discourse
In fact, certain contributions to the EU transport policy literature suggest that the development of transnational transport networks cannot be explained simply by reference to material interests, but also to the influence of the idea in itself. This influence seems to stem
23 Criticisms of this assumption point out, first, that the influence of EU transport infrastructure investment and other transport policies in promoting regional development is significantly lower than that of socio-economic and technical macro-trends (Spiekermann and Wegener, 2006) and, second, that inter-regional transport investments are likely to reinforce the economic development of core regions and main nodes in the network (Puga, 2002; Vickerman et al., 1999). A contrasting view highlights the potential contribution of public investment in infrastructure in boosting productivity and economic growth (Aschauer, 1989; Munnell, 1992).
24 High-speed rail’s environmental advantages in terms of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are less clear with respect to road transport (van Essen et al., 2003) and conventional rail (van Wee et al., 2003). Additionally, the construction of a new high-speed rail line entails significant carbon dioxide emissions (Westin and Kågeson, 2012).
42 firstly from the close relationship between TENs and the EU project. Johnson and Turner (1997, p. 16) have argued that Trans-European Networks represented the (back then) latest
‘big European idea’, able to keep or even revive the momentum for European integration.
Focusing on the Commission’s rationale for promoting the TEN-T programme, Stephenson notes that '[t]he Commission thus promoted TENs as highly visible, symbolic, guarantors of economic growth, arguing they underpinned the basic functioning of the market' (2010b, p.
1048). Most perceptively, Stevens (2004) has pointed out that despite the uncertainties surrounding the TENs programme, it has worked as a material and appealing initiative, seen as central to the EU’s economic goals whilst allegedly contributing to the balanced development of its territory:
'It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the TENs programme was more political than economic in its motivation, a set of grands projets to fire the imagination. [...] Ignoring any inconvenient doubts about their economic rationale, trans-European networks had the benefit of being tangible and attractive wherever the dream of fast, convenient and comfortable travel could be held out, and they could be presented as integral to the realization of the Community's new economic goals' (2004, p. 191, original emphasis).
Yet the suggestive influence of the idea of transnational transport infrastructure need not only be related to the European dimension; the particular characteristics of transport infrastructure seem relevant too. Lemberg (1995) for instance, in his case study on the Øresund, Great Belt and Fehmarn Belt bridges, argues that large infrastructure projects may be considered as national prestige projects and desired by politicians regardless of their economic viability. More significantly, transport infrastructure policy-making has often been based on the assumption of linear causal relationships between transport infrastructure and development – a myth of ‘structuring effects’, according to Offner (1993). In both its European and inherent dimensions, the materiality of transport infrastructure seems to play a role in its constitution as a symbol of a policy objective (such as economic integration or economic development), which helps to conceal the complexities of achieving such an objective.
Some contributions from the policy analysis and spatial policy fields have explored the role of ideas on transnational transport infrastructure policy-making through a discourse analytical approach. Jensen and Richardson have developed extensive work on the policy discourses articulated in the development of a European spatial planning agenda and on the relationship between power and knowledge (e.g. Jensen and Richardson, 2004; Richardson, 1999; Richardson and Jensen, 2000, 2003). They have argued that a policy discourse has emerged that seeks to produce a certain European space associated with a certain rationality (Jensen and Richardson, 2004). They named this space ‘monotopia’: ‘an organised, ordered and totalised space of zero-friction and seamless logistic flows’ (Jensen and Richardson,
43 2004, p. 3). This discourse has the concept of ‘frictionless mobility’ at its centre, yet it also encompasses other aspects of spatial development: the polycentric development of its urban nodes; the subsidiary role of the environment; and the re-thinking of territorial identity issues that a monotopic Europe involves. In spite of the appeal of their argument, it is doubtful whether the European space is being shaped in such a coherent and pervasive manner.
Although the reasons for this are developed in the next subsection, at this point it is sufficient to note that the authors’ spatial planning approach may not sufficiently consider the differences between – and importance of – EU sectoral policies, which cast doubt on the feasibility of developing a coherent spatial project for the EU.
A more transport-focused account has been given by Hajer (2000). In a brief paper he has proposed the existence of a transnational policy discourse (which he calls ‘Europe of Flows’), shared by policy-makers at different levels of government, that influences spatial development policy in Europe. The features of this discourse largely coincide with the rationale explained earlier in the chapter: among others, it is committed to market integration and considers global competition as a strategic challenge for Europe; it conceives the objectives of the EU as both enhancing competitiveness whilst promoting cohesion; it perceives infrastructure as key to achieve these goals; it is committed to ecological modernization; and it foresees increasing international demand despite the current marginal portion of international traffic. According to Hajer, the Trans-European Networks, and therefore the trans-European HSR network, should be understood as ‘a set of particular discursive practices within which a particular policy discourse is reproduced and transformed’ (2000, p. 138).
The emphasis in Hajer’s approach lies on the power of such a policy discourse and on the fact that its influence is not limited to EU-level actors. In order to explain the production and reproduction – and therefore the influence – of the discourse, he employs the middle-ground concepts of discourse coalitions and story-lines (see Hajer, 1995).25 In this respect, he proposes the story-line ‘from patchwork to network’, where ‘network’ can be interpreted as a metaphor of European integration (Hajer, 2000). As he correctly notes, the network metaphor masks the discrepancies between elements included in it, for instance the tensions between the objectives of cohesion and market integration. Despite the potential of this approach for understanding discourse production in transnational infrastructure policy-making, the scope of Hajer’s paper is limited. Its focus is restricted to the content of discourse and does not include the institutional practices through which the discourse is created, reproduced, and transformed; it does not address the temporal dimension; and,
25 Both concepts will be further discussed in Section 3.1.3.
44 fundamentally, the analysis is tentative and open to be refined by further research. Peters (2003a) has applied Hajer’s discourse analytical framework to the analysis of EU transport infrastructure policy; however, the contribution to this discussion is of little significance since her use of the concept of story-lines emphasizes the conflicts between them and not their capacity to blur such tensions in order to achieve political leverage.26 Furthermore, as this literature addresses transport infrastructure generally, it remains unclear whether the
‘Europe of Flows’ discourse would show variations in the case of high-speed rail.