In the field of planning theory the discussion often seems to assume that all problems – for example, ethical or political ones – pertain to a single level or dimension. In fact, different and clearly separate “levels”, which raise problems of different kinds, can be distinguished. A “multi-level” approach therefore seems necessary. The underlying idea is that it is essential to distinguish more sharply between two analytical levels: the constitutional and post-constitutional levels. These levels are here understood mainly as analytical levels; that is, as standpoints that anyone can – at any time and even only hypothetically – assume to posit certain problems at the appropriate level and treat them by acknowledging the argumentative requirements suited to that level. This article uses such a multi-level approach to address three fundamental and currently much debated problems of planning theory and practice: the issue of “agonistic pluralism”; the issue of “public interest”; the question of “private ownership (of land)”. The contribution of this article falls within the neoinstitutionalist approaches to planning. The belief is that these approaches are shedding new light on planning problems and that research in this direction should be expanded. In this regard, this article attempts to make a contribution to this research perspective especially in analytical and methodological terms.
Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: Reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning
