Tamara Metze

Fracking the Debate: Frame Shifts and Boundary Work in Dutch Decision Making on Shale Gas

Abstract The meaning of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is contested worldwide: is it an energy game changer, a transition fuel, or a technology that poses severe environmental problems? In the Netherlands, a policy controversy developed in which fracturing was reframed from ‘business as usual’ to a potential environmental risk. This article theoretically and empirically describes this shift by arguing that the technology of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is a boundary object that created a sphere of engagement for all sorts of actors. In this sphere, they negotiated a common but soft meaning of this technology. These negotiations consisted of frame contests. As part of those contests, the discursive strategies of framing and boundary work enabled opponents to create uncertainty about economic benefits and environmental impact. The shift in meaning transformed the issue from an economic one with standard governmental rules and regulations into a planning issue that needs more precaution.

Dynamic Discourse Coalitions on hydro-fracking in Europe and the United States

ABSTRACT Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is a controversial issue in most countries. In these controversies, actors use discursive boundary work to convince various audiences of their position. Discursive boundary work is a communicative strategy that involves the framing of facts in contrast to other kinds of arguments. In this article we develop the Dynamic Discourse Coalition (DDC) approach to study how discourse coalitions deploy discursive boundary work to confirm, integrate, polarize or disintegrate their own and opposing discourse coalitions. The DDC approach enables a deeper understanding of the dynamics of controversies about hydraulic fracturing and similar contested technologies by illuminating the influence of communicative processes on policy formation. Based on an analysis of policy documents, academic reports, newspapers, interviews and websites we compare the dynamics of contesting discourse coalitions in the Netherlands and New York. This analysis explains why policy formed in different ways in the cases, despite the apparent similarity of the discourse coalitions that emerged in the respective controversies.

The legitimacy of regional governance networks: Gaining credibility in the shadow of hierarchy:

This paper explores the sources of legitimacy of regional governance networks and pays special attention to the aspect of credibility. We argue that legitimacy of regional governance networks is not only based on legality, justifiability, and consent, but also on the ability of the regional governance network to gain credibility in the shadow of hierarchical decision making. Credibility has not received the same degree of attention as other aspects of legitimacy. However, networked forms of governing – such as regional governance – to a large extent rely on the belief held by participating governmental actors and higher levels of government in this type of collaboration and governing. They must be convinced of the added value of this type of collaboration. We empirically illustrate the importance of credibility as an aspect of legitimacy, using two examples of cases of regional housing governance in the Netherlands.

Pigs in the City: Reflective Deliberations on the Boundary Concept of Agroparks in The Netherlands

ABSTRACT The concept of an agro-production park combines industrial with environmental and animal friendly agriculture. In The Netherlands, academics and government introduced this idea—what we consider a boundary concept—to align economic and environmental ambitions. In this contribution, we argue that boundary concepts are important in deliberations as they create a sphere of engagement that enables participants to scrutinize their routines and to explore new interpretations and practices that replace their normal ways. In this way we ground the notion of ‘reflexive governance’ in deliberative practices for sustainable agriculture. We explored if and how the concept of an agropark induced frame-reflective conversations about conflicting and overlapping interpretations. We conducted a frame analysis of four Dutch national newspapers from which we derived four possible interpretations of an agropark: Pigs in the City, Surviving Farmers, Pigs in the Mud and Surviving Citizens. Next, we analysed 10 deliberative sessions about agroparks to study if reflectivity occurred. Our findings suggest that to move to more sustainable agriculture, the introduction of innovative boundary crossing concepts invites participants to reflect on conflicting frames and engage in reflective governance. However, facilitators and governmental actors need to support this boundary crossing for it to become tangible.

Keep out of the dairy gateway: Boundary work in deliberative governance in Wisconsin, USA

Abstract Boundary work is the discursive demarcation of discourse and practice to gain authority, credibility and legitimacy for this discourse. To study boundary work in experiments with deliberative governance provides a way to describe the discursive struggles between elements of the ‘government’ and the ‘governance’ discourse that arise when transitioning from the hierarchical ‘government’ model to network cooperation in a ‘governance’ model. In the Dairy Gateway Project in Wisconsin, USA, participants agreed to build voluntary networks that go beyond state requirements in environmental regulations. They aimed to stimulate sustainable agriculture and community building. The Dairy Gateway Project is an example of an experiment with deliberative governance. Boundary work in the Dairy Gateway influenced the transition from ‘government’ discourse to ‘governance’ discourse in at least four ways: first, demarcations of elements of the new deliberative governance discourse from normal government discourse gave these elements more credibility, authority and legitimacy. Secondly, demarcations induced reflective conversations. Thirdly, discursive demarcations indicated what elements of discourse were considered credible, authoritative and legitimate. And finally, a transcending of boundaries in an ambiguous boundary concept enabled the crossing of boundaries not only between ‘government’ discourse and ‘governance’ discourse, but also the boundaries between farming and environmental discourse and practice.

Understanding the drama of democracy : Looking back at the Seventh International Conference in Interpretive Policy Analysis

‘It is time for a new era, a new dawn has come. We will be the world’s first Monarchist Anarchy’. With these words, an actor queen opened the Seventh International Conference in Interpretive Policy Analysis (IPA), in a theatrical way. This 2012 IPA conference was held in Tilburg from 5-7 July. The Queen was referring to the theme of the conference, Understanding the Drama of Democracy: Policy Work, Power and Transformation. Over the last 10 years, the political and administrative landscape in the Netherlands, Europe and the rest of the world has been changing radically. In Europe, there was an increasing power of populist and radical right parties. The economic crisis challenges the credibility of European governing. The Arab spring illustrates the increased voice of citizens in illiberal democracies. There is an ever growing influence of China and other ‘nonWestern’ countries on world politics and markets and so on. These are all challenges for politicians, policy-makers and other governing actors. In addition, these developments can be interpreted in a broad variety of ways. In order to understand this changed world, insight into the performative dimension of policy-making is increasingly important. The presentation and interpretation of politicians, of policy-makers, but also of arguments and of facts are of great influence on their credibility. This challenges actors involved to cross boundaries, to learn, to transform, to deal with constantly alternating power relations and, at the same time, to be perceived as authentic or trustworthy. More and more interpretive researchers study how public actors perform in practice. This means that they pay attention not just to language-oriented dimensions of practice, but also to nonlinguistic action and emotion. Moreover, it raises questions about the role of interpretive research in the mediation and transformation of different meanings, and in creating or supporting policy learning. The seventh IPA conference illustrated the wide scope of interpretive policy analysis. The pre-conference (organized for the second time at IPA) hosted 45 participants who were introduced to IPA by Dvora Yanow and were offered an in-depth account of interpretive research in three workshops (ethnography, interpretive design and discourse analysis). Around 320 people from 33 countries registered for the general conference and more than 250 papers were presented in 39 panels. The conference included two roundtables, three methodology workshops, six Authors meet their Critics and, last but not least, three keynote speakers. Prof. Dr. John Forester argued that interpretive policy analysis extends far beyond being an elective choice of academics. It is also a ‘working necessity’ for engaged policy practitioners. As he said,

Chapter seven Frankenstein’s Monster: the Amsterdam Case of Good Collaborative Governance

“We have created Frankenstein’s monster.” This is what Lodewijk Asscher, then Amsterdam’s alderman for Finance, Education, and Youth Affairs, concluded in 2007 about the programs and projects for the city’s youngsters. In his opinion, social welfare, youth healthcare, youth mental care, and education were not transparent and accessible enough for children and teenagers in need. Several problems occurred in this domain. For one, there were overlaps and gaps in the supply of programs and projects by professional organizations, and the city’s services led children to get stuck between organizations or to an overload of professionals.

Innovation Unlimited? Working Across Boundaries in a Case of Collaborative Governance on the ‘Youth Domain’

This paper studies how collaborative governance might take place in synergy with the routines and practices of “normal” policy making. We investigated if and how discursive and extra-discursive boundaries from bureaucratic and organizational silos were crossed in boundary concepts, objects and people. Moreover, we studied the limits to this type of collaboration in a case of collaborative governance on the youth domain” – youth welfare and youth care – in the Dutch city of Amsterdam. In this case, participants were confronted with restrictions to their innovative ways of cooperating. The paper addresses the limits and dilemmas that organizers and participants in collaborative governance ran into when faced with the routines and practices of “normal” policy making. Moreover, we seek possible solutions to these dilemma’s and to the boundaries to collaborative governance both from a theoretical point of view and from the practices of the participants in collaborative governance.

Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance, by J.S. Dryzek with S. Niemeyer

Deliberative democracy is in good company these days as Dryzek and Niemeyer subtly point out in Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Barack Obama is a proponent, the rock star Bono is an example of a discursive representative, and the hierarchy of the Chinese Communist Party is open to deliberative experimentation. The authors demonstrate that deliberative democracy is no longer limited to theory but is successfully organized into many policy practices. They argue that lessons from these practices can be learned for improving the design of experiments with deliberations, for democratization of networked governance, and for advanced theoretical development of deliberative democracy. Moreover, they argue that deliberative democracy can be extended to other domains beyond the liberal democratic state, for example global politics and the global political economy. There is even some prophesy in the book about the current Arabic Spring: the authors argue that authoritarian regimes might be transformed with an increased deliberative capacity of their inhabitants. Overall, this is an excellent book that proposes interesting thoughts and practical solutions from deliberative governance. However, it leaves the reader with some unanswered questions, for example, what is reflectivity, does rhetoric induce it, and is reflectivity a condition to be a good rhetorician?

Collaborative Regional Governance in the Netherlands: Credible Innovations or Persistent Routines?

Dutch city-regions more than ever face the question how to legitimize their existence and be credible to participants and the public. The formal answer to this question is that the city-regions are an “extension” of local government. Their policies, programs and decisions are democratically legitimate as city councils of the municipalities formally approve their plans (Cie. Toekomst Stadsregionale Samenwerking 2009; Ministerie van BZK 2008, 2010). However, the Dutch national government no longer grants legal tasks to these voluntary forms of network-collaboration. Moreover, the economic crisis intensifies competition and conflicts among participants. The credibility of these innovative forms of cooperation is on the line as routines of municipal, provincial and state decision making allure. In this paper we will argue that inter-municipal collaboration, to be legitimate, first and foremost needs to be credible to participants, citizens and other layers of government. These actors need to constantly reproduce a belief in the necessity of collaboration for more innovative and better solutions for the region to make it legitimate. Next to a media-analysis to assess the image of the regional collaboration, we studied how in deliberations the members of the collaboration and other actors, reason about, give motives for and interpret the results of collaborative regional governance. We argue that it is in deliberation that routines of governing and the routine solutions are reflected upon and set aside if necessary for innovative regional collaboration. Hence, democratic legitimacy of regional cooperation and city-region governance is gained in action. In this paper we explore, at what moments, why, and how participants but also others question the credibility – and through that the legitimacy – of regional cooperation. The paper is based on the experiences of four Dutch city-regions that voluntary collaborate: stadsregio Amsterdam, stadsregio Arnhem/Nijmegen, Stedendriehoek Apeldoorn, Zutphen, Deventer and the Drechtsteden. We focus on one of their policy domains: housing.