Designing democratic institutions for collaborative economic development: a European perspective

Collaborative approaches to local economic development have developed in a number of European countries. However collaborative working presents a new problem for policy makers and public management researchers. The problem is to design an institutional framework for the governance of economic development that provides for anchorage in the democratic system without loosing the benefits of flexible policy design and delivery. This is particularly important in a European context. The European Union has recognised the need for citizens to be more engaged in the governance of public policy at all scales - from local neighbourhoods to the transnational level. This chapter addresses the problem by examining the basic questions that any form of democratic governance design needs to address, and relating this to the case of economic development. The core democratic design questions are: How can legitimacy be secured? In what ways can relevant publics give consent to decisions? Through what means can the institution be held to account? The chapter discusses these three democratic imperatives and shows that different responses to these produce three archetypical governance designs - club, agency and polity. We then explore the way in which the problems of democratic governance have been solved empirically through longitudinal case studies of the expansion of Mainport Rotterdam and the management of economic, environmental, residential and transportation agendas in the Ghent canal area of the Flanders region of Belgium. The analysis shows that although different national and regional political contexts matter, the typology of archetypes offers a way of understanding the overall democratic orientation of a particular governance design as well as offering a basis from which policy makers can create their own solutions

Schiphol Airport Amsterdam: to Understand the Past Is to Secure Future Economic Growth.

Schiphol Amsterdam, the main airport of the Netherlands, is a dynamic node, where the space of places and space of flows meet. The days that Schiphol was just an airport are long gone. This makes it a complex entity. The different governments concerned with the future development of Schiphol appear to be indecisive and lack adequate knowledge needed to understand the dynamics of the airport, as a result of which the planning process is insufficient. It seems that reality and the administrative situation do not fit anymore. Spatial supply and demand differ enormously. Schiphol and the national government both conceptualize the airport by calling it a mainport, but both define the same concept differently. The mainport concept was formed in the mid-eighties, when the Dutch economy was in a period of recession. Two economic motors were appointed: the Rotterdam Harbour and Schiphol Airport. Now after almost twenty years Schiphol evolved enormously while the mainport concept used by the government hardly changed. How is this possible? In this paper I will describe the forming of the mainport concept and the evolution of Schiphol. After assessment of this evolution and the concept, which is done by a combination of in depth interviews, a comprehensive literature study and the analysis of the operative policy documents, I conclude with a problem inventory. I argue that this inventory can help us understand why the mainport concept and Schiphol differ today and why reality and the administrative situation do not fit anymore. In this way, the problem inventory will provide a good basic framework in order to find a solution and make sure that in the recent future reality and the administrative situation will be one again.

Complexity in decision-making - the case of Maasvlakte - Connecting decisions, arenas and actors in spatial decision-making

Decision-making about infrastructure is very complex. Decisions to develop the Rotterdam harbour are being taken in a network of local, regional and national actors and influenced by international actors (firms, NGO’s etc.) both public and private. This decision-making process shows a lot of uncertainty and complexity and the outcomes are of great importance for the development of the harbour. Network theory has been widely used to indicate, explain and manage uncertainty in decision-making processes. The theory is well equipped for empirical research and has shown many applicable results. The attention for influences from outside the network to decision-making inside the network is however still poorly developed. In the case of decision-making with a strong international component this is a handicap. In this paper the relation between influences from outside and decision-making inside networks is studied both theoretically and empirically. A distinction is made between locally bound and non-locally bound networks to theorise the complex decision-making process. The well-known scientific concept of space of flows versus space of places from Manuel Castells is used as an inspiration to describe the relation between the locally and non-locally bounded networks of decision making. The locally bounded network is formed by the formal decision making process between the governmental and non-governmental organisations in countries, regions and municipalities. The non-locally bounded networks exist of organizations that are footloose and act globally mainly according to economic principals. The concept of inclusion is used to analyse the various actors in the decision-making process. The paper starts with the description of the external influences in port areas in general. The balance between the influence of local and non-local bounded networks depends on the multiple-inclusion of the different actors in the decision-making process in both networks. In areas in which many actors are included in the place-bounded networks, the external influences can be expected to be marginal. The port area of Rotterdam is a node in international networks and so the hypothesis can be set that in the Rotterdam port area the influence of actors mainly included in non-place bounded networks is significant in decision making networks. To explore this assumption various networks, which are relevant for decision-making about spatial issues in the Rotterdam port are identified and the differences in inclusion of the relevant actors is analysed. By means of the analysis of perceptions of the various actors (locally bound or non-locally bound) and their strategic choices and decisions we show that notions on international port development are being interpreted and transformed quite differently by the various actors. This first part of analysis highlights the possible gap between the awareness of the various actors of the non-locally bounded networks and their translation into their strategies in local bounded networks. We also trace difference of perceptions and strategies between actors who solely operate in locally bound networks and actors who are both included in locally and non-locally bound networks (like shipping firms etc). This second part of analysis indicates if there are differences in what the actors use as input for their respective positions in the decision-making networks. The paper shows that the influence of external developments in non-locally bound networks manifests itself in locally bound networks but is transformed and interpreted in many ways by the different actors. The paper ends with some conclusions about decision-making on large ports and the possibilities to influence this complex decision-making process that takes place in locally bound and non-locally bounded networks at the same time.

Unravelling decision making about the future developments of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

The time that airports were merely infrastructural works for supporting air transportation is no more. Over the years, especially the major airports have developed from airfields into multi-modal transportation nodes and cities of their own. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is a perfect example of this. The airport has developed into an attractive pool for urban and economic development, known as an AirportCity. Airports like Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, took up their newfound position in the emerging network society and implemented new business strategies to cope with the increasing volatility of future transport volumes. The search for additional finances has lead to further commercialization of the airport and gave rise to Airport-city like concepts. However, this evolving form of airports did not find its way into Dutch national planning policy. An analysis of Dutch national spatial strategies shows an increased interest for Amsterdam Airport Schiphol as being of major importance for the national economy, but the emphasis is still mainly on the airport as an important piece of physical infrastructure. With fierce competition of cities like Barcelona and Dublin in mind, the Amsterdam region needs a strong, widely supported, development strategy to maintain and strengthen its concurrence position. A strategy that acknowledges the new airport day-to-day realities and that goes beyond the narrow definition of the airport as merely infrastructural. Such a widely accepted strategy does not exist at this moment, which causes serious problems if policies are willing to strengthen the role of Schiphol for the national economy in the future. This paper explores the newfound position of airports in the network society. It links this position to an analysis of the processes of policy making to identify reasons why there is currently no strong development strategy for Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (region). A comparison is made between the policy development process in the late 80’s and early 90’s, which did result in a widely accepted development policy for the airport, and the policy development process that currently takes place. Interviews with primary stakeholders and analyses of policy documents shed light on the success factors that made the reach of an agreement possible in the early 90’s as well as the reasons for not being able to reach such agreement today.

Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme?

It has become popular to advocate partnership arrangements. Such partnerships may be seen as new forms of governance, which fit in with the imminent network society. However, the idea of partnership is often introduced without much reflection on the need to reorganize policy-making processes and to adjust existing institutional structures. In this contribution, we discuss the ambiguity of partnerships. An empirical basis is provided by means of an analysis of the policy making on the expansion of the Rotterdam harbor. This case indicates that although new governance schemes are being proposed and explored, they still have to comply with the existing procedures in which they are imbedded. Governments especially are not prepared to adjust to governance arrangements. Policy making continues to be based on selfreferential organizational decisions, rather than on joint interorganizational policy making. This raises questions about the added value of intended cooperative governance processes

From planning the port/city to planning the port-city : exploring the economic interface in European port cities

In last three decades, planning agencies of most ports have institutionally evolved into a (semi-) independent port authority. The rationale behind this process is that port authorities are able to react more quickly to changing logistical and spatial preferences of maritime firms, hence increasing the competitiveness of ports. Although these dedicated port authorities have proven to be largely successful, new economic, social, and environmental challenges are quickly catching up on these port governance models, and particularly leads to (spatial) policy ‘conflicts’ between port and city. This chapter starts by assessing this conflict and argue that the conflict is partly a result of dominant—often also academic—spatial representations of the port city as two separate entities. To escape this divisive conception of contemporary port cities, this chapter presents a relational visualisation method that is able to analyse the economic interface between port and city. Based on our results, we reflect back on our proposition and argue that the core challenge today for researchers and policy makers is acknowledging the bias of port/city, being arguably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence, we turn the idea of (planning the) port/city conflicts into planning the port-city’s strengths and weaknesses

Using knowledge for decision-making purposes

Abstract: Policy-related research in general, and Impact Assessments in particular, are too loosely connected to decision-making processes. The result is often sub-optimal or even undesirable, as one of two situations arises: 1) much research is done; however, those with the real power to make decisions do not make use of all of the resulting information, or 2) advocates of contrary opinions struggle with each other, using policy-related research as ammunition. To avoid these unwanted situations, the connection between the world of knowledge and the world of decisionmaking should be carefully constructed, by connecting the process of decision-making to the academic research and carefully developing research goals in response to the demands of decision-makers. By making these connections in a stepwise manner, knowledge may generate new insights and views for involved decision-makers and stakeholders, thus changing perceptions and problem definitions. In this way, these actors learn about the possibilities of several alternatives as well as each other’s perceptions, and thus can make educated decisions leading to the most desirable and socially acceptable solution. The way this proposed method works is illustrated using two cases in The Netherlands: the project “Mainport Rotterdam” (the enlargement of the port of Rotterdam), the project “A fifth runway for Amsterdam Airport (Schiphol)”

Complexity in Decision Making: The Case of the Rotterdam Harbour Expansion

Decision making about spatial projects is very complex. Decisions to develop the Rotterdam harbour are taken in the context of a network of local, regional, national, European and international actors, both public and private. These decision-making processes exhibit a lot of complexity and the outcomes are of great importance for the development of the harbour. The complexity is the consequence of interactions between actors connected in different arenas, who are all thinking about the same project. This article uses network theory, and the concepts of actors and arenas in particular, to highlight the complexity of decisions and the connections between various separate decisions. It is demonstrated that the outcomes of the decision-making process are a result of the various connections that are being made. The spatial project at the core of this article is a harbour expansion project called Maasvlakte II