Susan Fainstein

Conducting field research in New York and London, Fainstein has studied the rise of "pro-growth" municipal regimes and accelerated real estate development since 1980. Her work charts the growth of public-private partnerships in urban development and increasing reliance on property development as a wholesale economic development strategy.[3] Noting that property-focused growth has weakened urban welfare programs and broad neighborhood revitalization strategies, she has proposed reforms to public-private partnership structures that discourage overbuilding and permit broader community benefits.[4]

Since 1999 Fainstein has worked to theorize the “just city,” a concept for which her 2010 book is named.[5] Fainstein argues that urban planners need a normative theory of justice because their enthusiasm for social and built-environment diversity has not produced alternatives to inequality under pro-growth regimes.[6][7] She maintains that the dominant “communicative planning” paradigm—in which sufficiently inclusive and deliberative planning procedures are said to yield just outcomes—cannot produce just outcomes. This is because they cannot resolve structural inequalities among actors, settle rival concepts of the public good, or account for progressive policies achieved in non-deliberative democratic societies.[8] Because of these limitations, planning procedures permit outcomes incompatible with justice such as greater economic inequality, marginalization of social groups, and political domination.[9]

Fainstein proposes an urban theory of justice in which “equity, “democracy,” and ‘’diversity’’ are the first-order concerns of urban development, with equity prevailing when such outcomes conflict.[6][10] These principles aim to harmonize the contractarian “theory of justice” proposed by John Rawls with its post-liberal criticisms, particularly those of Iris Marion Young, who argues that the recognition of social group differences cannot be subordinated to individual distributive fairness.[11] To reconcile tradeoffs among these priorities, Fainstein endorses the “capabilities approach” of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum: all three norms must be upheld sufficiently such that they can be achieved by all moral subjects, while allowing subjects to choose priority among these basic principles.[6][12]

Fainstein has upheld Amsterdam's social housing program as a model of the "just city" paradigm because it supports a mix of household types, permits ethnic concentration but not enclavism, and safeguards a basic living standard.[6][13] Other scholars have argued that liberalizing structural reforms since 1980 have eroded the program's claims to provide housing equity and social diversity.[14][15]

The topic has been engaged widely by planners and urban theorists since its introduction. Peter Marcuse and Oren Yiftachel have expanded on Fainstein's justice concept, calling for greater focus on property relations and recognition of planning paradigms outside the U.S. and Europe.[16][17] More critical reception has come from urban geographer David Harvey who, extending his Marxist critique of urban planning, has argued that “just city” theory does not remedy the inherent injustices of capitalist urbanization but instead palliates them.[18] Fainstein has responded that the approach attempts what is feasible within capitalist development and does not "depend on revolutionary change."[19]