John Rawls’ theory of justice is an anti-thesis to the Utilitarian concept of justice. In his 1921 book, ‘A Theory of Justice’ Rawls strongly rejects the idea that the happiness of the minority members of the society ought to be sacrificed at the altar of the happiness of the majority members of the society. To this end, he theorizes justice as fairness. (Rawls, 1971). He asserted that justice is inherent in a person as an individual and should not be violated even at the convenience of societal welfare.
He advanced a theory of social justice and equity that is two-pronged as a matter of principle. Firstly, that every person ought to have basic equal rights to liberties corresponding to those enjoyed by other members of the society. Secondly, that the social and economic opportunities have to be for the betterment of everyone’s welfare and that they have to be accessible to all the members of the society (Rawls, 1971).
The theory of justice is predicated on a social contract where all the members of the society hypothetically agree amongst themselves to certain terms behind a ‘veil of ignorance.' An individual is put in a hypothetically original position and is made to choose the kind of social structure that would best meet his or her needs on a condition that he or she does not have the benefit of knowing what position they would occupy in the society beforehand. Eventually, no one will be disadvantaged even if they end up in the least desirable position. It is this attribute of Rawls theory of justice that makes it the most suitable theory that attempts to advance social justice and equity (Rawls, 1971).
Based on John Rawls theory of justice, this paper seeks to explore the “essence of social justice and equity in city planning”. Additionally, it critically analyzes the evolution of the said theories in the planning purview over time. It seeks to answer the question as to what opportunities exist for a contemporary city planner in applying the principles with regard to specific interest groups and environmental concerns in a city.
For a long time, social justice and equity have often been disregarded in the field of urban planning on account of being too political. Efficiency considerations tend to take precedence over social justice and equity. City planners have been apolitical and blinded to the fact that there exists an undoubtedly direct causal relationship between blatant disregard of social justice and equity in urban planning on one hand and ever-increasing inequality, prohibitory urban housing costs and emerging climate change crisis (Baxamusa, 2015).
In the phase in which the American planning sector was caught in between the horns of a moral dilemma, American Planner, Paul Davidoff in his seminal article argued for incorporation of social justice in urban planning. He challenged the planners to be guided by the principles of inclusiveness, public participation, and democracy. He implored them to be sensitive to the needs of minority and disadvantaged communities. Additionally, he lobbied for reformation of economically disenfranchising and socially discriminatory policies (Checkoway, 1994).
It was until 2005 when the American Planning Association adopted into their code of ethics and professional conduct the principle of social and racial justice. Inspired by the need to promote economic and racial integration coupled with realization of the responsibility to cater for the needs of disadvantaged members of the society, the association undertook to uphold social justice by expanding the field of choice and opportunity for all. Additionally, it undertook a lot of effort to lobby for reformation of policies and institutions that undermine such needs (American Planning Association, 2009). This paradigm shift in policy is in line with Rawls principles of social justice and equity.
A modern day city planner has avenues through which they can apply these principles. To begin with, empowerment zones offer a lot of opportunities. For instance, they can zone out areas faced with economic distress and come up with measures of alleviating the economic plight suffered by residents of the said areas. Measures geared at poverty eradication, addressing unemployment, curbing dwindling population and taming trends of disinvestment by businesses are then put in place. One such measure that has proved to be effective is tax incentive. Tax incentives have a way of encouraging investors to set up businesses in such zones. Accordingly, employment, improved social amenities, and infrastructure will follow course (American Planning Association, 2006).
Secondly, comprehensive planning is a purview through which a planner can incorporate the principles of social justice and equity. A comprehensive plan is an official local government’s roadmap for future development and conservation. It details the ambitions; examines prevailing circumstances; describes the economic, social and physical vision for the community. It describes mechanisms through which the vision is to be implemented (Butler & Steiner, 2007). To this end, a planner ought to observe the principle of public participation during formulation and development of a comprehensive plan. This can be achieved through the involvement of locally elected representatives. Caution ought to be taken in arriving at these officials to ensure that all the interest groups are represented and that the composition is as diversified as possible (Butler & Steiner, 2007).
There can never be environmental justice without social justice. Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies” (US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016). The National Academy of Public Administration Report further enunciates what is meant by the terms: “fair treatment” and “meaningful involvement.” It describes fair treatment as the distribution of resources in such a manner as no interest group bears uneven allocation of adverse consequences resulting from the enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Meaningful involvement is described as according to the persons whose environment or health is likely to be affected by a proposed activity, adequate opportunity to take part in its decisions; with a legitimate expectation that their concerns shall be taken into account (National Academy of Public Administration, 2003)1. In this regard, a modern day city planner ought to, within their legal powers, put in place mechanisms for responding to specific issues of concern to each interest group and to ensure that persons affected by environmental decisions are meaningfully involved besides receiving fair treatment (National Academy of Public Administration, 2003).
In lobbying attempts to get the US to honor the charter that “all people are created equal”, human rights activists spearheaded the emergence of affirmative action (Rosado, 1997). It was intended to redress past injustices inflicted on African-Americans (Mosley & Capaldi, 1996). However, the doctrine has progressively been applied to address other forms of inequalities such as gender disparity. It offers a window of opportunity for modern day city planners to redress past injustices suffered by residences of certain parts in a city by use of territorial affirmative action. This can be achieved through the allocation of equality resources to areas that have suffered due to marginalization in the past.
Over time, the planning profession has gradually expanded. However, its composition with respect to both gender and ethnic proportions just like other public administration sectors is alarming (Verma, 2006). It has been gendered to the point that it can be described as a male occupation which cannot be complete without women. Moreover, it does not reflect the ethnic diversity of the country. It is such a shame that the profession expected to advance social justice and equity in urban planning is itself as of composition an epitome of inequality. This paper proposes the following radical steps that will go a long way in streamlining the composition of the profession in accordance with the tenets of social justice and equality.
Firstly, affirmative action ought to be used in admitting new members into the profession. To this end, members of the interest groups that have been marginally unrepresented in the past ought to be allotted specific quotas. However, this approach should be used with caution to avoid watering down the professional integrity of the profession (Committee of Experts on Public Administration, 2010).
Additionally, ways of encouraging students from marginalized interest groups to pursue courses leading to careers in planning industry ought to be explored and implemented. Furthermore, legal, institutional and policy hurdles to the said marginalized groups ought to be thoroughly evaluated and transformed so as to enable them to navigate into the profession without undue restrictions. Sensitization of the public about the role of urban planning and the need for representation ought to be enhanced as well (Committee of Experts on Public Administration, 2010).
In conclusion, this paper holds the view that city planning and social justice are intricately joined at the hip. Affordable housing, quality education, quality healthcare, efficient transport system, quality environment, sustainable development all for all are structurally woven together by cords of social justice. Thus, social justice considerations cannot be dispensed with in urban planning.
References
American Planning Association. (2009, October 3). AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Retrieved February 27, 2016, from APA: https://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode.htm
American Planning Association. (2006). Planning and Urban Design Standards. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc (pp 639).
Baxamusa, M. H. (2015, December 12). Urban planning without social equity is like playing chess without the queen. Retrieved February 27, 2016, from San diego UrbdeZine: http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/2015/12/12/urban-planning-social-equity-chess-queen/
Butler, K., & Steiner, F. R. (2007). Planning and Urban Design Standards. Hoboken: John wiley & Sons Inc (pp 6).
Checkoway, B. (1994). Paul Davidoff and Advocacy Planning in Retrospect. Journal of the American Planning Association , 60 (2), 139-143.
Committee of Experts on Public Administration. (2010). Committee of Experts on Public Administration Report on the Ninth session. United Nations. New York: United Nations (pp 15-16).
Mosley, A. G., & Capaldi, N. (1996). Affirmative Action: Social Justice Or Unfair Preference? London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc (pp 3-4).
National Academy of Public Administration. (2003). Adressing Community Concerns: How Environmental Justice Relates to Land Use Planning and Zoning. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency (pp 19-20).
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (pp 3).
Rosado, C. (1997, March 3). Affirmative Action: A Time for Change? Retrieved February 28, 2016, from Critical Multicultural Pavilion Research Room: http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/caleb/aff-action.html
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2016, Februaury 23). Environmental Justice. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from US Environmrntal Protection Agency: http://www3.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
Verma, A. L. (2006). Public Administration. New Delhi: Lotus Press (pp 44).
