Exploring practitioners’ perception of ethical issues in planning: The Peruvian case

Abstract

Despite the ethics of planning in the Global South is an issue of crucial importance due to the challenging circumstances in which the discipline is practiced in the region, this discussion is still at this initial stage. This article contributes to expanding on the matter through an approach to identify the influence on practitioners’ perception of ethical issues of the planning purposes and values embedded within five frames of reference of practice (i.e. professional training, professionalization bodies, institutional settings, planning systems and policy frameworks). Using the case of professional architects working as planners for municipalities in Arequipa (Peru), the article starts with an exploratory comparison between the purposes and values put forward by professional training in planning and architecture and then contrast these with the planning purposes and values purveyed by professionalization bodies, institutional settings, planning systems, and policy frameworks. These results support the analysis of practitioners’ perception of ethical issues. This shows that the understanding of planning purposes and values of Peruvian architects acting as planners and the views of the country’s architecture professionalization body contributes to strengthening the regulatory, technical, and apolitical orientation of the Peruvian planning system. With the adoption of neoliberal urban policies and within the ethically inconsistent municipal institutional setting, architects’ operationalization of their understanding of planning purposes and values leads to a procedural perception of ethical issues, which is based on the belief that these center on conflicts of personal principles. Their belated realization that ethical issues also concern conflict of interests adds to their questioning of the idea of planning, making the discipline’s practice in the country even more challenging.

Keywords

Ethical issues planning purposes and values professional training planning practice Peru developing countries

Introduction

Recent developments in planning theory acknowledge the high degree of uncertainty of planning practice (Abbot, 2005), highlighting the influence this has in effectively addressing the multi-dimensional, complex, and dynamic nature of the urbanization process of the 21st-century (Duhr et al., 2010). This uncertainty, however, has increased with the adoption of neoliberalism in urban policy- and decision-making (Sager, 2011) and the implementation of the new public management approach (Desai and Imrie, 1998), which has caused profound changes in the planning practice environment represented by deep transformations in the relationships between the state, the private sector and the society. For some authors (Campbell and Marshall, 2002; Roy, 2006; Sanyal, 2002), these changes bring to the fore ethical issues that, at their core, question one main justification for the existence of the discipline – upholding the public interest (see also Bickenbach and Hendler, 1994).

Given the significance of this matter, scholars have studied planning ethics for some time now, yet mainly in the context of developed countries. In developing countries, this debate is at its initial stage, despite planning in the region is conducted in rather challenging socio-economic, political and institutional circumstances (Rakodi, 2001; Watson, 2003a). When studying planning ethics in the Global South, scholars have addressed issues such as the role of existing planning approaches in maintaining inequality (Sandercock, 2004; Watson, 2003b, 2009a); the impact of the questionable practices of local institutions in implementing planning directions (Karki, 2017; Kilinc et al., 2012; Nnkya, 1999; Server, 1996); the influence of neoliberal urban policies in shaping an unjust decision-making environment (Fawaz, 2017; Roy, 2009; Zunino, 2006) and; the use of planning to legitimize policies that subjugate vulnerable communities (Bollens, 1998; Christopher, 1987; Yiftachel, 1998, 2000).

Although these very valuable contributions expose the significant role of the economic, policy and institutional contexts as well as the orientation of planning systems in the shaping of ethical issues in planning, it can be noted that, at a more fundamental level, they draw attention to the influence of planning purposes and values embedded within political and institutional structures and planning systems in making up ethical issues. This reading side with the value-based perspective of planning ethics put forward by Campbell (2002), and to a lesser extent, with the work of scholars such as Alexander (2006), Campbell and Marshall (2005), Forester (1989), and Hendler (1991). Their work serves to identify some ‘frames’ planners refer to when confronted with ethical issues: (1) his/her own moral compass; (2) the aims of professionalization bodies; (3) the mandates of his/her workplace or institutional setting; (4) the goals of the planning system; and (5) societal aspirations and common goals embedded within policy frameworks.

However, to this identification, it is necessary to add another frame as relevant in studying planning ethics: professional training. As pointed out by planning education (e.g. Edwards and Bates, 2011; Friedmann, 1996; Thomas, 2012) and professional training research (e.g. Chwieroth, 2007; Howkins and Ewens, 1999, Momani, 2005), there are close relationships between professional training and practitioners’ perception of ethical issues since the educational arena is key in conveying to students the purposes and values of the discipline and, therefore, in providing an ethical standpoint to professionals to be.

This interesting, yet understudied, linkage between professional training and the framing of ethical issues is quite significant for Southern planning practice in light of the conditions of planning education in the region. According to UN Habitat (2009), by the end of the 2000s, more than half of the world’s countries did not have planning schools. Although the report points that, in some countries, schools such as architecture, economics, engineering, geography, urban studies and others offered some sort of planning courses and training, still it further affirms that, in many of these countries, planning education faces severe institutional, financial and academic deficiencies that undermine its overall quality (see also Chettiparamb, 2006).

In light of these circumstances, the study of planning ethics in the context of the Global South needs to adopt a value-based perspective to examine the nature of ethical issues. This article addresses this research demand by depicting the understanding of the discipline’s purposes and values conveyed by the frames of reference of professional practice: professional training, professionalization bodies, institutional settings, planning systems and policy frameworks, and by uncovering their influence on practitioners’ perception of ethical issues. It does so in three steps. First, it explores the differences between the purposes and values put forward by professional training in architecture and planning to uncover the ethical standpoint offered by both disciplines. Second, it identifies and contrasts the planning purposes and values embedded within corresponding professionalization bodies, existing institutional settings, planning systems and policy frameworks. Finally, it uses these results to analyze practitioners’ perception of ethical issues. The study utilizes the case of professional architects working as planners in municipalities in Arequipa (Peru).

The rationale for the selection of the Peruvian case and architecture as place and discipline of study is two-fold. First, professional training in planning in Peru can be regarded as virtually non-existent, thus placing it within the group of Southern countries with underdeveloped planning education systems. Planning is neither an independent discipline nor a profession in its own right. Instead, it is viewed as a course offered at the master level. The websites of the country’s graduate schools in 2012, 2014 and 2017 (see Table 1) show that they only offer very few masters in urban planning, e.g. by 2017, there were only two urban planning courses offered country-wide. This is possibly due to the progressive privatization of the country’s higher education over the last decades (by 2010, 75% of universities were private, INEI and ANR, 2011). Private universities generally focus their offers of postgraduate courses on areas perceived to be in high demand on the job market, while planning, as a discipline seen as oriented towards low salary jobs in the public sector, does not fit these criteria.

Table 1.

Offer of postgraduate courses in urban planning, urban studies and environmental management (in numbers).^a

Courses in:	One-year specialization course			Master course			Doctorate
Courses in:	2012	2014	2017	2012	2014	2017	2012	2014	2017
Urban planning	0	0	0	6	4	2	0	0	0
Urban studies (housing, heritage, urbanism)	0	0	1	3	3	12	0	0	1
Urban management	7	2	2	12	11	6	0	0	2
Project and program management	3	3	3	4	4	19	0	0	0
Geographic Information Systems and ICT	0	0	0	8	8	1	0	0	1
Environmental planning and management, (includes land use planning at the territorial scale)	4	2	4	10	8	22	1	1	6
Other planning specializations (transport infrastructure provision and risk management)	7	1	2	12	12	22	2	1	1
Total	22	8	12	55	50	84	3	2	11

Source: Author’s revision of graduate schools’ websites.

The results for 2012 and 2014 derived from the revision of graduate schools’ websites conducted before the approval of the Law of Universities (N° 30220) in July 2014. This revision considered a total of 140 universities. For 2017, the revision was conducted only on graduate schools’ websites of universities authorized to operate by 2015, which included 78 universities. The list of universities fully authorized to operate was obtained in the ProCalidad website (http://procalidad.gob.pe/web/) on 6 March 2017.

The underdevelopment of the planning education system is further revealed by the situation of planning research in the country. Table 1 shows that no graduate school in Peru offers a doctorate in urban planning. Moreover, a study from the Peruvian Studies Institute (Hernandez Asencio, 2014) reveals that between 1997 and 2012, only 5% of all articles published in indexed journals from scholars based on Peruvian universities referred to a social science topic, which includes planning. Additionally, the objectives of Peru’s science and technology policy (SINACYT and CONCYTEC, 2005) emphasize the government’s preference for funding research areas that can sustain macroeconomic growth and increase private investment, such as industry, production and technology. Planning research, as a subset of social sciences and oriented towards public policy studies, does not meet these preferences.

Secondly, the low-level status of the planning discipline in Peruvian academia has meant that professionals from an alternative professional discipline considered as able became involved in planning matters: architecture. Although there is no official statistics documenting the percentage of professional architects working as planners in municipalities, the author’s previous job as a planning consultant for over 10 years brought me in close contact with the district and provincial municipalities not only in Arequipa but also in other cities of Southern Peru. During that time, it was observed that usually there were three professional groups working in Urban Development Management offices: architects, civil engineers and lawyers, while the majority of officials were architects. This observation is corroborated, to an extent, by UN-Habitat (2009, see also Knox and Masilela, 1990) that point to architects as one of the largest professional groups involved in planning in developing countries.

The remainder of the article is structured as follows: the next section discusses ethics and planning practice in the South, centering the attention on the differences between the purposes and values conveyed by professional training in planning and architecture. The second section describes the conceptual and methodological approaches used in this study. This is followed by examining the Peruvian case, uncovering the planning purposes and values exposed by professional training in architecture and planning, the architecture professionalization body, the institutional setting of municipalities, the Peruvian planning system and the national urban policy framework. The fourth section discusses Arequipa’s practitioners’ perception of ethical issues in planning. Finally, the article concludes and makes a call for the reform of the Peruvian professional training in planning.

Ethics and planning practice in the 21st-century Southern city

Campbell and Marshall’s (1998) and Campbell’s (2006) assertion that it is imperative to re-engage with planning ethics should be taken seriously, particularly in the Global South. This is the case not only because of the challenging socio-economic, political, and institutional circumstances in which planning is conducted in the region (see the 2009 and 2016 UN-Habitat reports) but also with respect to their implications for the cogency of the core principles and values of the discipline. As Watson (2003a, see also Campbell, 2002) explains, in contexts characterized by stark inequalities and deep differences between the interests of multiple actors, addressing ethical issues means more than giving preference to the interests of some groups to the detriment of others or to choose some values over others. It, in fact, signifies contributing to legitimize pervasive disparities and injustices. Under such circumstances, planning’s legitimacy as the discipline able to respond coherently to the expectations of the actors directly and indirectly involved in urban affairs could be questioned (Bickenbach and Hendler, 1994).

The adoption of neoliberalism in urban policy and decision-making appears to have realized this apprehension, due to the deep transformation of the relationships between the state, the private sector and the society and the redistribution of power this has caused as a result. Some authors maintain that planning could lose its legitimacy due to the way neoliberal policies undermine a key value of the discipline, i.e. the upholding of the public interest (see Alexander, 2002; Campbell and Marshall, 2000; Moroni, 2004; Murphy and Fox-Rogers, 2015) In the Global South, various studies serve as examples for this. For instance, Fawaz (2017) identifies double standards in the interpretation of urban regulations in Lebanon that are justified on the basis of incentivizing private urban investment. Likewise, Roy (2009) describes the intensification of inequality and injustice in Indian cities after the shift from public to private management in infrastructure provision. Zunino (2006) on his part reveals the mechanisms used to disempower local actors in Chile in order to bolster large-scale private urban investment.

Nonetheless, it can be argued that the adoption of neoliberalism has just added another problematic layer to ethical issues in planning in the Global South. As some authors point out (Rakodi, 2001; Roy, 2005; Watson, 2009b), ethical issues in the region are characterized by acute power asymmetries that result from, at least, two pervasive features of planning practice: (1) the questionable ethical environment of the public institutions in charge of planning and; (2) the orientation of national planning systems. Regarding the first feature, Karki (2017), Kilinc et al. (2012), and Server (1996) underline that many ethical issues emerge within an institutional setting characterized by a culture of patronage, clientelism, and outright corruption that is installed at various levels of policy- and decision-making. As the authors emphasize, this results, unsurprisingly, in normalizing non-transparent and questionable practices. Flyvberg (1996, 2013) and Flyvberg et al. (2002) also point to more subtle forms of questionable practices in institutions. These concern cases where practitioners and even professionalization bodies willingly engage in practices that misuse their power as experts in the field to obtain certain benefits or to safeguard institutional reputations.

As suggested by research on institutional ethical environments (for instance Dickson et al., 2001; Schneider et al., 2013; Sims, 1991; Sinclair, 1993), in situations where directors, managers and middle- and lower-level personnel develop practices and behaviors that conflict with institutional mandates and norms, the ambiguous ethical environment that is created legitimizes the abuse of power, especially when such a conduct is not only supported but also actively encouraged and rewarded. Under such circumstances, ethical issues might be perceived as a conflict of principles between institutional mandates, professional values and personal principles (see also Campbell and Marshall, 1998; Sanyal, 2002).

Regarding the second feature, the orientation of national planning systems, research on planning culture and doctrines (e.g. Alexander, 2010; Faludi, 1996; Yiftachel, 1993, 1998) affirms that the interpretation of planning purposes and values to operationalize particular social, economic, political or governmental aspirations can transform planning systems into mechanisms that perpetuate the power asymmetries between governments and minority and disadvantaged communities. This can threaten the well-being of communities when these overarching ideas become fixed societal and governmental beliefs (Sanyal, 2005) and keep on being socialized through planning practices, professionalization bodies and institutional structures (Faludi and van der Valk, 1994).

Kamete (2013), Nnkya (1999), Roy (2005) and Watson (2003b, 2009a) observe this feature in their examinations of planning practice in the Global South. They recount how the orientation of planning systems legitimize particular governmental and societal ideas that render unacceptable and even illegal the survival strategies used by poor and disadvantaged communities, hence maintaining their deprived living conditions and moreover, increasing injustice and inequality. For the authors, such a situation intensifies the power asymmetries between the government and the community, and furthermore generates conflict of interests between those in positions of economic, social, or political power, who expect the system to maintain their current quality of life, and the disempowered, who demand the provision of similar benefits (see also Roy, 2006; Sanyal, 2002).

The discussion above shows that many ethical issues in planning in the Global South display tensions between the planning purposes and values of the professional, institutional and policy arenas that not only conflict at the operational but also at the conceptual level (see Hendler, 2002). It can be argued that at this latter level, ethical issues could surface when the planning purposes and values upheld by the frames of reference of planning practice pointed out before are in conflict with each other (see also Campbell and Marshall, 2000). An interesting question emerges then: given that conflicts and tensions surface even when the interplay of the purposes and values of the frame of reference of planning practice revolve around the notion of planning, what would their nature be in cases where one such frame, i.e. professional training, does not share the same intellectual basis as the others? The relevance of this question is discussed in the next part.

The purposes and values of planning and architecture

Thomas (2012) offers some insights into the importance of professional training in shaping planning practitioners’ perception of ethical issues. The author explains that professional training is where the foundation for further professional ethical development is laid since it provides (p. 401) ‘the tools of ethical analyses’ rooted in specific theories and methodologies'. The author also emphasizes that during professional training, future planners begin to see reality in a distinct manner and hence develop a particular understanding of the nature of the ethical issues they will deal with in practice.

Professional training research confirms Thomas’ conclusions by contending that the knowledge, skills and values acquired throughout professional training have a substantial influence in shaping individuals’ views of what is appropriate or inappropriate practice (Chwieroth, 2007; Momani, 2005). Other scholars in the field (Howkins and Ewens, 1999, Keith and Moore, 1995) also remark that by exposing students to a set of disciplinary beliefs, professional training serves to socialize them into the profession’s core principles and values, in turn reaffirming its importance to society. Importantly for this study, this research suggests that the anticipated differences between the core purposes and values of diverse professions create intellectual boundaries difficult to trespass since they tend to be ideological in nature (Edwards et al., 1981). This implies that different disciplines convey different purposes and values, thus providing different standpoints to frame ethical issues in practice. This conclusion is rather relevant in cases where ethical issues in planning are addressed by practitioners trained in other disciplines, such as architecture. To expand on this matter, an initial exploration of the differences between the purposes and the values of planning and architecture is hence offered here. This exploration is based on Davoudi and Pendlebury’s (2010) argument that principles and values are part of the ‘epistemology of the discipline’ (see also Alexander, 2001), which is represented by three key notions: what the discipline is, what its purposes and values are and whom it serves. It is important to note that this exploration does not aim at being definitive, but at providing initial understandings to frame the analysis.

Up to four differences between the purposes and values of planning and architecture can be recognized in the literature. The first difference is found in the origins of both disciplines. Hebbert (2006) underlines the altruistic origin of planning and points to its initial conception as a social reform project as well as its subsequent transformation into a subset of public policy. As Hall (2002) and Pinson (2004) explicate, although planning was rooted in the intellectual base of surveying, architecture, and engineering, it detached itself from these intellectual traditions in the early 20th-century and started to develop its own trajectory through including an explicitly social perspective based on the influence of reformist such as Le Play in France and Geddes in Britain. The origins of architecture, on the contrary, were not underpinned by such social concerns. Since the mid-20th-century, some well-known architects have adopted a more socially orientated practice in an effort to address the precarious living conditions in developing countries (the work of John Turner, Hassan Fathy and Alejandro Aravena are notable examples), but architectural practice does not usually engage with the definition of the social, economic or environmental policy objectives that urban, infrastructure and architecture projects aspire to fulfill. Instead, the definition of these objectives remains the immediate concern of planning.

A second difference is related to the role of politics and power in these disciplines. The large extent to which the planning and decision-making processes are embedded in politics and deal with power relationships can be hardly denied. As indicated by the planning education literature (e.g. Alexander, 2001; Ellis et al., 2010; Friedmann, 1996), acknowledging the importance of these matters in planning practice demands expanding planning knowledge in topics such the politics of the planning process and on finding ways to better develop the soft skills of future planners. By contrast, engaging in politics and be aware of power relationships are not main concerns in architecture and, in the opinion of some well-known architects (see for instance the statements of Frank Gehry in Flyvbjerg, 2005), it is in fact not advisable. Architecture practitioners are thus not regularly trained to deal with the political nature of decision-making as revealed by the scarce reference to the subject in the typical undergraduate level curriculum (e.g. IUA, 2014; RIBA, 2010). While politics may at some point permeate architecture’s practice, this influence tends to be indirect (Charney, 2007; Ponzini, 2011).

A third difference refers to the understanding of the public and the private interest and the parties these disciplines primarily service. As a discipline commonly associated with the public sector, society expects planning to serve the public interest (Campbell and Marshall, 2000, 2002). This manifests in the demand to give collective concerns and the common good a significant place within the planning process (Hendler, 2002). As a consequence, planning is required to reconcile the demands and expectations of all those affected directly or indirectly by planning decisions and furthermore, to give voice to the parties that cannot speak for themselves, such as, for example, the environment or the material heritage (Alexander, 2002; Bickenbach and Hendler, 1994; Campbell, 2002). This means that it is difficult to pin down exactly which parties planning serves. Architecture, on its part, appears to have more clearly identifiable serviced parties, known as ‘clients’, whose interests and expectations are easier to underpin. Since society does not have similar expectations in relation to the outcomes of architectural practice as those it does with respect to planning, public concerns and the notion of the common good do not necessarily take precedence in architecture practice (see Ellin, 1996). However, this does not mean that architecture practitioners do not develop certain awareness of the importance of the environmental, cultural or historical contexts when designing projects.

A final difference manifests itself in the role of physical and temporal dimensions within the purposes of these disciplines. Kashef (2008) reveals that, while the physical dimension is one of the multiple aspects planning considers when developing policies, it is the central concern for architecture. In the contemporary view of planning, a good quality physical environment is a by-product of properly balancing the social, economic and environmental drivers of urbanization through spatial policies and corresponding legal, socioeconomic and management mechanisms. On the contrary, architecture displays a sense of physical determinism founded on the belief that a well-designed environment can prevent social, economic and environmental imbalances. Regarding the temporal dimension, the need to think simultaneously in multiple spatial frames and time spans in order to envisage, as much as possible, the potential outcomes of the implementation of planning directions, is one key feature of planning practice. Architecture, on the contrary, is practiced under specific spatial frames and time spans, with clear beginnings and ends. Likewise, it is usually not concerned with the long-term impacts of its outputs.

This discussion reveals some significant differences between the purposes and values of planning and architecture, thus offering a first insight into the intellectual foundations that professional architects will likely refer to when facing ethical issues in planning practice. Yet, as noted before, professionalization bodies, institutional settings, planning systems, and policy frameworks also play a role in the reinforcement or questioning of these purposes and values. In this respect, it is necessary to uncover the planning purposes and values embedded within these other frames of reference. To this end, corresponding conceptual and methodological approaches were developed and are explained in the next section.

On conceptualization and methodology

The conceptual approach presented here focuses on the interplay between the planning purposes and values embedded within professional training, professionalization bodies, institutional settings, planning systems, and policy frameworks (Figure 1). It puts forward the idea that ethical issues can be seen as generated by the tensions between the planning purposes and values represented by notions such as the conception of the discipline, the understanding of its purposes and values and its views of who it serves that are embedded within the frames of reference guiding planning practice, such as: (1) the professional training of practitioners; (2) the professionalization body to which a practitioner subscribes; (3) the institutional setting in which practitioners conduct their activities and; (4) the planning system and policy frameworks guiding practice. These tensions can be intensified or not depending on the degree of power asymmetries of the planning practice environment. Additionally, the approach proposes that these tensions can result in substantive or procedural perceptions of ethical issues. Tensions between the planning purposes and values embraced by professional training, professionalization and policy frames tend to generate substantive perceptions of ethical issues, while those between planning systems and institutional frames tend to result in procedural perceptions of ethical issues.

Figure 1.

A value-based approach to analyze the perception of ethical issues in planning.

To apply this conceptual approach, the article works with a two-stage, empirical and qualitative methodology that was applied to the case study city of Arequipa (Peru). This city was selected because it provided the ideal arena to analyze practitioners’ perception of ethical issues in planning in a context with significant power asymmetries shaped by the tensions between the implementation of planning regulations and the promotion of private urban investment. Arequipa is the second most important city in Peru and one of the nine metropolitan areas in the country (see the National System of Human Settlements – SINCEP, DS 022-2016-Vivienda). It is located in the southern part of the country, at 2400 m above sea level. The city’s metropolitan area comprises 19 districts (IMPLA, 2016) and by 2015, it had a projected population of about 920,000 inhabitants.¹

As many other metropolitan areas and middle-sized cities in Peru, Arequipa was shaped by parallel processes of rapid urbanization, informality and formal urban development. These processes, along with the very scarce public investment, generated important gaps in the provision of facilities, infrastructure and housing, which are still a pending demand. At the time of the study (between 2009 and 2013), private urban investment in Arequipa had risen significantly as a result of the national government incentive, as shown by the average increase of 16% per year for the building sector between 2007 and 2014 (BCR, 2016). This caused considerable pressure to the implementation of the city’s urban plan (MPA, 2002), which was developed at the beginning of the 2000s under notions of environmental and built-up heritage protection and densification control.

The first stage of the methodology served to examine the planning purposes and values embedded within Peruvian professional training in planning and architecture, the country’s architecture professionalization body, the municipal institutional setting, as well as the Peruvian planning system and national urban policy framework. It is necessary to highlight that this identification is based on the definition of urban planning offered by UN Habitat (2009, 2015).² It was done through analyzing the aims, objectives, and curricula (available online) of the top five architecture programs in the country (ranked in 2013³), complemented by a similar revision of the websites of the only two masters in urban planning offered in Peru. It also included the documentary analysis of the statutes and the codes of professional practice and conduct from the Peruvian Architects Association, the legal framework guiding municipalities’ planning competencies and functions, the legal framework of the urban planning system, and the country’s urban policy framework. Fifteen such documents were reviewed (see the details in Appendix 1, Table 2). These documents were selected following Bryman and Teevan (2005) and Prior (2008).

A second methodological step served to identify practitioners’ perception of ethical issues, contrasting this perception with the conception of planning purposes and values embedded within the frames of reference described before. It used semi-structured interviews to architects working in municipal Urban Development Management offices, either as planning officials or as consultants. Through a snowballing process that started with the professional network of the author and until saturation was reached, nineteen interviewees were identified. However, only sixteen interviews are reported here because those interviewees had professional training in architecture.⁴

Eight interviewees were municipal officials and a further eight were planning consultants; six interviewees were female; fifteen had more than ten years of professional experience and only five had some studies in planning. Interestingly, the latter group was entirely composed by consultants. At the time of the interviews, participants worked for the Provincial Municipality of Arequipa and two district municipalities but most reported having previously worked for other municipalities in Arequipa and other cities in Southern Peru. This circumstance allowed obtaining an expanded view of planning practice in Arequipa as it involved institutional settings other than the current workplace of the interviewees. The semi-structured interviews included the following topics: (1) the main urban problems of Arequipa and the status of planning; (2) the policy and planning frameworks guiding their practice; (3) their daily activities and the problems they faced in performing such activities and; (4) the criteria and data used to inform their practice. The results of the application of the conceptual and methodological approaches in the Peruvian case are presented in the next section.

The Peruvian case

Peruvian professional training in planning and architecture

The revision of the syllabus of the top five architecture schools in the country came to two findings: first, the differences between the purposes and values of planning and architecture explored before clearly manifested in the course structure. Second, there is an only limited intellectual relationship between planning and architecture, which leads the latter to give an unclear and vague definition of planning purposes and values. Architecture schools’ curricula, unsurprisingly, are developed based on design studios (between 20% and 25% of courses), building technology (between 15% and 23% of courses) and drawing techniques (between 5% and 12% of courses). Only between 6% and 12% of all courses are related to planning issues, but generally, they are considered as elective. In fact, these courses appear to be closer to the concerns of design, since they emphasize the study of the physical environment of cities. Courses related to the politics of policy- and decision-making, power, planning theory, planning methodology and processes as well as urban management are virtually absent.

Although quite limited, the Peruvian professional training in planning is worth examining in order to give a comprehensive view of the standing of the Peruvian academia regarding the discipline. Professional training in planning appears not to have an understanding of the discipline as a policy- and decision-making process that is concerned with socio-spatial processes and the shaping of places, therefore seemingly reinforcing the views of professional training in architecture. The content of the syllabi of the two master programs in urban planning^5,6 shows that specific topics such as local economy and historic centers (25% of courses in both universities) and urban development and planning theory (19% and 25% of courses, respectively) constitute the bulk of the curricular structure. Courses that can provide an understanding of the core substantive and procedural issues in planning, such as policy- and decision-making, implementation, monitoring, and evaluating mechanisms, urban legislation, statistical analyses, and soft skills are absent. Moreover, courses on planning ethics are not offered at all.

Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that Peruvian academia conveys a quite vague, unclear and confusing definition of planning purposes and values that has likely contributed to maintaining the ambiguous professional status of the discipline in the country. The understanding of planning as a discipline seems to be heavily influenced by design concerns since it is based on a static and apolitical conception that fails to differentiate between planning as a policy- and decision-making process and the aims of urban and architectural design. Considering this, it can be hypothesized that future architects who will work as planners, at least during the initial stages of their practice, would be ill-equipped to deal with the power relationships embedded within practice and, thus, to recognize the conflicts of interests that will certainly emerge during local policy- and decision-making. Consequently, it is possible that they may perceive ethical issues as technical problems, in which the political circle and the actors directly and indirectly involved in planning decisions have no saying.

The Architects Professional Association

The legal framework supporting the professionalization of architecture in Peru (see Law N° 28966) identifies planning as a professional competency. Consequently, the Peruvian Architects Professional Association generally provides the professional perspective and the expert opinion in planning matters in the country. The revision of the Association’s Statute (CAP, 2009a), the Regulations for the Professional Activities of Architects (CAP, 2009b) and the Code of Ethics (CAP, 2005) confirms the role this professionalization body plays in the socialization of the planning purposes and values put forward by professional training in architecture.

On the one hand, and as stated by these documents, the Association appears to confuse planning with large-scale (possibly urban?) design when making specific reference to planning since it focuses the aim of the discipline on the improvement of the city’s physical environment. Likewise, these documents also display a technical conception of planning by deeming the development of urban plans a responsibility of architects without making any reference to planning as a broad and participatory policy- and decision-making process. On the other hand, and even though the Association claims that professional architects should use the best of their knowledge to build a good quality physical habitat, the areas this knowledge base should comprise are neither specified, nor is there detailed reference to the minimum core competencies and skills professionals must possess to contribute to such a purpose. The directions of the Law of Universities (Law N° 30220, see also its predecessor, Law N° 23733) may contribute to this imprecision as they state that each academic program should define its own curricular structure, disregarding the intervention of professional associations. As a consequence, there is a considerable variability of the substantive and procedural knowledge thought as useful to address planning issues by the country’s professional programs.

Finally, professional purposes of contributing to society’s well-being, the defence of citizens’ rights and the awareness of society’s interests are mentioned by the Statute (CAP, 2009a) and the Code of Ethics (CAP, 2005). Although commendable, these purposes appear to be closer to the notion of the common good than to that of the public interest, as understood by Simm (2011). For this author, the notion of common good encompasses general, long-term and fundamental aspects of social life, yet to be discovered, while the notion of public interest is related to conceptions that need to be constructed within specific practices and policies, such as in planning. In this sense, thus, the Association’s purposes, as described by the Statute and Code of Ethics, can be considered as valid for any other profession. Therefore, it can be concluded that by eluding to put forward its standing on what the public interest entails for Peruvian planning practice, the Associations appears to contribute maintaining the vague, unclear and confusing definition of planning of professional training in architecture and of what its specific purposes and values are.

The institutional setting of planning practice: Peruvian municipalities

The revision of the planning competencies and functions of Peruvian municipalities, outlined in their legal framework, also confirms the role of the institutional setting in reinforcing the understanding of planning purposes and values conveyed by the professional training in architecture and its professionalization body. The municipal legal framework, deeply reformed during the 1990s and 2000s under the new public management and neoliberal approaches, reveals an apolitical and technical conception of planning that is in tune with the idea of zoning of the 1950s and a narrow view of its purposes and values. The Political Constitution (CRP, 1993) and the Organic Law of Municipalities (Law N° 27972) state that, as planning is a core function of local governments and a shared responsibility with regional governments, municipalities have the legal obligation to plan the territory under their jurisdiction. When describing the principles underpinning the local planning system, the Organic Law of Municipalities makes no specific reference to the notion of the public interest (see Art. 9). Yet, when referring to the use of real estate property, it asserts that municipalities should see to its use in harmony with the common good, without specifying what the common good entails (see Art. 89).

This legal framework considers two types of planning under the responsibility of municipalities, which are, nonetheless, disconnected. One type is local economic planning and the other is urban planning. The latter is seen as a regulatory and technical exercise that centers on land use control. In this perspective, urban planning is mainly considered as a land and property regulatory and administrative activity based on the application of technical regulations and codes that is conducted without the intervention (and influence) of urban actors.

Although municipal competencies and functions in planning are regulatory at the core, two other legal documents (see Laws N° 29090 and N° 30494) have significantly weakened the power control of municipalities and, by extension, of planning practitioners, by introducing paths to obtain building permits and authorizations without their involvement. In substantially reducing the time frame in which permits must be granted (from 60 to 20 days) and in simplifying the requirements to obtain them, these laws have transform routine planning in a sort of ‘checklist’ activity focused on document verification. This legal framework justifies the reduction of the power control of municipalities on the basis of incentivizing private investment. Regulations and more substantive and lengthy approval processes are seen as barriers (see Art. 40 of Law N° 29090), thus implying a preference for private interests.

Apart from the planning purposes and values embedded within the municipal legal framework, there are other features of this institutional setting worth noting here that can provide a more comprehensive view of the Peruvian planning practice environment. One is the de-legitimization of Peruvian public sector institutions due to the weak regulatory and control capacities (Moron and Sanborn, 2007). Attitudes toward corruption in Peruvian society, which exhibit a high tolerance to non-transparent practices, further add to the problem (Medina, 1994, 1998; Silva Santisteban, 2008). The 2014 statistics of the Anti-corruption Attorney’s Office,⁷ for instance, indicate that while 92% of Mayors were under investigation for corruption offences at the time, about 50% of them were seeking re-election. Authors assert that accepting corruption is considered as common sense, pragmatic, and even a survival strategy, given the perceived ‘inevitability’ of such acts within the public administration. To illustrate, although 46% of Peruvians regard corruption as the second most important problem in the country, 78% of them declare having high and medium tolerance to it (ProEtica, 2015).

Another feature refers to the labor conditions in the public sector. The National Register of Municipalities⁸ shows that, by June 2016, about 84% of middle-level personnel, such as planning officials, worked under short-term contracts or had non-permanent posts. This labor regime offers very limited protection against unjustified layoff and other similar actions, thus placing municipal personnel at a very vulnerable position not only in terms of job satisfaction and career advancement but also in light of societal attitudes towards corruption in public institutions. These two features, along with the reduced control capacities of municipalities, not only portray the nature of the power asymmetries of the municipal institutional setting in Peru but also connote the existence of a challenging ethical environment in which confronting a controversial planning decision could be seen as self-defeating and risky.

The planning system and the national urban policy framework

The orientation of the Peruvian planning system and the national urban policy framework reaffirms the apolitical, technical, and regulatory conception of planning and the private-let view of its purposes and values embedded within the legal framework of municipalities. It is important to note that since its creation the 1940s, the Peruvian planning system maintains such a conception and has not experienced any major conceptual evolution (Dorich, 1996). In fact, since the time of its creation, the system has only seen adjustments in the urban parameters and the steps to be followed in plan development (see Castro Pozo, 2007). To illustrate, on the one hand, the recently approved Regulation for Territorial Conditioning and Sustainable Urban Development (DS 022-2016-Vivienda) still define plans as ‘technical and normative instruments’ (see Art. 24 and Art. 32). On the other, these regulations’ attempt to introduce the notion of sustainability in planning direct the attention on natural hazard prevention and economic mechanisms but not consider other crucial topics for urban sustainability such as poverty, informality, segregation, gentrification, inequality, and exclusion.

The regulatory and technical approach of the planning system sits very well with the neoliberal orientation of the national urban policy framework (see MINVI, 2006). The development of this policy framework is a responsibility of the Ministry of Housing, Building and Sanitation (see Law N° 30156). Interestingly, in this law, there is no specific reference to planning as a competence of the ministry but to ‘urbanismo’ (see Art. 5). The national urban policy framework is based on notions of urban competitiveness and city branding. One of its main aims is the creation of a local economic base by promoting cities as engines of economic development and by positioning markets as central in the coordination of decision-making. In this framework, planning is subjected to the market and its main purposes are to support local economic development, bolster real estate investments and drive the building sector up. Although the framework has some social and environmental aspirations, its overall orientation clearly establishes the preference for serving the private interest.

Reinforcing the neoliberal orientation of the national urban policy framework, the DS 022-2016-Vivienda includes several economic mechanisms in plan development with the aim to boost private investment and involve the private sector in urban development. To achieve this end, some specific planning purposes are (see Art. 1): (1) the coordination among the different levels of government to facilitate the involvement of the private sector; (2) the provision of legal certainty and stability for real estate investment and; (3) the achievement of harmony between the exercise of property rights and the public interest. Even though in this latter purpose mentions the notion of the public interest, it is diluted when interpreted in light of the other purposes of planning delineated in these regulations.

The perception of ethical issues in Arequipa’s planning practice

The semi-structured interviews exposed the nature of the interplay of the planning purposes and values conveyed by professional training, professionalization bodies, institutional settings, planning systems and policy frameworks as well as its influence on practitioners’ understanding of what is at stake in ethical issues in planning. Moreover, they revealed deep and pervasive power asymmetries between the professional and political circles in Peruvian municipalities and how these have come to be more extreme after the adoption of the neoliberal-led national urban policy framework and the adjustment of the municipal legal framework under the new public management approach. Furthermore, the interviews revealed some synergies between the planning purposes and values embedded within the regulatory planning system and their apolitical and technical conception in academic and professional circles.

However, on the other hand, the analysis also showed two interesting issues. One is that there is not enough evidence to affirm that practitioners’ limitations to deal with ethical issues and the undue interferences of individuals from political or economic circles result from their professional training in architecture. Given the nature of the Peruvian planning practice environment, it seems to be more the case that any form of professional training will have major difficulties in providing the ethical tools required to deal with such matters. The other is that, although there are some indications that the differences between the purposes and values of planning and architecture somehow influence practitioners’ understanding of what is at stake when facing ethical issues in planning, it cannot be said that it is because of these differences that they are unable to recognize the injustices and inequalities that constantly emerge in their practice. In fact, these differences lead them to give more importance to the procedural than to the substantive side of ethical issues.

As revealed by the semi-structured interviews, for practitioners, the central ethical issue in planning is represented by the tension between three sets of factors: the municipal mandate to enforce regulations and planning directions, the need to comply with specific administrative procedures, and the ample room given by this same institutional setting as well as the planning system and the national urban policy framework to distort such regulations, directions, and procedures. This perception of the central ethical issue in their practice, therefore, revolves around the idea that ethical issues mainly involve contradictions between the personal principles of professionals, politicians, and private developers. In other words, it focuses on conflicts of personal principles. This perception provides very limited room for understanding the substantive content of ethical issues, as shown by practitioners’ belated realization that these also involved tensions between public and private interests. In fact, this realization only emerges when those directly and indirectly affected by decisions raise the issue. If not, these conflicts remain unnoticed.

This perception of ethical issues in planning can be recognized in the examples given below. Substantiated with practitioners’ statements, they expose not only how deep this perception runs within their mindsets but also its role in maintaining the power asymmetries that shape the Peruvian planning practice environment.

One example shows practitioners’ certainty that ethical issues originate in the fact that they have little say in the actual exercise of their specific functions as municipal officials due to political and economic pressures. Most state that this is a huge obstacle in fulfilling the municipal mandate to enforce planning regulations. However, the extent to which the political circle feels entitled to abuse its power in a planning practice environment that offers very limited job stability, along with the apolitical and technical orientation of the planning system, contribute to shaping this adverse context as well. A municipal official revealed:⁹

Our department denied the authorization for outdoor advertisement of a shopping mall because it didn’t comply with our regulations… the developers complained and the Mayor sent us an official note berating us, saying who we think we were to oppose private investment! We felt that we could lose our jobs if we kept our stance. (semi-structured interview, December 2010)

Additionally, this example also points out how economic arguments are used opportunistically to justify overruling planning regulations in favour of private interests in an environment that does not firmly reject non-transparent practices. Apart from confusing, even more, practitioners’ understanding of their duties toward the public and likely impacting their performance, such a situation might also result in the de-legitimization of planning as a discipline and a greater loss of trust in the capacity of municipalities to regulate urban development.

Another example, related to the one above, reveals the sense of professional powerlessness of many practitioners, based on the belief that the professional and the political circles should be independent. In fact, many practitioners think their expertise should be enough to protect them from political or economic pressure. Thus, in their minds, ethical issues only emerge when politicians or developers interfere with how they exercise their professional expertise. Some municipal officials commented:

It is [part of] an institutionalized culture. They believe professionals should be at the service of the political circle, no matter the issue. Professionals do not have an independent voice anymore… their [professional] voice needs to be heard even if opposes politicians’ decisions, but nobody dares to speak up. (semi-structured interview, January 2011)

Developers and investors want their permits no matter what and in record time. They threaten with lawsuits if one does not grant their permits as they want them. (semi-structured interview, January 2011)

This example also demonstrates the extent of the weakening of the control capacities of Urban Development Management offices and exposes their limited understanding of the nature of the tensions between the professional and political circles, which may be based on their technical view of planning. A number of practitioners find this situation quite shocking and few confess feeling unable to play the political game. However, as mentioned before, any form of professional training appears able to prepare practitioners to work in this highly politicized planning practice environment. Moreover, professional training, in general, does not seem to provide practitioners with the tools to work within a planning practice environment where professional expertise is not prized.

The other side of the coin is shown in cases where practitioners refrain from commenting in favour or against a controversial planning issue and simply join the bandwagon. Some justify this attitude on the basis of their multiple and parallel work commitments and even hint that, due to their work conditions, this attitude is ethically acceptable. As a private consultant explained:

It is not easy to go public due to the several work commitments of professionals… many of them work for municipalities and universities [apart from their own private practices]… and that is a huge limitation in giving [unbiased] opinion. (semi-structured interview, January 2011)

By demonstrating confusing obligations to the public sector versus private clients, this example also exposes the tensions between the planning purposes and values conveyed by professional training, the professionalization body and the legal framework of municipalities. Planning consultants, in particular, tend to identify the political circle as ‘the client’ and follow their requests closely, despite the fact that their professional commitment is to the public. However, this situation might be also pointing to a misuse of their professional expertise to favour political or economic interests. It is possible that, due to this sort of professional passivity, the definition of what is at stake in planning decisions does not move forward towards substantive ethical issues, thereby curtailing the opportunities to recognize the potential conflicts between public and private interests.

A final example reveals how deeply ingrained the perception that ethical issues in planning are at the core conflicts of personal principles is in practitioners’ mindsets. Many practitioners continuously noted that politicians, private investors, and the general public are not willing to comply with the law. They maintain that this ‘willingness’ is a matter of personal choice. It is also possible that the high acceptance of corruption in Peruvian society contributes to this perception. Some municipal officials stated:

It is a matter of [personal] idiosyncrasy. People are not thinking how to abide with the law, but how to manipulate it. So, it doesn’t matter how many laws we have if people do not want to respect them. (semi-structured interview, January 2011)

The system is broken… it is common for private developers to come here and say: ‘turn a blind eye and approve my project’… it is very easy for them to come here and propose engaging in corrupt practices. (semi-structured interview, January 2011)

Some interviewees pointed to some features of the municipal institutional setting that could be contributing to shaping this perception of ethical issues. These are the weak control capacities of municipalities and the constant change of the rules of the game in planning matters since virtually all high- and middle-level personnel is replaced every time a new Mayor takes office. To some extent, this perception increases feelings of vulnerability among practitioners, not only professionally but also personally. Yet, they may also use these extenuating circumstances as justifications when they give in to political or economic pressures.

A call for reforming Peruvian professional training in planning

The application of the value-based conceptual approach proved useful in analyzing the main proposition of this study: that the interplay of the planning purposes and values embedded within the frames of reference of planning practice (i.e. professional training, professionalization bodies, institutional settings, planning systems and policy frameworks) significantly influences practitioners’ perception of ethical issues since it shapes specific understandings of what is at stake when facing such questions. Moreover, this article has presented evidence that the perception practitioners bring from their professional training can be long-lasting and difficult to change when the features of their work environment, the orientation of the planning system as well as the type of functions they conduct as public servants become the means that reinforce these ideas.

The study’s analysis revealed three meaningful features that support the case for reforming Peruvian professional training in planning. A first feature refers to the role of reinforcement and feedback loops between the planning purposes and values conveyed by professional training in architecture and those exposed by the corresponding professionalization body and the planning system. In Peru, the vague and/or unclear planning purposes and values, and the confusion of planning with large-scale (urban?) design of the academic and professional circles fit very well with the regulatory and technical approach of the overall planning system. These feedback loops, as a result, shape a sort of vicious intellectual cycle between professional training and professional practice that becomes a significant barrier to thinking about, identifying, and addressing planning ethical issues in substantive terms.

A second feature demonstrates that the adoption of the neoliberal-led national urban policy framework and the associated new public management approach in Peruvian municipalities have not led to questioning core planning purposes and values, but have instead contributed to making them more ambiguous. As the planning purposes and values embedded within the three mentioned frames of reference (i.e. educational, professional and the planning system) are based on the idea of planning as urban development control, it is not surprising that the implied preference for the private interest of the national urban policy framework and the municipal legal framework has not been considered as a major ethical issue by planning practitioners.

A third and final feature concerns how labor conditions of municipalities and the high tolerance exhibited by Peruvian society when it comes to non-transparent practices in public institutions affect the perception of ethical issues in planning as matters of conflict of personal principles. These circumstances are not directly related to specific professional training in either architecture or planning, but point to the limitations of university education, in general, in giving future professionals the tools to deal with the power asymmetries embedded within the Peruvian planning practice environment. Indeed, as both the tension between the municipal and planning obligation to regulate and the practitioners’ sense of powerlessness are at the center of this perception, the Peruvian planning practice environment offers very limited room to discuss ethical issues in planning substantively, thus strengthening the vicious intellectual cycle described above.

As demonstrated by countries with strong and mature professional training in planning and with a dedicated professionalization body, these arenas can be quite influential in shaping academic, professional, and policy discussions about planning substantive matters. Often, they not only lay the intellectual foundation for the professional practice of future planners but also ensure the permanent development of planning knowledge. To fulfil such a role, they exhibit a coherent and aligned understanding of planning and present a unified front when critical reflections on planning issues are required or when the institutional and/or the political circles lose sight of the ethics behind controversial planning matters. This study reveals that neither the Peruvian professional training nor corresponding professionalization bodies are currently fulfilling such critical roles.

The Peruvian national government has initiated a reform of the country’s higher education system, evidenced by the passing of the new Law of Universities in 2014 and the substantial increase in public funding for research. However, it is necessary to note that this reform is mainly concerned with improving the research capacity of universities and faculty and bettering the teaching quality. At this stage, the reform has not addressed the demand for developing knowledge in areas other than production, technology and natural and medical sciences. In fact, social sciences and humanities are absent in the list of the government’s priority research areas.¹⁰ This neglect, however, appears not to have raised concerns among the Peruvian academic community. Discussion regarding what the planning discipline actually entails and how it can be incorporated within the existing university system in the short term must be part of the reform already initiated in some local universities. Nevertheless, it is indispensable to not only attend to the access to professional training in planning but also, more importantly, to develop a coherent knowledge base in planning founded on sound planning research and a comprehensive understanding of the problems in Peruvian cities.

In the meantime, how can practitioners deal with ethical issues in planning? The answer might be found in practitioners themselves. During the interviews, many practitioners recognized that something is wrong with planning in the country, showing their willingness to improve the quality of their practice. This acknowledgement can be considered as the first step toward engaging in more substantial discussions about ways to improve the quality of planning practice in the country. In time, this could lead to debates about the role of professional training in planning in this, the orientation of the planning system, and the ethical implications of the operationalization of this system and the national urban policy framework. However, identifying more detailed paths toward the latter aspiration requires more targeted research.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This article is based on the 2015 AESOP conference paper presented by the author during her JSPS postdoctoral fellowship at co+labo Radovic Design Lab (Keio University, Tokyo, Japan) and United Nations University (Tokyo, Japan). Special thanks to Prof Darko Radovic for his unconditional and invaluable advice throughout her postdoctoral stay and Dr Ingvild Bode for her insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this article. All views expressed here are those of the author only.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author would like to thank the support of the Centre for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies – COES (Santiago, Chile) and the Territorial Intelligence Centre – CIT (Adolfo Ibañez University, Santiago, Chile) in the development of the final version of this article. The writing of the preliminary version of this article was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science – JSPS [grant number JP 26-04805]. The writing of the final version was founded by the Foundation for Urban and Regional Studies – FURS (Ray Pahl Fellowship) and the National Committee for Scientific and Technological Research – CONICYT Chile [grant number CONICYT/FONDAP/15130009].

Notes

Jessica S Pineda-Zumaran is an urban and planning researcher, with a PhD in Planning and Environmental Management. She has held research positions at the University of Manchester (UK), United Nations University (Japan), Keio University (Japan) and COES (Chile). She conducts research on the linkages between urban policies, planning and design practice and the shaping of the built-up environment of Latin American cities. Her research interests include urban policy, planning, and design practice, spatial data usage; local decision-making and policy learning and knowledge-generation, with a special focus on Latin American cities.

Appendix 1

References

Abbot

(2005) Understanding and managing the unknown: The nature of uncertainty in planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24: 237–251.

Alexander

(2001) What do planners need to know? Journal of Planning Education and Research 20: 376–380.

Alexander ER (2002) The public interest in planning: From legitimation to substantive plan evaluation. Planning Theory 1(3): 226–249.

Alexander

(2006) Evaluation and rationalities: Reasoning with values in planning. In: Alexander

(ed.) Evaluation in Planning. Evolution and Prospects, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 39–52.

Alexander

(2010) Planning, policy and the public interest: Planning regimes and planners’ ethics and practices. International Planning Studies 15(2): 143–162.

BCR (2016) Informe económico y social de la región Arequipa, Lima: Banco Central de Reserva del Perú.

Bickenbach

Hendler

(1994) The moral mandate of the ‘profession’ of planning. In: Thomas

(ed.) Values and Planning, Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 162–177.

Bollens

(1998) Urban planning amidst ethnic conflict: Jerusalem and Johannesburg. Urban Studies 35(4): 729–750.

Bryman

Teevan

(2005) Social Research Methods, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

10.

Campbell

(2002) Planning: An idea of value. The Town Planning Review 73(3): 271–288.

11.

Campbell

(2006) Just planning: The art of situated ethical judgement. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 92–106.

12.

Campbell

Marshall

(1998) Acting on principle: Dilemmas in planning practice. Planning Practice & Research 13(2): 117–128.

13.

Campbell

Marshall

(2000) Moral obligations, planning, and the public interest: A commentary on current British practice. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 27: 297–312.

14.

Campbell H and Marshall R (2002) Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory 1(2): 163–187.

15.

Campbell

Marshall

(2005) Professionalism and planning in Britain. Town Planning Review 76(2): 191–214.

16.

CAP (2005) Código de Ética del Colegio de Arquitectos del Perú, Lima: Colegio de Arquitectos del Perú.

17.

CAP (2009a) Estatuto del Colegio de Arquitectos del Perú, Lima: Colegio de Arquitectos del Perú.

18.

CAP (2009b) Reglamento del campo profesional del arquitecto, Lima: Colegio de Arquitectos del Perú.

19.

Castro Pozo

(2007) Derecho Urbanístico, Lima: Editora Jurídica Grijley.

20.

Charney

(2007) The politics of design: Architecture, tall buildings and the skyline of central London. Area 39(2): 195–205.

21.

Chettiparamb

(2006) Bottom-up planning and the future of planning education in India. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 185–194.

22.

Christopher

(1987) Apartheid planning in South Africa: The case of Port Elizabeth. The Geographical Journal 153(2): 195–204.

23.

Chwieroth

(2007) Testing and measuring the role of ideas: The case of neoliberalism in the International Monetary Fund. International Studies Quarterly 51: 5–30.

24.

CRP (1993) Constitución Política del Perú, Lima: Diario Oficial El Peruano.

25.

Davoudi

Pendlebury

(2010) Centenary paper: The evolution of planning as an academic discipline. Town Planning Review 81(6): 613–645.

26.

Desai

Imrie

(1998) The new managerialism in local governance: North-South dimensions. Third World Quarterly 19(4): 635–650.

27.

Dickson

Smith

Grojean

et al. (2001) An organizational climate regarding ethics: The outcome of leader values and the practices that reflect them. The Leadership Quarterly 12: 197–217.

28.

Dorich

(1996) Al rescate de Lima. La evolución de Lima y sus planes de desarrollo urbano, Lima: Colegio de Arquitectos del Perú – Regional Lima and Instituto de Urbanismo y Planificación del Perú.

29.

Duhr

Colomb

Nadin

(2010) European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation, London: Routledge.

30.

Edwards

Bates

(2011) Planning’s core curriculum: Knowledge, practice and implementation. Journal of Planning Education and Research 31(2): 172–183.

31.

Edwards

Nalbandian

Wedel

(1981) Individual values and professional education. Implications for practice and education. Administration & Society 13(2): 123–143.

32.

Ellin

(1996) Postmodern Urbanism, New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

33.

Ellis G, Murtagh B and Copeland L (2010) The future of the planning academy: Final report. Report, Queen’s University Belfast and The Royal Town Planning Institute.

34.

Faludi

(1996) European planning doctrine: A bridge too far? Journal of Planning Education and Research 16: 41–50.

35.

Faludi

van der Valk

(1994) Rule and Order. Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century, Dordrecht: Springer-Science+Business Media B.V.

36.

Fawaz

(2017) Exceptions and the actually existing practice of planning: Beirut (Lebanon) as case study. Urban Studies 54(8): 1938–1955.

37.

Flyvbjerg B (1996) The dark side of planning: Rationality and “realreationalitat”. In: Mandelbaum SJ, Mazza L and Burchell RW (eds) Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick: Centre for Urban Policy Research Press, pp.383–394.

38.

Flyvbjerg

(2005) Design by deception: The politics of megaproject approval. Harvard Design Magazine 22: 50–59.

39.

Flyvbjerg

(2013) How planners deal with uncomfortable knowledge: The dubious ethics of the American Planning Association. Cities 32: 157–163.

40.

Flyvbjerg

Holm

Buhl

(2002) Cost underestimation in public works projects: Error or lie? Journal of the American Planning Association 68(3): 279–295.

41.

Forester

(1989) Planning in the Face of Power, Berkeley: University of California Press.

42.

Friedmann

(1996) The core curriculum in planning revisited. Journal of Planning Education and Research 15: 89–104.

43.

Hall

(2002) Cities of Tomorrow. An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the 20th Century, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

44.

Hebbert

(2006) Town planning versus urbanismo. Planning Perspectives 21: 233–251.

45.

Hendler

(1991) Ethics in planning: The views of students and practitioners. Journal of Planning Education and Research 10: 99–105.

46.

Hendler

(2002) It’s the right thing to do – Or it is? Contemporary issues in planning ethics. Plan Canada 42(2): 9–11.

47.

Hernandez Asencio

(2014) Quién escribe más y sobre qué? Cambios recientes en la geopolítica de la producción científica en América Latina y el Caribe, Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos and GRUPO FARO.

48.

Howkins

Ewens

(1999) How students experience professional socialization. International Journal of Nursing Studies 24: 30–38.

49.

IMPLA (2016) Memoria del PDM Arequipa. Plan de Desarrollo Metropolitano de Arequipa 2016 – 2025. Región y provincia de Arequipa, Arequipa: Municipalidad Provincial de Arequipa.

50.

INEI and ANR (2011) II Censo Nacional Universitario 2010, Lima: Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática.

51.

IUA (2014) UIA Accord on Recommended International Standards of Professionalism in Architectural Practice, Washington: UIA Professional Practice Program Joint Secretariat.

52.

Kamete

(2013) Missing the point? Urban planning and the normalisation of ‘pathological’ spaces in southern Africa. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38: 639–651.

53.

Karki

(2017) What should planners do to address unethical political pressure? Planning Practice and Research 32(2): 103–119.

54.

Kashef

(2008) Architects and planners approaches to urban form and design in the Toronto region: A comparative analysis. Geoforum 39: 414–437.

55.

Keith

Moore

(1995) Training sociologists: An assessment of professional socialization and the emergence of career aspirations. Teaching Sociology 23(3): 199–214.

56.

Kilinc

Ozgur

Neval

(2012) The possible sources of ethical issues in urban/physical planning in Turkey. Turkish Studies 13(1): 45–65.

57.

Knox

Masilela

(1990) Role orientations of Third World urban planners. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 17: 9–22.

58.

Medina

(1994) Del arribismo al “achoramiento”: Medios anómicos de ascenso social. Apuntes 34: 27–39.

59.

Medina

(1998) La cultura del “achoramiento”. Nueva estrategia de ascenso social. Apuntes 42: 53–64.

60.

MINVI (2006) Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano. Lineamientos de Política de Desarrollo Urbano 2006–2015, Lima: Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento.

61.

Momani

(2005) Recruiting and diversifying IMF technocrats. Global Society 19(2): 167–187.

62.

Moron

Sanborn

(2007) Los desafíos del policymaking en el Perú: Actores, instituciones y reglas de juego, Lima: Centro de Investigación de la Universidad del Pacifico.

63.

Moroni S (2004) Towards a reconstruction of the public interest criterion. Planning Theory 3(2): 151–171.

64.

MPA (2002) Plan Director de Arequipa Metropolitana 2002–2015, Arequipa: Municipalidad Provincial de Arequipa and AQPlan 21.

65.

Murphy

Fox-Rogers

(2015) Perceptions of the common good in planning. Cities 42: 231–241.

66.

Nnkya

(1999) Land use planning practice under the public land ownership policy in Tanzania. Habitat International 23(1): 135–155.

67.

Pinson

(2004) Urban planning: An ‘undisciplined’ discipline? Futures 36: 503–513.

68.

Ponzini

(2011) Large scale development projects and star architecture in the absence of democratic politics: The case of Abu Dhabi, UAE. Cities 28: 251–259.

69.

Prior

(2008) Documents and Action. In: Alasuutari

Bickman

Brannen

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods, London: SAGE, pp. 479–492.

70.

ProEtica (2015) Novena Encuesta Nacional Sobre Corrupción, Lima: IPSOS, Available at: www.ipsos.pe/sites/default/files/6185315INF_V12_22dic15%20Pro%C3%A9tica%20%28Version%20para%20web%29.pdf (accessed 10 April 2017).

71.

Rakodi

(2001) Forget planning, put politics first? Priorities for urban management in developing countries. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 3(3): 209–223.

72.

RIBA (2010) RIBA Validation Criteria at Part 1 and Part 2, London: Royal Institute of British Architects.

73.

Roy

(2005) Urban informality. Toward an epistemology of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 71(2): 147–158.

74.

Roy A (2006) Praxis in the time of empire. Planning Theory 5(1): 7–29.

75.

Roy A (2009) Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory 8(1): 76–87.

76.

Sager

(2011) Neoliberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning 76: 147–199.

77.

Sandercock

(2004) Towards a planning imagination for the 21st century. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 133–141.

78.

Sanyal B (2002) Globalization, ethical compromise and planning theory. Planning Theory 1(2): 116–123.

79.

Sanyal

(2005) Hybrid planning cultures: The search for the global cultural commons. In: Sanyal

(ed.) Comparative Planning Cultures, New York: Routledge, pp. 3–25.

80.

Schneider

Ehrhart

Macey

(2013) Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology 64: 361–388.

81.

Server

(1996) Corruption: A major problem for urban management. Habitat International 20(1): 23–41.

82.

Silva Santisteban

(2008) El factor asco. Basurización simbólica y discursos autoritarios en el Perú contemporáneo, Lima: Fondo Editorial Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

83.

Simm

(2011) The concepts of common good and public interest: From Plato to Biobanking. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20: 554–562.

84.

Sims

(1991) The institutionalization of organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 10: 493–506.

85.

SINACYT and CONCYTEC (2005) Plan Nacional Estrategico de Ciencia, Tecnologia e Innovacion para la competitividad y el desarrollo humano – PNCTI 2006–2021. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia.

86.

Sinclair

(1993) Approaches to organizational culture and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 12: 63–73.

87.

Thomas H (2012) Values and the planning school. Planning Theory 11(4): 400–417.

88.

UN Habitat (2009) Planning Sustainable Cities: Policy Directions. Global Report on Human Settlements 2009. London: United Nations Human Settlement Program.

89.

UN Habitat (2015) International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning, Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlement Program.

90.

UN Habitat (2016) Urbanisation and Development, Emerging Futures. World Cities Report 2016. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlement Program.

91.

Watson V (2003a) Deep difference: Diversity, planning and ethics. Planning Theory 5(1): 31–50.

92.

Watson V (2003b) Conflicting rationalities: Implications for planning theory and ethics. Planning Theory and Practice 4(4): 395–407.

93.

Watson

(2009a) ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away…’: Urban planning and the 21st century urbanization. Progress in Planning 72: 151–193.

94.

Watson

(2009b) Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies 46(11): 2259–2275.

95.

Yiftachel

(1993) Power disparities in the planning of a mixed region: Arabs and Jews in the Galilee, Israel. Urban Studies 30(1): 157–182.

96.

Yiftachel

(1998) Planning and social control: Exploring the ‘dark side’. Journal of Planning Literature 12(2): 395–406.

97.

Yiftachel

(2000) Social-control, urban planning and ethno-class relations: Mizrahi Jews in Israel’s ‘development towns’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(2): 418–438.

98.

Zunino

(2006) Power relations in urban decision-making: Neoliberalism, ‘techno-politicians’ and authoritarian redevelopment in Santiago, Chile. Urban Studies 43(10): 1825–1846.