBELL, 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/10.1177/147309520200100205en
dc.referencesCSANÁDI, 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.24.1.1293en
dc.referencesFAINSTEIN, S.S. (2014), ‘The just city’, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18 (1), pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2013.834643en
dc.referencesFALUDI, A. (1989), ‘Conformance vs. performance: Implications for evaluation’, Impact Assessment, 7 (2-3), pp. 135–151.en
dc.referencesFARAGÓ, L. (2005), A jövőalkotás társadalomtechnikája: a közösségi tervezés elmélete, Dialóg Campus, Pécs–Budapest.en
dc.referencesFARAGÓ, 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/v10105-012-0017-4en
dc.referencesFREDIANI, 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/10.1080/14649880601101473en
dc.referencesFREDIANI, 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/10.1080/19452829.2013.879014en
dc.referencesGASPER, 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.2006.12.001en
dc.referencesGAVENTA, 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.xen
dc.referencesGÉBERT, 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.en
dc.referencesGP (2007), Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, CEC, German Presidency. Luxembourg.en
dc.referencesHAYWARD, C.R. (1998), ‘De-Facing Power’, Polity, 31 (1), pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235365en
dc.referencesHAYWARD, C.R. (2000), De-facing power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490255en
dc.referencesHEALEY, P. (2003), ‘Collaborative planning in perspective’, Planning Theory, 2 (2), pp. 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030022002en
dc.referencesHEALEY, 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_1en
dc.referencesHILLIER, J. (2003), ‘Agonizing over consensus: Why habermasian ideals cannot be real’, Planning Theory, 2 (1), pp. 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005en
dc.referencesINNES, J.E. (2004), ‘Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics’, Planning Theory, 3 (1), pp. 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042315en
dc.referencesLUKES, S. (2005), Power: A radical view, Macmillan International Higher Education, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80257-5_2en
dc.referencesLUX, 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/10.1080/13563475.2014.942491en
dc.referencesMAIER, K. (1998), ‘Czech planning in transition: Assets and deficiencies’, International Planning Studies, 3 (3) pp. 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563479808721719en
dc.referencesMAIER, K. (2001), ‘Citizen participation in planning: Climbing a ladder?’, European Planning Studies, 9 (6), pp. 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120073775en
dc.referencesMAIER, 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/10.1080/02697459.2012.661596en
dc.referencesMASTOP, 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/b240815en
dc.referencesMEZEI, C. (2006), ‘Helyi gazdaságfejlesztés Közép-Kelet-Európában’, Tér és Társadalom, 20 (3), pp. 95–108. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.20.3.1069en
dc.referencesMURPHY, 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.2014.07.008en
dc.referencesNEWMAN, P. (2008), ‘Strategic spatial planning: Collective action and moments of opportunity’, European Planning Studies, 16 (10), pp. 1371–1383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802420078en
dc.referencesOLIVEIRA, V. and PINHO, P. (2010), ‘Evaluation in urban planning: advances and prospects’, Journal of Planning Literature, 24 (4), pp. 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412210364589en
dc.referencesPÁLNÉ 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.16.4.4en
dc.referencesPELLISSERY, 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/10.1080/14649880701371174en
dc.referencesPLØGER, J. (2001), ‘Public participation and the art of governance’, Environment and Planning B, 28 (2), pp. 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2669en
dc.referencesRAUSCHMAYER, F., OMANN, I. and FRÜHMANN, J. (eds.) (2010), Sustainable Development: Capabilities, Needs, and Well-being, Routlegde, London–New York.en
dc.referencesRECHNITZER, 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.33.1.3069en
dc.referencesROBEYNS, I. (2005), ‘The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 6 (1), pp. 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266en
dc.referencesROBEYNS, 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.xen
dc.referencesSCHISCHKA, 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/10.1080/14649880802078777en
dc.referencesSEN, A.K. (1977), ‘Social choice theory: a re-examination’, Econometrica, 45 (1), pp. 53–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913287en
dc.referencesSEN, 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/10.1093/0198287976.003.0003en
dc.referencesSEN, A.K. (1999), Development as freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.en
dc.referencesSEN A.K. (2009), The idea of justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjnrv7nen
dc.referencesSHAHAB, 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/10.1177/2399808317720446en
dc.referencesSUVÁK, A. (2010), ‘Integrated urban development strategies – comparison of European and Hungarian approaches’, Journal of Landscape Studies, 3 (3). pp. 139–146.en
dc.referencesTITSCHER, S., MEYER, M., WODAK, R. and VETTER E. (2000), Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.en
dc.referencesVARRÓ, 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/10.1080/09654313.2015.1066760en
dc.contributor.authorEmailBajmócy, Zoltán - bajmocyz@eco.u-szeged.hu
dc.contributor.authorEmailGébert, Judit - gebert.judit@eco.u-szeged.hu
dc.contributor.authorEmailMálovics, György - malovics.gyorgy@eco.u-szeged.hu
dc.contributor.authorEmailBerki, Boglárka Méreiné - mereine@eco.u-szeged.hu
dc.contributor.authorEmailJuhász, Judit - judit.juhasz@eco.u-szeged.hu
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1231-1952.27.1.10
dc.relation.volume27


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
8138-Article_Text-20841-1-10-2 ...
Size:
606.1Kb
Format:
PDF
View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0