Worlds Apart WORLDS APART

Worlds Apart Worlds WORLDS APART Interactions between local initiatives and established policy Marleen Buizer Marleen Buizer Worlds Apart Interactions between Local Initiatives and Established Policy i Promotor: Prof. dr. J. Lengkeek Hoogleraar Sociaal Ruimtelijke Analyse Wageningen Universiteit Co-promotor: Dr. ir. J.P.M. van Tatenhove Universitair Hoofddocent Leerstoelgroep Milieubeleid Wageningen Universiteit Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Prof. dr. B.J. Malbert Chalmers University Gothenburg, Sweden Prof. dr. ir. K. Termeer Wageningen Universiteit Prof. dr. J. de Vries Leiden Universiteit Dr. M. Hidding Wageningen Universiteit ii Worlds Apart Interactions between Local Initiatives and Established Policy Marleen Buizer Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor op gezag van de rector magnificus van Wageningen Universiteit, Prof. Dr. M.J. Kropff, in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 29 februari 2008 des namiddags om half twee in de Aula iii Worlds Apart; Interactions between Local Initiatives and Established Policy Buizer, I.M., 2008. PhD thesis Wageningen University, 252 pp. PhD thesis Wageningen Universiteit, Wageningen 2008. With summary in English and separate summary in Dutch. ISBN 978-90-8504-874-9 iv Abstract I.M. Buizer, 2008. Worlds Apart; Interactions between Local Initiatives and Established Policy. PhD thesis Wageningen University 252 pp. This thesis presents three case studies about private actors aspiring to realize their innovative ideas on land management and design in three different areas in the Netherlands. In appearance, these three areas are very different but they are all dynamic and are all located near cities. In size, the areas range from seventy to a few hundred hectares. Socially, they are highly dynamic as well, with various groups and organizations seeking either to make changes or to conserve what they value, and taking action to promote their ideas. However, it was clear from the start that the ways in which the initiators of these ideas gave meaning to the three areas differed from the ideas enshrined in existing policies. It is argued that the initiatives must be looked at in the context of various pleas for ‘interactive policy making’, since these generate expectations about the scope for initiatives to come from private actors. The question is whether these pleas really imply scope for two-way traffic, allowing ‘space for policy innovation’ through local initiatives which do not originate from government actors. Indeed, the three case studies show that there is ample innovative potential at the local level and that ideas do get implemented after considerable efforts. The fact that these initiatives were implemented was also due to other factors, such as the personal zeal and perseverance, trust and empathy that could develop among people involved ‘in the field’. However, the cases also show that there is only limited politicized discussion about the possible wider policy implications of these local innovations. This study revealed this asymmetry between local innovative potential and a seeming lack of responsiveness on the part of established policy by means of an analysis of 1) the relationships between discourses, actor coalitions, rules and resources at the level of day-to-day interactions between the initiatives and established policy, and 2) the influence of structural forces such as Europeanization, distantiation, juridification and sectoralization on these everyday practices. The study explored how these structural forces contributed to a form of depoliticization in the case study areas. Keywords: local initiatives, policy arrangements, participation, sub- politicization, depoliticization, discourse, duality of agency and structure, space for policy innovation, interpretive analysis, urban-rural relationships v For Pim vi Contents Acknowledgements 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 5 1.1 Three social spatial situations 5 1.2 Involving private actors 9 1.3 Positioning the researcher 12 1.4 Initial questions 14 1.5 Reading this book 15 Chapter 2: Conceptual framework 17 2.1 Introduction 17 2.2 Local initiatives and existing policy: dualities of agency and structure 18 2.3 Further conceptualizing the interplay of local initiatives and existing policy 20 2.3.1 Introduction 20 2.3.2 Policy arrangements 22 2.3.3 Institutionalization of policy arrangements 28 2.3.4 The influence of sub-politics, political modernization 29 2.3.5 Dualities and dualism: introducing the time dimension 33 2.4 Space for policy innovation 37 2.4.1 Looking for non-institutionalized initiatives 37 2.4.2 Discretionary space 38 2.4.3 ‘ Innovation’, a growth industry 40 2.5 “Sensitizing devices, nothing more” 42 2.6 Research Questions 43 Chapter 3: Methodological Account 45 3.1 Introduction 45 3.2 Three different cases 47 3.3 Three different roles 48 3.4 Interpretive inquiry 53 3.5 Action Research 54 3.6 In the name of ‘trustworthiness’: criteria and techniques 57 3.7 Progressive refinement of sensitizing concepts by action and reflection 60 Chapter 4: From Biesland to Brussels 63 4.1 Introduction 63 4.2 The area 66 4.3 Operative policy: “Every city needs a forest” 67 4.4 A long story 71 4.5 Interpretation 97 4.5.1 Origin of the initiative in the context of existing policy 97 4.5.2 Discourse, actors, rules and resources 98 vii 4.5.3 Structural transformations; depoliticization rather than sub -politicization 105 4.5.4 Space for policy innovation: selective elasticity 107 4.6 The relational dimension and my own positionality 109 4.6.1 The relational dimension 109 4.6.2 Positioning the researcher 111 Chapter 5: Transcending boundaries at the Dutch-Belgian border 113 5.1 Introduction 113 5.2 The area 117 5.3 Operative policy: economic opportunities beat the drum 117 5.4 A story 118 5.5 Interpretation 135 5.5.1 Origin of initiative in the context of the existing policy arrangement 135 5.5.2 Discourse, actors, rules and resources 136 5.5.3 Structural transformations; depoliticization 141 5.5.4 Space for policy innovation 143 5.6 The relational dimension and my own positionality 145 5.6.1 The relational dimension 145 5.6.2 Positionality 147 Chapter 6: From opposition to collaboration in the Loonsche Land 149 6.1 Introduction 149 6.2 The area 150 6.3 Operative policy 154 6.4 A story 155 6.5 Interpretation 169 6.5.1 The origin of the initiative 169 6.5.2 Discourse, actors, rules and resources 170 6.5.3 Sub-politicization 173 6.5.4 Space for policy innovation 174 6.6 The relational dimension and my own positionality 175 6.6.1 Socio-relational factors 175 6.6.2 Positionality 176 7. Comparison of the cases 179 7.1 Introduction 179 7.2 Origins of the initiatives 181 7.3 Stability and dynamics 184 7.4 Sub-politicization and other structural processes 187 7.5 Space for policy innovation 196 7.6 Other explanatory factors 197 7.7 Conditions impeding or enabling space for policy innovation 198 viii 8. Conclusions 201 8.1 Introduction 201 8.2 Theoretical reflections 202 8.3 Positionality 213 8.4 The Need to Reconnect 215 Summary 221 Bibliography 233 Curriculum vitae 241 ix x Acknowledgements Acknowledgements It is with a feeling of relief and regret that I view the approaching date of defending this thesis. Relief, because the combination of writing this thesis in parallel with project work sometimes felt like having to paint a portrait while sitting in a roller coaster. Regret, because there were many good sides to it. Carrying out the PhD research gave the project work a deeper dimension that may easily have passed by unnoticed. Additionally, working on the thesis made me discover more of myself. And luckily, finishing this thesis is just a step in a learning process which I hope to continue. The influence of my parents came at a very early stage of that learning process. Thank you Kees and Willy for making me deeply aware that our natural environment is not something to take for granted. In terms of the process that I went through, thank you for sincerely and consistently asking ‘How ARE you?’, and ‘Could you summarize in a few words what your thesis is about?’ At Alterra, I thank Wim Timmermans and Hein van Holsteijn in particular for giving me the chance to invest time in the PhD research, as well as the LNV research programmes ‘KB1’ and Groene Metropolen. When we started this we did not know where and when it would end. Thank you for providing the springboard from which I could ‘dive into the deep end’. Jaap Lengkeek, my promotor, offered me serious time that allowed me to step off the roller coaster on a weekly basis. Jaap, together with co-promotor Jan van Tatenhove, formed the supervisory team. At times it must have been difficult to do this job – therefore I thank both of you for your patience and confidence. Jan, ‘father of the policy arrangements approach’ inspired me to combine my ‘practical work’ with theoretical reflections, and Jaap – thank you for your jokes, and for helping me through difficult stages of the work. Colleagues at the Social Spatial Analysis Group at the Hucht – you were brilliant! The coffees in Carla van Zwaaij’s office at the Hucht, sometimes together with Fred and Henda – our conversations went in all directions and were probably a mystery to outsiders; even so it did provide us with many a laugh! Carla – you were the greatest, without you …. (I don’t know what kind of terrible thing would have happened). Marlies Brinkhuijsen and Marielle van der Zouwen are my ‘paranimfen’ (a typically Dutch cultural thing). Marlies with you I shared an office in the Hucht, but not just that: I could pour out my heart to you whenever I 1 Acknowledgements needed to (and… thank you for bringing Christmas trees in my life when they were most needed).

Load more