Attitudes and Ethics: Evaluating Knowledge and Regulatory Constructs in Planning Enforcement Practice

The departure point for the paper is the need to scrutinise previously unconsidered dimensions which are fundamental to understanding the dynamics of the planning enforcement system. Drawing upon emerging themes in regulation theory the paper fuses these with knowledge constructs. The rationale is that regulatory regimes must be informed by knowledge imparted from a range of sources and the resultant quality of decision making is inextricably linked to the robustness and completeness of the evidence base collated.
The theoretical analysis, coupled with proposed radical legislative changes, provides a lens for an empirical investigation which scrutinises tactics, strategies, operational mechanisms, attitudinal dimensions and ethics with a view to identifying key factors impacting upon enforcement efficacy. Prizes and pitfalls are identified in the course of the analysis and evaluation, with evidence-based remedies suggested where appropriate. The paper concludes by reflecting on the importance of theoretical synergy, epistemological advancement, taking cognisance of ethical and attitudinal challenges facing the planning profession; and, stresses the importance of identifying and bringing to book those who flagrantly breach the Code of Professional Conduct.

Accumulation of knowledge and accumulation of capital in early ‘theories’ of growth and development

This paper argues that prior to Adam Smith economic progress was largely conceived as being based on the accumulation of knowledge. The development by Turgot and Smith of a concept of capital that subsumed other factors contributing to development led their followers to focus on capital to the neglect of the independent role of knowledge. The paper demonstrates that this paradigmatic shift was identified and challenged by Bentham, Hodgskin and Rae who argued for the independent role of innovation but without lasting impact. © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.