Propuesta de desarrollo

framing and power dynamics in a deliberative governance process

about the future of Dutch intensive agriculture. In response to fierce

societal resistance, the then Dutch Minister of State for Agriculture

decided to organise a societal dialogue about the scale and future

of the animal husbandry sector in the Netherlands. We analyse

this deliberative process on both the interactional (i.e. within the

different policy episodes) and the governance process level. We

distinguish between the power dynamics: in the interaction, of

the interaction and over the interaction. We use discourse and

conversation analysis to study the interplay between scale framing

and the power dynamics at stake. At first sight, the ‘power-over’ in

this process appeared very strong and dominated the ‘power-in’ and

the ‘power-of’, but in the end the power-of appeared even stronger.

Furthermore, we show that scale frames are powerful discursive

devices in the different episodes (power-in), but the analysis of the

process as a whole shows a different picture.

5.1 Introduction

Although the construction and politics of scale are intensively debated in the field of political geography (see e.g. MacKinnon, 2011 for an overview), the construction, use and implications of scale framing for governance processes have not received much attention in public administration and policy

sciences. Scale framing is a powerful mechanism in shaping the meaning of policy issues, with possibly far-reaching consequences for governance processes in terms of responsibilities and inclusion or exclusion of actors and ideas (Kurtz, 2003; Leitner, 2004). In this paper, we study scalar politics. More specifically, we analyse the interplay between scale framing and different power dynamics in a deliberative governance process about the future of Dutch intensive agriculture, and its influence on policy outcomes. We define scales broadly as the agricultural/spatial, temporal or administrative dimensions used to describe a phenomenon, and levels are the different locations on a scale (adapted from Gibson et al., 2000; see also Table 5.1)13_{. Through the process of framing, actors highlight different}

aspects of a situation as relevant, problematic or urgent (Gray, 2003; Entman, 1995), and by doing so situate issues on different levels and scales (Dewulf & Bouwen, 2008; Van Lieshout et al., 2011). Actors that are able to frame the issue on a particular scale influence the governance process in terms of inclusion and exclusion of issues, actors, solutions and outcomes (Kurtz, 2003; Leitner, 1997, 2004; Van Lieshout, Dewulf, Aarts, & Termeer, 2012). But how do some actors ensure that their scale frames prevail, whereas other scale frames disappear? A variety of different frameworks and conceptualisations of power exist (e.g. Bachrach & Baratz, 1970; Clegg, 1989; Lukes, 1974, 2005). As we focus on what is happening in interaction, we conceptualise power as an interactional phenomenon that forms an integral element of human relations (Bachrach & Baratz, 1970; Elias, 1970). Power is then not conceptualised as a capability or characteristic of an individual, but rather as a dynamic, continuously established in interaction by the reactions of other actors (Elias, 1970; Thornborrow, 2002). As Fairclough (2001, p. 36) explains: ‘power ... is never definitively held by any one person, or social grouping, because power can be won and exercised in struggles in which it also can be lost’. In this paper, we use the term power dynamics to grasp the relational and dynamic aspects of power.

13 We are aware of the debates about the conceptualization of scale in human geography. For the purpose of this paper, we need a very concrete conceptualization of scale. Therefore, we use Gibson et al.’s (2000) definition, which we adapted to the scales found in an earlier analysis of the same case (see Maartje Van Lieshout, et al., 2011).

|

134 135

We study the interplay between scale framing and power dynamics in the so-called societal dialogue on the future of intensive agriculture in the Netherlands. In response to fierce societal resistance and under pressure from the Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (EAI) Select Committee, the then Dutch Minister of State for Agriculture decided to organise a ‘societal dialogue’ about ‘the scale and future of the animal husbandry sector’ (Alders, 2011, p. 5) in the Netherlands.

This discussion is implicitly and explicitly about scale, since the increasing number of large animal-housing units – so-called mega-stables – and their (possible) negative effects form the direct cause for the dialogue. On the one hand, the societal debate is about whether it is desirable to keep many animals close together in large housing units; on the other hand, it is about the consequences of situating such animal housing close to residential areas (which is often the case because of the high population density in the Netherlands). Dutch citizens worry about the occurrence of various animal diseases and the spread of these to humans, animal welfare, antibiotic use and the development of resistant bacteria, the risks of dust and other emissions, environmental problems and, recently, the size of mega-stables in the landscape.

The dialogue took place in spring 2011 and consisted of orienting talks, a representative opinion study, citizen panels, a stakeholder dialogue and an internet discussion (www.dialoogmegastallen.nl, accessed 10 January 2012; Alders, 2011; Ministerie van Economische zaken Landbouw en Innovatie, 2011). The results of these discussions were collated in a report for the responsible Minister of State. In response, the latter wrote a letter to the Dutch Lower House in which he addressed the concrete policy measures that he would take as a result of the dialogue (Bleker, 2011) (see below).

In the next section, we develop a framework to analyse the interplay between scale framing and power dynamics in governance processes. At the end of this section, we fine-tune our research question. Subsequently, we discuss the methods used. Then we proceed to analyse the different episodes of the governance process in relation to the societal dialogue regarding Dutch intensive agriculture. Finally we conclude with a reflection on the different mechanisms of power and scale framing in this deliberative governance process.

5.2 Framework to Analyse the Interplay between Scale

Framing and Power Dynamics in Governance Processes

Following Stone (2012), we do not see policymaking as a rational process. Policies ‘are not simply external, generalised or constraining forces, nor are they confined to texts. Rather, they are productive, performative and continually contested’ (Shore & Wright, 2011, p. 1). In this paper, we take a processual approach to policymaking (see also Shore & Wright, 2011). The assumption behind process thinking is that social reality is not a steady state, but rather a dynamic process (Pettigrew, 1997). Pettigrew (1997, p. 338) defines a process as ‘a sequence of individual and collective events, actions, and activities unfolding over time in context’.

Central in a processual approach is thus the sequence of events, in the case of policymaking also referred to as policymaking episodes (Barzelay & Gallego, 2006), or decision-making rounds (Teisman, 2000). In this paper, we use the term episode. As Teisman (2000) explains, in different episodes the interaction between different actors results in one or more definitions of problems and solutions. An episode begins and ends with the adoption of a certain combination of a problem definition and a (virtual) solution by one or more actors (Teisman, 2000).

In addition to the different episodes, the role of context is crucial to understand the process (Pettigrew, 1997). As Pettigrew (1997, pp. 338-339) explains: ‘Actions drive processes but processes cannot be explained just by reference to individual or collective agency. Actions are embedded in contexts which limit their information, insight and influence. But the dual quality of agents and contexts must always be recognised’. Contexts are both shaping and shaped. Actors are producers and products (Giddens, 1979). This swapping between agents and contexts is cumulative and occurs over time (Pettigrew, 1997).

Thus, in our view, policymaking is an on-going, dynamic, interactional, adaptive process, consisting of a sequence of episodes unfolding over time in context. The governance process that we are studying consists of several episodes and is part of a larger on-going process (see Figure 5.1).

We study part of the policy process about the future of intensive agriculture in the Netherlands as an example of a deliberative governance process. The central idea behind deliberative governance is that ‘policy making requires spaces where different institutions, agencies, groups, activists and individual citizens can come together to deliberate on pressing social issues’ (Hendriks, 2009, p. 173).

|

The power to frame the scale?

|

F

raming scales and scaling frames

|

136 137

Scale Framing

In governance processes, actors in interaction strategically deploy scale frames with the purpose of effecting change (Delaney & Leitner, 1997). Through the process of framing, actors highlight different aspects of a situation as relevant, problematic or urgent (Gray, 2003; Entman, 1995), and by doing so situate issues on different levels and scales (Dewulf & Bouwen, 2008; Scholten, 2012; Van Lieshout et al., 2011). In this way, scale frames can lead to intended or unintended inclusion and exclusion of actors, ideas and possible solutions in policy processes (Kurtz, 2003). Previous research has shown that actors in (governance) interactions continuously use different scale frames to accomplish various goals (Van Lieshout et al., 2011; Van Lieshout, et al., 2012). These activities, known as the politics of scale (cf. Delaney & Leitner, 1997; Jonas, 1994), or scalar politics (MacKinnon, 2011), are fiercely disputed, as actors endeavour to restructure power and responsibilities (Kurtz, 2003; Leitner, 2004). In order to study scalar politics in governance processes, we conceptualise this as the interplay between scale frames, as just explained, and power dynamics, to which we now turn.

Power Dynamics

In order to analyse the power dynamics on both the interactional level (within the different episodes) and the process level, we draw on Torfing, Peters, Pierre, and Sørensen (2012, p. 49). They suggest analysing not only ‘power-in’ interactive governance but also ‘power-of’ interactive governance and ‘power-

over’ interactive governance. For our purposes, we adapt these perspectives

on power in interactional terms in a way that allows us to capture power dynamics in and between policy episodes. In Figure 5.2, we schematically present the three different perspectives.

By analysing power-over, we focus on the organiser’s power to design the governance process. This perspective helps us to analyse how the design of the process (i.e. the context of the episodes) influences the interactions and the outcomes, and which scale frames are taken to the next episode (see also Arminen, 2005; Fairclough, 2001; Thornborrow, 2002); and conversely we analyse how the constructed scale frames influence the design of the process in terms of inclusion and exclusion of actors and ideas. Governments/ organisers have the power to open up and close down governance processes (Torfing et al., 2012). This power of the organiser over the process follows from its authority, i.e. its socially acknowledged right to judge, decide, take action and so forth (Hardy & Phillips, 1998; Purdy, 2012), and its formal and acknowledged role as organising actor (Fairclough, 2001; Thornborrow, 2002). The organiser has the power to include various actors and ideas (including particular scale frames) and exclude others (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Purdy, 2012; Torfing, et al., 2012). Furthermore, the organiser can set the agenda, steer towards particular outcomes (including the reframing of certain scale frames), control the information provided, and decide on note taking, conclusions and documentation (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Purdy, 2012).

FORMAL GOVERNMENT EPISODE Power in interaction FORMAL GOVERNMENT EPISODE Power in interaction STAKEHOLDER EPISODE Power in interaction STAKEHOLDER EPISODE Power in interaction STAKEHOLDER EPISODE Power in interaction POWER OVER

POWER OF POWER OF POWER OF

POWER OVER POWER OVER

Scale Framing

Figure 5.2 | The interplay between power dynamics and scale frames in (delib-

erative) governance processes

|

The power to frame the scale?

|

F

raming scales and scaling frames

|

Chapter 5

EPISODE EPISODE EPISODE EPISODE EPISODE EPISODE

Deliberative Governance Process Policy Process

139

138 By analysing power-in, we focus on the power dynamics within the different

governance episodes, i.e. in conversations between the different actors. The power-in deliberative governance episodes can be influenced by the specific characteristics and/or competences of the actors. For example, their expertise and status (Purdy, 2012), their role (Fairclough, 2001; Thornborrow, 2002), their ability to participate and their discursive capacities (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Purdy, 2012; Torfing, et al., 2012) can provide actors with power in interaction. For our purpose, we focus on the interplay of power-in dynamics and the process of (scale) framing in interaction. Dewulf and Bouwen (2012) have identified interactional framing strategies that actors use to deal with frame differences, for example frame incorporation and frame polarisation (Dewulf & Bouwen, 2012, p. 179). With regard to scale frames, Van Lieshout et al. (2012) have identified four specific strategies: projections into the future, downscaling, upscaling and scale coupling.

By analysing power-of, we focus on participants’ power to influence the process. As Torfing et al. (2012) explain, power-of studies focus on the way interaction in deliberative governance settings influences the formulation and implementation of policy. This perspective provides insights into how deliberative the process was in terms of taking the participants’ viewpoints to the next episodes. In analysing power-of, we reflect on how participants’ scale framing influences deliberation and how deliberation influences the scale frames taken to the next episode. Power-of dynamics become evident when, for example, participants are able to influence the continuation of the process,

and control or verify the (intermediate) outcomes. A concrete example of power-of is the use of exit power. We assess power-of by analysing the extent to which the scale frames of the participants in an episode can be recognised in the conclusions and subsequent episodes, and the extent to which the participants have the opportunity and are able to reframe their own and others’ scale frames. Reframing can be considered a power-of dynamic when participants are able to successfully challenge the issue frame determined by the organisers.

Following from the above, we can fine-tune our research question: What is the interplay between the scale framing and the power dynamics at different stages in the governance process about the future of Dutch intensive agriculture? We can specify three sub-questions: What are the implications of the process design for prevailing scale frames and vice versa (power-over)? What is the role of (scale) framing strategies on prevailing scale frames in the different episodes (power-in)? Are actors able to re-scale-frame the issue, and are these reframed scale frames taken into account in the subsequent episodes (power-of)?

5.3 Methods