Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:07:38.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Politics, Welfare, and Conservation: A Survey of Meta-planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Lincoln Allison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A survey of the printed word, including local and national papers as well as weekly journals over the past ten years, would show an increasing proportion of column inches devoted to issues arising out of physical planning — those issues involving such concepts as ‘environment’, ‘conservation’, ‘amenity’ and ‘leisure space’. As a society, we are becoming increasingly preoccupied with our physical environment and on the whole this preoccupation takes the form of fears for the future. Such fears must begin with two propositions: that the environment (or at least some of its important aspects) is changing rapidly and that this is a matter which affects our general well-being.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , October 1971 , pp. 437 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for instance: (a) Self, Peter, ‘"Nonsense on Stilts": Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Roskill Commission’. Political Quarterly, 41 (1970), pp. 249–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar (b) 2nd Leader (Anon, ) Town and Country Planning, 38 (1970), pp. 133–6Google Scholar (c) Hall, Peter, ‘Roskill's Felicific Calculus’, New Society (19 02 1970), pp. 306–8.Google Scholar Since these remarks were originally written the Roskill Commission has reported. Neither its conclusions nor the various discussions of them have given any reason to alter the substance of this passage.

2 Beer, S. H., Modern British Politics (London: Faber & Faber, 1965), p. xl.Google Scholar

3 Mackenzie, W. J. M., Politics and Social Science (London: Pelican, 1969), p. 144.Google Scholar

4 Mackenzie, W. J. M., Politics and Social Science, pp. 137–52.Google Scholar

5 Mackenzie, W. J. M., Politics and Social Science, p. 138Google Scholar.

6 Banham, Reyner, Barker, Paul, Hall, Peter, Price, Cedric, ‘Non-Plan: An Experiment in Freedom’, New Society, 20 March 1969, pp. 435–44.Google Scholar

7 Banham, et al. , ‘Non-Plan’, p. 435.Google Scholar

8 Hall, Peter, The Great British History Parkway Drive-In’, New Society (3 March 1967), PP.151–5.Google Scholar

9 Hall, , ‘Roskill's Felicific Calculus’, p. 306.Google Scholar

10 Self, ‘“Nonsense on Stilts”’, p. 251.

11 Mishan, E. J., The Costs of Economic Growth (London: Pelican, 1969), p. 193.Google Scholar

12 Mishan, E. J., ‘The Spillover Enemy’, Encounter, 32 (1969), pp. 3–13.Google Scholar

13 Quoted by Tinker, Jon, ‘Ecology at the Hustings’, New Scientist, 46, No. 705 (1970), pp 523–5.Google Scholar

14 Jay, Douglas, ‘The Cost of Urban Motorways’, Town and Country Planning, 38 (1970), pp 98–100.Google Scholar

15 Barry, Brian, ‘The Public Interest’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supp. Vol. 38 (1964), pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Britain 1969, An Official Handbook (London: HMSO, 1969), p. 23.Google Scholar

17 Privately, to the author, in March, 1969.

18 The Council for the Preservation of Rural England, Lancashire Branch, Annual Report, 1964–5, P. 64.Google Scholar

19 People and Planning (London: HMSO, 1969).Google Scholar

20 People and Planning, para 255, p. 48.

21 People and Planning, para 253, p. 47.

22 People and Planning, Appendix 3, p. 60.

23 Tinker, , ‘Ecology at the Hustings’, p. 523.Google Scholar

24 Self, ‘Nonsense on Stilts’, p. 256.

25 Foley, Donald, ‘British Town Planning: Three Ideologies or One’, British Journal of Sociology (1960), pp. 211–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 ‘ Theses on Feuerbach’, VI, Bottomore, T. B. and Rubel, Maximilian, Karl Marx — Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy (London: Penguin, 1965), p. 83.Google Scholar

27 Trotsky, L., ‘Revolutionary and Socialist Art’, in Literature and Revolution (Michigan 1966), p. 252.Google Scholar

28 Vol. 28 (03 1970), pp. 143–6.

29 Rousseau, J. J., The Social Contract (London: Everyman, 1966), Book II, Ch. 3, p. 22.Google Scholar

30 Rousseau, J. J., The Confessions (London: Pengiun, 1966), Book 4 p. 167.Google Scholar

31 Land Utilization in Rural Areas, HMSO 1942, p. A3.

32 Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France (London: Penguin, 1969), p. 118.Google Scholar

33 Haythornthwaite, Gerald, ‘My Case for Preservation’, The Listener, 24 02 1966.Google Scholar

34 Macpherson, C. B., ‘The Maximisation of Democracy’, in Laslett, Peter and Runciman, W. G., Philosophy, Politics, and Society (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967), third series p. 84.Google Scholar

35 Macpherson, , ‘The Maximisation of Democracy’, p. 85.Google Scholar

36 For a formal treatment of these assumptions, see K. J. Arrow, ‘Values and Collective Decision-Making’, in Laslett, and Runciman, , Philosophy, Politics, and Society, pp. 215–32.Google Scholar

37 Social trends, No. 1 (HMSO 1970), p. 4.

38 Waller, R. A., ‘Environmental Quality, its Measurement and Control’, Regional Studies 4 (1970), p. 177.Google Scholar

39 Mill, J. S., Principles of Political Economy, Bk. 4, Ch. 6, sec. 2. In collected works (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965), p. 756.Google Scholar