The spontaneous rules of spontaneous development

Abstract

This study contributes to the long but still heated debate on spontaneity in urban development. While the critics of spontaneity consider it synonymous with chaos, its proponents emphasise the benefits of spontaneous order. In this paper, we assume that spontaneous development may have both positive and negative aspects and we seek to identify what determines whether and to what extent spontaneity will produce a beneficial social/spatial order. The prevalence of advantages or disadvantages may be due to specific historical, geographical and social causes, but we emphasise one critically important factor: the presence of spontaneous social rules. To contribute to this debate, we acknowledge the institutional nature of spontaneous rules and underscore the need for rules to develop over time. We examine three spontaneous developments in Plovdiv, Bulgaria’s second largest city. As these settlements are typical for spontaneous forms in Southeast Europe, we draw conclusions relevant primarily to this region, but also in wider contexts. We find that spontaneous rules’ development is what determines whether order emerges and to what degree its benefits are realised. The suitability of spontaneous rules depends on local cultures, habits and values rooted in society.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.