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.

Public Private Partnerships: deciphering meaning message and phenomenon

__Abstract__ There is no doubt that Public private partnerships have been a dominant issue in governmental rhetoric’s but also in governmental practice. In many countries governments have turned to the idea of public private partnerships, or partnerships in general, as a vehicle to realize better policy outcomes, or to enhance investments in fields like infrastructure health or even social policy. However at the same time the concept and the idea of PPP has been a contested concept (see Hodge and Greve, 2005, Weihe, 2008). Even is we roughly define Public private partnership (PPP) as a “more or less sustainable cooperation between public and private actors in which joint products and/or services are developed and in which risks, costs and profits are shared” (Klijn and Teisman, 2003) we can still find many different forms under this heading. So PPP’s have been given many meanings, been used it quite a number of ways and we see many different manifestations. Now this is all very normal for many ideas and terms used both in the world of practice and in the world of science but in this case the confusion seems to even bigger than usual. In general we can find confusion on at least three areas, which of course are also connected to each other: - Confusion about the meaning of public private partnerships; not only do we find many different definitions but also many different appraisals and emotions. - Confusion about the argumentations and rationality of public private partnerships; there is a lot of discussion what precisely PPP’s should or could achieve (better value for money, more investments, innovations etc.) and these argumentations not seldom seems to be contradictory; - Confusion about what preferable or best form public private partnerships should have; both in the scientific literature and in the many policy documents that want to promote PPP we can find a wide variety of forms that are being seen as the best or the most workable form to cast the cooperation in. In this chapter we will elaborate on each of these confusions

Democratic legitimacy criteria in interactive governance and their empirical application

__Introduction:__ Governance and Democracy Whatever ‘governance’ is, it is certainly aimed at involving stakeholders. The literature gives various reasons for the necessity of involving stakeholders and thus why (interactive) governance can be more effective than more classical forms of steering. In general, they fall into three categories (see for instance Kooiman 1993; Kickert et al. 1997; Pierre 2000; Sorensen and Torfing 2007): 1. stakeholders have to be involved because governments are dependent on their resources (‘veto power’ argument); 2. stakeholders are involved because they have specific knowledge and can enhance the quality of the problem definition or even more so the quality and innovative character of the solutions (‘quality’ argument); 3. stakeholders have to be involved to enhance the democratic quality of decision-making in modern network societies (‘democratic legitimacy’ argument

It's the management, stupid! Over het belang van management bij complexe beleidsvraagstukken

De laatste jaren zien we steeds vaker politici vertellen dat we daadkracht nodig hebben en dat er nu eindelijk eens besluiten genomen moeten worden. Geluiden die gretig opgepikt worden door de media. Men zou zelfs met recht kunnen beweren dat de media zelf actief aan deze beeldvorming meedoen. Zo ontstaat wat inmiddels door verschillende commentatoren en wetenschappers is betiteld als een dramademocratie. Een democratie waarin politiek is gepersonifieerd en theater is geworden. Krachtige beelden en het regisseren van de voorstelling zijn voor politici belangrijker geworden dan de uitvoering van beleid. Deze dramademocratie staat echter op gespannen voet met de werkelijkheid van alledag, waarin complexe beleidsproblemen, zoals het herstructureren van een woonwijk, het realiseren van waterberging of het bevorderen van de kwaliteit van onderwijs, moeten worden opgelost. In die werkelijkheid willen betrokken partijen vaak andere dingen en zijn het niet eens over de aard van het probleem. Weten we ook vaak niet wat de goede oplossing is aan het begin van het proces en is kennis van het netwerk van partijen waarin de besluitvorming plaatsvindt, en van de uitvoeringsrealiteit onontbeerlijk. Cruciaal voor het vinden van goede maatschappelijke uitkomsten is het zorgvuldig managen van deze processen en het verzorgen van uiteenlopende vormen van democratische verankering. Dit vereist het betrekken van uiteenlopende partijen en een zekere toewijding voor het proces in plaats van krachtige, eenzijdige, politieke interventies. Professor dr. Erik-Hans Klijn is hoogleraar bestuurskunde bij de opleiding Bestuurskunde (Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen) van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

Leven met onzekerheid: Besluitvorming over duurzame stedelijke ontwikkeling

Cahier Reeks duurzame stedelijke vernieuwin