M. van Lieshout

Disentangling Scale Approaches in Governance Research: Comparing Monocentric, Multilevel, and Adaptive Governance

The question of how to govern the multiscale problems in todays network society is an important topic in the fields of public administration, political sciences, and environmental sciences. How scales are defined, studied, and dealt with varies substantially within and across these fields. This paper aims to reduce the existing conceptual confusion regarding scales by disentangling three representative approaches that address both governance and scaling: monocentric governance, multilevel governance, and adaptive governance. It does so by analyzing the differences in (1) underlying views on governing, (2) assumptions about scales, (3) dominant problem definitions regarding scales, and (4) preferred responses for dealing with multiple scales. Finally, this paper identifies research opportunities within and across these approaches.

Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a 'mega farm' in a small Dutch village

Scale issues are an increasingly important feature of complex sustainability issues, but they are mostly taken for granted in policy processes. However, the scale at which a problem is defined as well as the scale at which it should be solved are potentially contentious issues. The framing of a problem as a local, regional, or global problem is not without consequences and influences processes of inclusion and exclusion. Little is known about the ways actors frame scales and the effect of different scale frames on decision making processes. This paper addresses the questions that different scale frames actors use and what the implications of scale frames are for policy processes. It does so by analyzing the scale frames deployed by different actors on the establishment of a so-called new mixed company or mega farm and the related decision making process in a Dutch municipality. We find that actors deploy different and conflicting scale frames, leading to scale frame mismatches. We conclude that scale frame mismatches play an important role in the stagnation of the decision making process.

Youth and Immigrants' Perspectives on Public Spaces

This article reports on perceptions and practices of youth and immigrants concerning public spaces in the Netherlands. Policy formation does not necessarily incorporate their interests, even though they form large and growing demographic groups in Dutch society. Data were collected in semi-structured conversations and group discussions and were analyzed using a set of concepts involving frames and framing. It is concluded that, despite the current context characterized by a decreasing availability of public space and an increasing use of virtual spaces via new media, public spaces remain important for both groups, especially for fulfilling important social functions such as the construction of identities. Furthermore, the interlocutors do not influence the design and use of public space via formal channels but, nevertheless, do have an effect via informal ways, by making use of informal networks, on one hand, and simply by being around, on the other.

Doing scalar politics: interactive scale framing for managing accountability in complex policy processes

Complex policy issues increasingly play out in multilevel and multi-scale contexts. This allows for scale framing: framing an issue at a particular scale and level. In this article, we study scale framing as an interactional phenomenon in various policy settings, with a focus on its role in managing accountability. Using an interpretive approach, based on discourse and conversation analysis, we analyze three different policy interactions. We show how actors do scalar politics in face to face interactions, by using scale frames to manage accountability. We tentatively revealed three scale framing patterns. We conclude that a discursive approach to accountability is an important addition to more procedural approaches in complex policy processes.

Reputation management in agro‐food industries: safety first

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to study the way in which Dutch organizations in the food sector try to cope with their reputations regarding food safety.Design/methodology/approach – In‐depth interviews with eight representatives of Dutch agro‐food companies were organized, representing a variety of products with different positions in the agro‐food chain.Findings – The results show that, although reputation management is not a special branch in the organization of communication, the subject is seen as crucial for these organizations. Their strategies, however, differ considerably, depending on whether they position food safety as more or less central in their mission and brand strategy.Originality/value – The article makes recommendations and gives insight into the agro‐food industry and will be of interest to those in the field.

Why more knowledge could thwart democracy: configurations and fixations in the Dutch mega-stables debate

This chapter focuses on how governments can deal with knowledge-intensive issues. Especially it seeks to understand why information and knowledge could thwart democracy. Using the public debate about a mega-stable in a small town in the Netherlands, we demonstrate the role of communication and research in establishing and losing trust. In this town, citizens protested against the arrival of a mega-stable in their backyard, while politicians and researchers strongly supported the concept because of its alleged sustainable character. The more information and knowledge by means of research reports and information exchange evenings became available, the more people began to distrust their administrators and vice versa. Configuration theory , a social-cognitive approach to change, provided the theoretical basis to analyse this paradoxical situation. A configuration is characterised by a group of people with an intensive interaction pattern, agreed upon interaction rules and shared meanings. By being aware of the different configurations in which stakeholders operate, and using arguments which relate to these configurations, one might escape fixations in the decision-making process and the negative spiral of losing trust.