UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Property rights in planning theory: A critical review

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.1016/j.progress.2026.101042

Auteurs

Sina Shahab · Andreas Hengstermann

Année déclarée

2026

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:16:19.180198+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:16:19.180198+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

Cardiff University · Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

The relationship between planning and property rights is foundational to how land is governed, accessed and contested, but its treatment across major planning theories remains uneven and fragmented. This paper critically reviews how property rights are conceptualised across ten influential planning paradigms, highlighting the assumptions and inconsistencies that shape this engagement. Drawing on insights from legal theory, institutional economics and critical geography, it approaches property as a socially embedded and institutionally mediated arrangement of entitlements, obligations and exclusions. Five analytical lenses structure the comparison: the conceptualisation of property; ownership and the public–private boundary; the roles of key actors; power and spatial justice; and planning’s transformation of property rights through regulatory and institutional intervention. The analysis shows that engagement with property varies according to the explanatory, prescriptive and critical purposes of different theories. Marxist, Coasian and neoliberal planning foreground property as a structuring institution, whereas rational, incremental and collaborative approaches often address it through technical, procedural or governance concerns without consistently examining its distribution or legitimacy. These orientations shape how planning is understood as a mode of governance, particularly in relation to land commodification, state authority and socio-spatial inequality. The paper concludes that more explicit integration of property’s institutional and distributive dimensions would strengthen planning theory’s capacity to address ownership, justice and institutional transformation.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W7212753524

DOI

10.1016/j.progress.2026.101042

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2026.101042
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7212753524

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w1529325023 · CITES
• openalex:w1600429647 · CITES
• openalex:w1754088298 · CITES
• openalex:w1792611288 · CITES
• openalex:w1934852501 · CITES
• openalex:w1937607646 · CITES
• openalex:w1972850014 · CITES
• openalex:w1973776909 · CITES
• openalex:w1973885182 · CITES
• openalex:w1974390230 · CITES
• openalex:w1978632415 · CITES
• openalex:w1982495268 · CITES
• openalex:w1989335131 · CITES
• openalex:w1991556914 · CITES
• openalex:w2004939754 · CITES
• openalex:w2010438834 · CITES
• openalex:w2010793828 · CITES
• openalex:w2014933206 · CITES
• openalex:w2015231533 · CITES
• openalex:w2015930340 · CITES

0 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.