This chapter has introduced how, in order to address the wider issue of European integration through a focus on transnational high-speed rail policy-making, this research has adopted a perspective that seeks to provide critical and spatial insights into this process, has developed an analytical framework to address the issue in a theoretically sound and rigorous manner, and has applied this framework through the use of a single-case study research strategy.
These steps are elaborated in detail in the first part of the thesis (Chapters 2 to 4), which contextualizes and frames the second, empirical part (Chapters 5 to 8), followed in turn by a concluding chapter.18
Thus, the existing literature on this topic is reviewed in the following chapter, which is structured according to the three main issues that the research approach identified as key to the topic: the rationales articulated around the development of this type of infrastructure, the influence of actors in the policy process, and the relevance of space in policy-making.
Chapter 3 subsequently presents the three-dimensional analytical framework proposed for the study of this issue, whereby transnational HSR policy-making is understood as consisting of discursive and power struggles and as being mediated by space. The last chapter of this first part of the thesis details the case study research strategy adopted and the research methods used.
The following four chapters comprise the empirical results of the thesis. Chapter 5 provides a description of the studied case, a chronological narrative of the Vitoria-Irun HSR line policy process from 1986 to 2006 based fundamentally on documentary evidence that provides the context for the three following chapters of the thesis. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 present the analysis of the case on the basis of the three-dimensional analytical framework.
Each of them addresses one of the research questions and is structured according to the
18 This ‘linear-analytical structure’ (Yin, 2009, p. 176) has indeed been the standard approach present, with some variation mainly in the degree of theoretical elaboration, in existing case study research on transnational HSR development.
35 concepts and categories defined in the analytical framework. Thus, they show the results of applying different analytical lenses to the same phenomenon described in Chapter 5, that is the policy process of a transnational HSR line.
The findings of these three chapters are subsequently synthesized in the final chapter, which provides an answer to each of the three research questions and highlights the contribution of the thesis to the existing scholarship on the issue. In addition, it provides a postscript on the recent time period not covered in the case study (from 2006 to 2014), highlighting its possible implications for the research findings. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the value of the adopted analytical approach and on possible further directions of research.
36
2 Transnational high-speed rail infrastructure development in the European Union
Analytically, the development of transnational high-speed rail infrastructure can be approached from two perspectives. The first one is concerned with exploring the rationales mobilized around this development, both those supporting it and contesting it.19 On the one hand, high-speed rail can be seen as central to the creation of a single European space, as it facilitates the transportation of persons and goods across borders. On the other hand, the contentious nature of infrastructure development, coupled with the trans-border character and concentrated accessibility of transnational high-speed rail, suggests that other rationales may oppose this idea. The second perspective focuses on the actual process leading to the construction of such an infrastructure, in particular on the roles of the different actors involved in it. During most of the second half of the 20th century, the nation-state played the main role concerning the ownership, planning, and management of the railway systems in its territory. But recent developments such as the liberalization of the transport sector and the increasing importance of EU institutions hint at a more fragmented policy environment where different state and non-state actors interact to shape transport infrastructure development.
Both perspectives are of central relevance to the process of European integration as the tensions inherent in achieving convergence in both rationales and decision-making reveal the challenges that the European project faces. Whilst pro-EU actors, among others, may promote the development of a transnational HSR line, others, including the governments of areas not served by the network, community groups, and environmental organizations, may resist it and even openly contest it. Even when there is a broad agreement about the direction of policy, difficulties may in any case arise due to lack of coordination, different priorities, disagreement over financial contributions, etc. Therefore, a key challenge of the European project is bridging the distance between the integration it requires and the fragmentation of rationales and actors in the policy process.
These two fields of enquiry are related to another, perhaps less evident but equally relevant to European integration. As explained in the introductory chapter, the spatial dimension of transnational HSR development is particularly significant. The differentiated European space it contributes to shape by increasing the connectivity between distant points at the expense of proximate ones suggests, first, that a variety of rationales with different
19 Rationale is conceptualized in this thesis as the argumentation that actors mobilize publicly to justify and legitimize their stance on a policy issue.
37 spatial features may be mobilized around the project. Certain actors may consider the promotion of trans-European relations as fundamental to economic development, whereas others may argue for the prioritization of short-distance transport to improve local, everyday accessibility. Moreover, the spatiality of transnational HSR infrastructure also points at the conflict between the trans-border spatial relations that it facilitates and the bounded political spaces that have conventionally framed the development of rail transport infrastructure. In fact, as Section 1.1.2 has argued, particular attention to the spatiality of policy-making in the EU may usefully inform debates on the democratic nature of this process.
This chapter therefore focuses on these three fields by reviewing the relevant existing literature and recent research, which largely addresses transport infrastructure policy-making and EU transport policy but also includes contributions from spatial planning and political geography. The chapter first examines the rationales around the development of transnational HSR infrastructure, focusing on the possibilities for convergence between disparate ideas and interests. Subsequently, it addresses the role of the different actors involved in the policy process, in particular within the context of a changing policy-making environment in Europe where non-nation-state actors gain relevance. Finally, the chapter examines the literature on the spatiality of the policy process, focusing on the changing spatiality of the state and on the conflicts that the spatial implications of transnational HSR development may prompt. It concludes, on the basis of the previous discussion, by identifying the knowledge gaps in the literature and the resulting three research questions that have guided this research endeavour.