From failure to success? : the role of citizen participation in the Guggenheim Helsinki decision-making process.

(1)

UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

GSSS

From Failure to Success?

The Role of Citizen Participation

in the

Guggenheim Helsinki Decision-Making

Process

Tia Alahuhta

Master’s Thesis Urban & Regional Planning

23 June 2014

(2)

2

Author: T.A.M. (Tia) Alahuhta

Student number: 10635076

t.alahuhta@gmail.com

Supervisor/First Reader:

Dhr. Drs. B.M. Hissink Muller

B.M.HissinkMuller@uva.nl

Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen

Second Reader:

Dhr. Dr. D.V.H. (David) Evers

D.V.H.Evers@uva.nl

Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen,

(3)

3

CHAPTER 1 : Introduction

1.0 Introduction

In the past thirty years, the use of culture in urban development has become a prominent development strategy amongst urban planners and policy makers. These projects have been challenged with questions concerning the type of culture-led development that is looked for. Within the academic field, schemes, such as the ‘creative class’ –model (Florida, 2002), have been considered significant and positive catalysts for urban development in many post-modern contemporary cities. Large-scale urban development projects (e.g. museums and other cultural amenities) can be considered as part of an effort to strengthen the status and competitiveness of cities (Swyngedouw et al, 2002). However, these strategies, albeit having supporters, have been criticized, for instance, due to their simplistic representation of reality (Pratt, 2008; Sacco and Crociata, 2013). Thus, the aims of culture-led development are multi-dimensional and call for the contribution and commitment of different actors and institutions varying from ordinary citizens to government institutions, since idiosyncratic notions of culture do not always take social and economic differences into consideration. This can contribute to further pressure on local creative communities that do not desire to fit into a frame that comes from the outside (Sacco and Crociata, 2013).

An illustration of this influence may be found in the failure of the first proposal of the Guggenheim Helsinki museum initiative in not committing all required actors in the decision-making process. The creation of cultural landmarks, such as the Guggenheim building, attracts international visibility, tourist flows and so forth, however, one of the main challenges is to find ways to build and encourage environments where the complexity of reality is well understood. Questions can be brought up in terms of what the focus on culture and culture-led development in urban development actually involves. Given that every socio-spatial context is different and encompasses all kinds of actors that interact with each other, research on decision-making processes of culture-led development projects requires a broad understanding of the political, cultural and social institutions in order to shed light on all the intricacies of the studied cases.

This research is an attempt towards explaining the underlying causes of the outcome of a decision-making process in a specific institutional context by attaining deeper knowledge of the decision-making process. It will aim to explain how participation influenced the outcome of the decision-making process of the culture-led development

(6)

6 plan of Guggenheim Helsinki in 2012, thus aiming to explore the role of participation, and whether the lack of citizen participation had something to do with the rejection of the first proposal. It will also focus on examining which other factors motivated the courses of action and strategies of different actors along the decision-making process and how this affected the outcome and the change of strategies within the process. The following sections of this introductory chapter will present the problem statement and introduce the main research question, sub-questions, and the outline of this research.

1.1 Problem statement

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation has on its agenda to establish a new museum in Helsinki, namely: the Guggenheim Helsinki museum. This process started in January 2011 by announcing a Concept and Development study on the feasibility of the project (Byers et al., 2013). According to a poll commissioned in 2012 by the biggest Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat (HS), 75 per cent of the residents of Helsinki opposed the new Guggenheim museum, whereas only 19 per cent were in favour of the initiative1. The Helsinki City Board rejected the initiative in 2012 (7 votes in favour; 8 opposed), however, the supporters of the plan sought after a way to pull through the initiative and put an effort to involve the local arts community and the civil society, in general, by attempting to respond to the existing concerns. A new revised proposal was published in September 2013 and the Helsinki City Board decided to give green light to the project at its meeting in January 2014 by reserving a site for an architectural competition.2

Arguably, the fact that the plan was revised indicates that something went wrong in the original plan, hence it was rejected a year before. In the revised plan new financial schemes were introduced and active dialogue became of interest both on the local and international levels. Furthermore, a new approach in moving towards a desirable outcome required further investigation on why the original plan failed. The new plan suggested that it would engage the public in an active dialogue in order to reach

1

HS (2012). POLL: Widespread opposition to Guggenheim museum in Helsinki. Available Online:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/POLL+Widespread+opposition+to+Guggenheim+mu seum+in+Helsinki/1329103578828) [Accessed on 25 February 2014]

2_{However, the final decision has not been made yet regarding the construction of the museum. HS}

(2014a) Helsinki varasi tontin Guggenheim-säätiölle. 13 January. [Available Online: http://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/a1389585226281 [Accessed on 4 May 2014]

(7)

7 different stakeholders3 and audiences at large and gain mutual understanding on the benefits of the museum (Byers et al, 2013, p. 4). Engaging the public during the second round could be considered as a new approach as the first proposal did not take this aspect into account since the Guggenheim Helsinki project had not originally stemmed from the civil society where people would voluntarily promote issues that are important to them and where artists would be in the centre of importance.

There have been speculations regarding different factors influencing the outcome of the decision-making process (e.g. the amount of money involved, financial risk-bearing, and the involvement of the Helsinki Art Museum in the plan). However, the role of citizen participation in explaining the outcome of the decision-making process is not clear.

In general, citizen participation is a heated topic, especially in the academic field, and has been widely considered as a key component in decision-making processes in order to establish successful plans, although participation has also been a contested issue in planning (Brody, 2011, Day, 1997). In order to analyse the outcome and the role of participation in the process as exhaustively as possible, the contextual factors and the role of different actor orientations and capabilities are also to be examined along with modes of participation as the way certain actor interact and try to influence the decision-making process supposedly have an impact on different strategies and the courses of action. Professional lobbying4_{, for instance, has become an increasingly frequent}

phenomenon in Helsinki in the past few years and Guggenheim Helsinki-project can be considered as an illustrative example of professional lobbying in influencing the outcome of the decision-making process. Engaging the Finnish consulting firm Miltton Networks officially in spring 2013 in an attempt to restart the stalled initiative describes somewhat the development today with regard to how different issues are run in the city5

. Closer links are developed between public decision-makers and the private sector and sometimes the lines become blurred as lobbying is not regulated in Finland. In addition,

3

Stakeholder in this research refers to a person with an interest or concern in something, such as business, community, existing cultural and educational platforms, government agencies, local industries etc., whereas an actor refers to someone who is part of the decision-making process.

4_{Lobbying in this research refers to “an organized group of people who work together to influence}

government decisions that relate to a particular industry, issue, etc.” (Lobby (2014) In

Merriam-Webster.com Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobby). 5

HS (2014) Päättäjät haluavat lobbaamisen avoimuutta. 8 February, p. A 23, HS (2014) Lobbaus ammattimaistuu A 22. 08.02.2014

(8)

8 the institutional setting of interaction needs to be taken into account in order to gain more insight in the process behind this particular initiative. Thus, modes of interaction and participation between different actors and actor constellations, which occur within a particular institutional setting, play allegedly an important role in the decision-making outcome.

The working hypothesis of this research is that the main cause of the rejection of the first proposal was that the local institutional setting was not taken into account. The first proposal was introduced in public as a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’-offer with a top-down approach: an approach that goes against the informal rules of the local institutional setting. Therefore, some sort of citizen participation is needed when there is public money involved in order to make the project legitimate in the eyes of the citizens. The existing norms, interests and identities in the decision-making environment may have not been sufficiently regarded as no participatory approach was developed before deciding on the first proposal.

1.2 The main research question

Having presented the problem statement and aim of the research, the main research question can be posed:

How did participation influence the outcome of the decision-making process of the culture-led development plan of Guggenheim Helsinki?

In order to answer the main question, seven operational sub-questions have been formulated. These sub-questions will serve as a support to the original research question, since they are based on the conceptual scheme (see chapter 2, section 2.4) illustrating how different variables influence the decision-making process.

1. Which actors were involved in the decision-making process of Guggenheim Helsinki?

2. How did their role change in the course of the process?

3. What preferences and resources did the identified actors have in which actor constellations in the decision-making process?

4. How did these actors interact with each other?

5. What are the potential causes that led to the outcome of the decision-making process?

(9)

9

6. How did the decision-making outcome of the first phase influence the modes of participation and other strategies in the decision-making process and vice versa?

7. Which contextual factors are important in explaining the outcome of the decision-making process?

The first four sub-questions deal with the actors in the decision-making process, their changing roles, preferences and resources within a specific institutional setting and how these actors interacted with each other. The fifth sub-question addresses the potential causes of the outcome of the first phase of the decision-making process. 6_{Consequently,}

the sixth sub-question asks how certain modes of participation influenced the decision-making outcome of the first phase (in retrospect) and how this outcome influenced the modes of participation ex post, putting the two phases of the decision-making process in interplay. Finally, it is important to examine different contextual factors as it is assumed that they play a significant role in explaining the outcome of the decision-making process.

1.3 Thesis outline

This introductory chapter has introduced the central themes of this research including the problem statement, the aim of the research, the working hypothesis and the main research question with sub-questions. The following chapter will elaborate on this chapter by making the theoretical foundations of this research more explicit. Subsequently, a conceptual model is designed based on the theoretical framework in order to explicate the relationship between actor-centered institutionalism and citizen participation in culture-led development. It will serve as a working model to understand and analyse the case study introduced in chapter 4 and analysed further and more in-depth in chapter 5.

In order to connect the theoretical part with the ‘empirical part’ of the research, methodologies need to be chosen before making further conclusions regarding the case in question. Thus, the third chapter will introduce the research design and methods used in this research in order to conduct the analysis. The third chapter will be followed by an introduction of the context and a timeline of the case study ‘Guggenheim Helsinki’.

6

The decision-making process can be split into two phases. The first proposal was rejected on the 2nd of May 2012. However, the proposal was revisited and published on the 24th of September 2013. Despite being an initiative in progress with an uncertain outcome up to the time of writing, the decision-making process in both phases – before and after the rejection of the first proposal could be analysed.

(10)

10 The observations and findings of the decision-making process will be analysed by comparing both the first and the second phase of the initiative, and finally summarizing the findings of the case study (section 5.3). Finally, conclusions on the conducted research will be drawn in the last chapter (6). The sixth chapter will sum up the links between the context, the ‘theoretical’ and the ‘empirical’, since the case study findings will be reflected against the theoretical grounds (i.e. theories on culture-led development, actor-centered institutionalism and citizen participation) of this research. Furthermore, the main research question: How did participation influence the outcome

of the decision-making process of the culture-led development plan of Guggenheim Helsinki? and the working hypothesis (see section 1.1) will be reconsidered.

(11)

11

CHAPTER 2 : Theories for understanding decision-making outcomes

In order to gain a better understanding of decision-making outcomes and how different variables influence them, a theoretical framework is introduced in this chapter. The previous chapter described briefly the context of culture-led development in which the decision-making process occurs. The aim of this chapter is to construct and explain a conceptual scheme that is based on the concepts and theories introduced in this chapter, namely: culture-led development, actor-centered institutionalism and citizen participation.

The chapter sets off with a discussion on the theories of culture-led development, because it sets the context for this research; hence the decision-making process that will be looked at is that of a culture-led development initiative. Secondly, explaining the framework of actor-centered institutionalism developed by Scharpf (1997) will be of use because it allows to structure a good deal about the involvement of actors in the Guggenheim Helsinki decision-making process: about actor orientations and capabilities and how these actors choose to interact with each other and form different actor constellations. Furthermore, the framework helps to develop explanations due to its predictive value and since it conceptualizes policy processes that are shaped by a specific institutional setting within a particular external environment (Scharpf, 1997). Thus, this framework helps to organise information in the case study (chapters 4 and 5). It will enable to better understand how the chosen variables influence the outcome of the decision-making process and the role of participation in this outcome when combined with citizen participation theory. Therefore, the theory on citizen participation will also be looked at in this chapter (sub-section 2.3) in order to shed light on participatory mechanisms within decision-making processes and understand its role as a mode of participation. Finally, the proposed conceptual scheme will be presented in section 2.4 based on the theories discussed in order to guide the rest of the research. This conceptual scheme is operationalised in a table of the most significant variables and their dimensions that structure the decision-making process. The dimensions have been operationalized into indicators that will be used in analysing later the case study at hand.

(12)

12

2.1 Culture-led development and its transforming landscape

The purpose of this section is to shed light on culture-led development as it serves as a context for the case study of this research. It begins with a brief discussion on the development of this relatively new paradigm that highlights the cultural development as an important component in the urban development of cities. Furthermore, the role of culture-led development will be examined along with the instrumental uses of culture in urban development, since the reasons why different actors use certain cultural policy instruments may not always be that explicit. Therefore, making these reasons more unambiguous may help in explaining the phenomenon of culture-led development more rationally.

In the past thirty years cities have become substantial arenas for cultural production and consumption and the role of culture and creativity needs to be acknowledged as they play a substantial role in transforming cities (Zukin, 1995; Sassen, 2000; Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2005, Lysgård, 2013). Using culture and creative industries as a locomotive for urban development has been seen as a panacea that can either contest or embrace the influence of globalisation (Rodríguez et al, 2001; Florida, 2002; Evans, 2005). ‘Culture’ has been considered as an instrument in the entrepreneurial strategies of local governments to give a boost to the local economy and urban dynamism by means of city marketing. This means that ‘culture’ has been seen as an important contributor for urban development as these strategies – manifested in the competition between cities especially from the mid-1970s until the mid-1990s - have been put into practice in order to attract also tourism and companies in the cities (Le Galès, 2002; Kloosterman, 2012). Furthermore, the new urban regeneration strategies have been redefined based on the ‘necessity’ to become a ‘creative city’ due to the increasing economic competitiveness, thus, making the cities seek for all possible ways to meet the requirements for this (Frantz, 2005). In other words, many projects that have been defined ‘strategic’ are many times proposals that lead to the creation of ‘creative spaces’ and cultural flagship projects, as in the case of Bilbao. The Guggenheim Bilbao museum can be considered as one of the ‘success’ stories as it has made iconic architectural development an appealing strategy within culture-led development. The media has captured the attention of policy-makers around the globe who have travelled to Bilbao with the aim of becoming acquainted with this ‘urban miracle’ (Plaza, 2008), even to the extent that the city of Bilbao has become well known due to the ‘Bilbao effect’ that can be defined as:

(13)

13

“…the transformation of a city by a new museum or cultural facility into a vibrant and attractive place for residents, visitors and inward investment” (Lord, 2007, p. 32).

From the mid-1990s onwards cultural facilities themselves have become more integral components of the production setting since the weight has been put more on the ‘quality of place’. For instance, the success of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao can be considered as a kick start of an urban regeneration process and contributes to the revitalization of the urban area enhancing liveability making also ‘local’ consumption and delivery of services possible (Kloosterman, 2012). However, this is not the case everywhere considering that cultural planning differs across places. There have been doubts regarding how fitting this emphasis on ‘policy frameworks’ and ‘strategies’ is to the cultural sector as creative and cultural organisations are exposed to various sources of volatility (Griffiths et al, 2003).

As culture and creativity have been recognized as the ‘magic components’ that contribute to contemporary urban growth, are important for urban development and play a fundamental role in economic performance and attracting human capital, the role of these two concepts in urban development need to be examined. As stated above, culture has been used as an instrument for attaining wider social and economic goals and the trend is nowhere more visible than in cities (Evans, 2003; Evans, 2005; Griffiths et al., 2003, Markusen and Gadva, 2010). On the one hand, culture has been considered by many as an ideal to be sought after in the axiological conceptualisation of the term (Krivy, 2013). This means that culture is not only seen as important for a society but rather an ideal representation of the society, thus being inherent to it.

Florida (2002) has posited the ‘creative class’7

as the motor of urban regeneration and culture as an instrument to create economic and social improvement within certain urban areas. However, several authors (García, 2004; Bontje & Musterd, 2009; Pratt, 2008; Ródriguez et al., 2005) have accused Florida for supporting neoliberal entrepreneurialism in urban spaces, which would mostly benefit people that are educated, contributing to socio-economic fragmentation. For instance, many studies of culture-led development analyse city marketing as an instrument to legitimize the political economic elite (Frantz, 2005; Pratt, 2008). Moreover, the goals of culture-led development strategies have been highly disputed due to several antagonisms that can

7_{By ‘creative class’ he refers to highly skilled employees in creative and knowledge-intensive industries,}

such as finance, ICT, higher education and R&D. He argues that it is necessary to attract people working in these industries to cities and regions if these cities desire to grow in the future.

(14)

14 be found in the relationships between different viewpoints on what these strategies should be (Lysgård, 2012, 2013).

Cultural policies are often conditioned by norms that are implicit and linked to different objectives (Markusen and Gadwa, 2010). According to Evans (2005), the rhetoric being in use regarding cultural development might be biased towards more economic development objectives if the relationship between different sets of goals (e.g. economy- or culture-driven) is not made explicit. Thus, in culture-led development the discourse of a ‘creative city’ seems to be more than just a rhetorical instrument since it also plays a role in legitimizing the projects that are promoted as ‘areas of opportunity’ (Rodríguez et al, 2005). In other words, it has been argued that the use of the notion of ‘creative class’ serves ultimately as an instrumental policy that seeks to use culture or ‘creativity’ in order to gain certain non-cultural ends, such as economic growth (Pratt, 2008).

As Pratt (2008) points out, the notion of ‘creativity’ has no value until it is applied and operationalized.8_{Furthermore, he emphasizes that culture cannot be replicated in spite}

of the fact that this is what cities have been promoting. For instance, the notion of ‘McGuggenheim’ that refers to the globalization and migration of cultural resources can be considered as a criticism against the mass production of culture (Honigsbaum, 2001). Art that has been fabricated in another country epitomizes the new era of late capitalism that is part of the contemporary culture-led development landscape where the ‘brand’ and the ‘product’ go ahead of the intrinsic value of art.

As the value of cultural production is based on highly idiosyncratic appraisals by various audiences, i.e. evaluations that are unique to each individual, it is hard to predict the success of cultural policies in advance (Griffiths et al, 2003). Therefore, the challenge that the transforming landscape of culture-led development imposes on cities is twofold. On the one hand, the decision-makers are under pressure to adjust their culture-led development strategies with the aim of making them correspond with the local needs. On the other hand, these strategies need to meet with the challenges that globalisation brings, for instance, in terms of competitiveness.

In order to understand and make sense of culture-led development, it needs to be looked at from a sufficiently holistic perspective (Scott, 2000; Landry, 2008; Sacco and Crociata, 2013). Lysgård (2012) argues that systematic characterizations of culture-led

8_{This research is an attempt towards applying and operationalizing these notions in the conceptual}

(15)

15 development strategy models reveal more about how the phenomenon is considered in the academia rather than how planners, politicians and other decision-makers putting the policy together perceive it in the field. According to García (2004) the use of cultural initiatives as a catalyst for urban development has been much slower and inconsistent in city governance in reality than in theory. Cultural flagship projects, for instance, are not framed in an evaluation of long-term coherent strategies that attempt to assure a stable spatial and social dispersal of benefits; nevertheless, these projects require high levels of investment.

Sacco and Crociata (2013) state that the potential of culture’s developmental potential is ultimately based on the ability to conceptualize, design and implement suitable policy instruments. Thus, a framework is needed in order to understand the underlying stimuli that move these people to act toward a certain strategy. The following section will explain the actor-centered institutionalism approach in order to orient this research with the aim of producing systematic knowledge and a framework, which will be useful later in this research.

2.2 Actor-centered institutionalism approach

In order to understand the role of participation in the outcome of the Guggenheim Helsinki decision-making process, actor-centered institutionalism approach (Scharpf, 1997) provides a useful framework to elaborate on. This is because participation in this research is seen as something that is greatly influenced by a specific institutional setting of interaction, instead of merely considering participation as a group based interaction. Thus, it is considered that this approach can be useful for framing the decision-making process as it takes many different aspects into consideration that have explanatory value. This section will explain the usefulness of the actor-centered institutionalism approach. Furthermore, the sub-section (2.2.1) followed by it will explain the framework in further detail.

At the most general level, the actor-centered institutionalism framework has been chosen for this research because: “We need a framework that conceptualizes policy processes

driven by the interaction of individual and corporate actors endowed with certain capabilities and specific cognitive and normative orientations, within a given institutional setting and within a given external situation” (Scharpf, 1997, p. 37). By this Scharpf refers to the

convenience of a framework that can help explain past policy choices and produce systematic knowledge for politically feasible policy recommendations. This framework

(16)

16 combines integrally actor-centered and institution-centered approaches9, which have traditionally been considered as mutually exclusive in the confrontation between sociological and economic theories. Combining these paradigms, Scharpf has attempted to bridge the gap between theoretical viewpoints and the observed reality of political interaction that is guided by the interactive strategies of purposive actors acting within a specific institutional setting that simultaneously allows and restricts these strategies (Scharpf, 1997). Moreover, these actors respond in a different manner to external opportunities and risks due to their inherent perceptions that vary according to the institutional setting within which they interact. Therefore, it is essential not to ignore the empirical variation in the actor- or institution-centered approach if a specific policy or decision-making process is desired to be explained.

The fusion of these approaches provides a set of conceptual tools in the endeavour to understand the conditions under which different social phenomena occur. The approach stems from the assumption that these complex phenomena can be explained as the result of interactions among different actors and actor constellations within a specific institutional setting. As stated above, institutional rules can serve as an instrument to reveal regularities and thus can be used in explanations. Therefore, the framework can be used to explain past policy outcomes and discover why and how these choices were made through the conceptualisation of different concepts that can be seen as the variables that have an influence on these outcomes and are expected to have high explanatory potential. In order to succeed in explaining the outcome, these variables are put on the table beforehand with regard to what to anticipate, what to look for and what type of data would be convenient in validating or going up against certain explanations (e.g. the role of actor resources, such as money, in the outcome of a decision-making process).

2.2.1 The framework explained – the importance of actors, institutions and modes of

interaction

The framework of actor-centered institutionalism focuses on the actor orientations, capabilities, constellations and modes of interaction amongst different actors, which are

9

These approaches have been combined and recognized in this field also by other authors (Ostrom, 1990; Burns et al, 1995). The combination of action-theoretic or rational-choice and institutionalist or structuralist paradigms is what these approaches have in common.

(17)

17 moulded by the institutional settings. This sub-section will briefly explain the idea behind this framework.

Examining the figure by Scharpf (see figure 1) it can be seen that different components that form the framework are highly interconnected with each other. In this figure, the first box on the top indicates the direct influence of institutional setting on actor orientations and capabilities, actor constellations and modes of interaction. The institutional setting has an effect on how the actors are guided and oriented in their way of interacting.

Figure 1: The domain of interaction-oriented policy research

Source: Scharpf, 1997, p. 44

By institutional settings Scharpf refers to “systems of rules that structure the courses of

action that a set of actors may choose” (Scharpf, 1997, p. 38). This definition entails both formal legal and informal social norms. The former refers to rules that are sanctioned by the machinery of the state whereas the latter refers to rules sanctioned, for instance, by social condemnation and loss of reputation. By courses of action Scharpf refers to the concepts, such as actors, their capabilities, actor constellations and modes of interaction. Within this framework, the set of interactions need to be identified first since they produce ultimately the outcomes to be explained. Following this identification within the framework of actor-centered institutionalism, the actors can be identified that are involved in the decision-making process. Scharpf (1997, p. 43) characterizes these actors by specific capabilities, perceptions and preferences.

Firstly, capabilities here refer to a certain point at which an actor is capable to influence the outcome of the decision-making process. These capabilities and rights are generated by institutional rules that set the limits, granting competencies and rights of

(18)

18 participation among other capabilities. Actor resources, such as personal properties, physical resources (e.g. money), technological capabilities or privileged access to information (e.g. network position) are resources which matter the most in identifying actor’s capabilities (Scharpf, 1997, p.43) Secondly, the identified actors can be characterized by their specific preferences and perceptions. These orientations will be triggered and indicated by the motivations driven by a specific policy problem or issue referring to the desirability of the stated courses of action and to the outcomes related to this desirability. Scharpf (1997) points out that these preferences and perceptions may be somewhat stable or instable depending on the extent of learning and persuading. It is unlikely that an actor could determine a decision-making outcome solely through the use of its capabilities and/or according to its preferences. Thus, actor constellations and modes of interaction need to be taken into account, because by adopting different strategies, the way these constellations act vary in different modes of interaction. The constellation “describes the players involved, their strategy options, and the preferences of the

players over these outcomes” (Scharpf, 1997, p. 44). This concept is fundamental in understanding what kind of strategies are desired, a matter which brings again the institutional setting into play. Actor constellations will only be developed if it is legally and socially appropriate within acceptable limits. That is to say that it is crucial that a common ground of preferences is found between different actors in order to be part of a specific constellation. Thus, these constellations determine which strategies are used and who cooperates with whom.

In Scharpf’s framework the actual policy outcome is influenced by the above described variables, but also by modes of interaction. Modes of interaction represent the way in which the actual interactions among the actor constellations occur eventually generating the policy outcomes. These modes determine the decision-making outcome, how the decision is made and handled. Scharpf (1997, p. 97) states that we need to consider “the

full range of empirically possible modes, from unilateral action, through varieties of negotiations and voting to hierarchical direction”. Therefore, the outcome of the policy problem might vary depending, for instance, on whether the problem is negotiated or decided by majority vote. Different modes of interaction take place in different moments of the decision-making process.

In this research, it is interesting to analyse how the modes of interaction influence the decision-making outcome; however, it will be looked at within the perspective of institutional setting of interaction, as the modes of interaction are framed by this setting.

(19)

19 As it is not possible to determine all modes of interaction that have taken place during the decision-making process due to the multidimensional complexity of the term, this research will focus specifically on the modes of participation (within the modes of interaction) that are also framed by the institutional setting of interaction and serve eventually the purpose of this research by elucidating the role of citizen participation in the decision-making outcome, thus making it possible to embed the concept of citizen participation in this variable. This way the theory about participation can be ‘attached’ in the framework of actor-centered institutionalism without ignoring Scharpf’s modes of interaction (see section 2.4).

The concept of citizen participation that will be discussed in the following section (2.3) can be embedded within the framework if participation is perceived as a mode of interaction where actors and actor constellations operating within a specific institutional setting influence the outcome of the decision-making process. The concept of modes of interaction provides the fundamental link between actor-oriented and institution-oriented research enabling different systems of policy interactions to deal with different types of policy problems, as both actors and institutions influence the modes. Therefore, none of the variables are mutually exclusive and thus should not be treated as such. In sum, this section has introduced the framework of actor-centered institutionalism. It has illustrated how the institutional setting frames the way in which the decision-making process occurs, yet actors and actor constellations still have an important influence on shaping the outcome of the process through different capabilities, constellations and modes of interaction.

2.3 Citizen participation

This section focuses on the concept of citizen participation, its definitional complexity and the role of citizen participation in culture-led development with the aim to connect the concept of participation with the context of this research. Finally, it will be examined how participation can be considered as a mode of interaction within the framework of actor-centered institutionalism and how it can be measured as such (sub-section 2.3.1).

There has been confusion regarding the definition of citizen participation in the academic field. One of the reasons is that in the empirical literature it is not clear what participation looks like in practice and what participation is supposed to achieve (Day, 1997). Fung (2006) points out that the way in which public institutions and

(20)

decision-20 making processes should regard the citizens in the process depends on the context and the issue. In that sense, the concept of citizen participation could be considered as an umbrella term. However, in this research the concept of citizen participation does not refer to individuals possessing the legal standing of formal citizenship but above all it refers to “individuals who possess the political standing to exercise voice or give

consent over public decisions that oblige or affect them” (Fung, 2006, p. 74).

As discussed by Arnstein (1969), Day (1997), Anttiroiko (2003), Staffans (2004), Irwin and Stansbury (2004), Brody (2011) and others, the principles for citizen participation entail the rights to be informed, to be listened to and to have the chance to express ideas and influence decision-making. Day (1997) argues that citizen participation should serve the public interest. Even though the term ‘public interest’ can be considered vague, it acknowledges that participation results in better decision-making outcomes for the public, because their voices have been heard. Anttiroiko (2003, p. 14) refers to participation as the possibility of citizens or other stakeholders to play a part in the discussions that are relevant to the decision-making process. According to him, the social and functional characteristics are included in the concept. The former refers to the interactive activities between different actors that are generally actively involved in the political discussion, whereas the latter refers to participation as a way to achieve closer interactions between the local residents and the government officials.

Looking at citizen participation provides an interesting perspective to examine how different actor preferences and interests, either individually or collectively, are taken into consideration in decision-making processes and what is the role of actor resources and formal and informal rules of institutional setting in the process. Moreover, it is interesting to analyse how it contributes eventually to the outcome of the decision-making process.

On the one hand, the desire to enhance citizen participation is often based on the belief that active citizenry is better than a passive one (Irwin and Stansbury, 2004). Citizen participation has been considered as an instrument to enhance democracy (Brody, 2011) and satisfaction of citizens regarding the outcomes of decision-making processes (Day, 1997) and empower the powerless (Arnstein, 1969). In addition, it has been stated that some formulated policies may be more desirable when there is citizen participation and thus produce better decisions (Irwin and Stansbury, 2004). By listening to the citizens that would not otherwise be part of the decision-making process, decision-makers can have the opportunity to learn which policies are likely to fail and how to address these

(21)

21 failures. In the field of culture-led development, this social legitimatization that makes culture-led development initiatives more participatory can serve as a possible contributor to successful long-term goals.

Arguments against and for citizen participation during the decision-making processes have been expressed by various planning scholars. First of all, there are various strate-gies that have been mentioned in order to enhance citizen participation in decision-making: meticulous selection of representative stakeholders, frequent meetings, trans-parency in the decision-making process in order to build trust amongst the participants etc. (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). According to Fung (2006), one of the main reasons for improving citizen participation in any area of modern governance is that the elected rep-resentatives making decisions might be deficient, because they lack the needed knowledge, resources, competence and so forth. Whether citizen participation is the so-lution for these insufficiencies depends highly on the actors themselves. For instance, are significant interests and perspectives excluded in the decision-making process? If the interests of the majority of the actors influenced by the decision are excluded, the legitimacy of the decision might suffer. However, these strategies are dependent on the locale of where the participation happens and won’t necessarily generate successful de-cision-making outcomes in every locality. Citizen participation might be ineffective in comparison with traditional top-down decision-making under specific conditions, for instance, in cases where complex technical knowledge is needed before participants can make decisions or in cases where the agency has had success before putting policies into action without participation (Irwin and Stansbury, 2004). In these cases citizen partici-pation can be considered as a hindering factor in the endeavours to attain a desirable policy solution.

This section could go deeper into different planning theories that deal theoretically with the concept of citizen participation. For instance, Healey’s collaborative planning theory explores the conditions under which participation could have the potential to contribute to better plans and make the process more socially inclusive (Healey, 2003). However, it can be argued that actor constellations in the actor-centered institutionalism approach, for instance, can be analysed as something that has to do with collaboration and in-cludes interactions between different actors. Therefore, going theoretically into further detail with other theories outside of the framework presented thus far would not neces-sarily give added value for the purpose of this research.

(22)

22

2.3.1 Citizen participation as a mode of interaction

As mentioned above, in this research the framework of actor-centered institutionalism will be combined with the concept of citizen participation. This sub-section will elabo-rate on citizen participation from an institutional perspective by introducing a frame-work that enables us to better understand the potential and limitations of participatory forms.

Fung (2006) introduces three dimensions to look at citizen participation. Firstly, the question “who participates?” is interesting and fits in the framework of actor-centered institutionalism by Scharpf (1997), since identifying the actors of the decision-making process reveal which actors have been included in the process and which not (see figure 2). In figure 2, different participation selection methods can be distinguished and can be divided roughly in categories: ‘state’, ‘mini-publics’, and ‘public’. The state includes expert administrators and professional politicians that occupy positions in the state, the mini-publics involve stakeholders from different spheres of society that gather citizens to discuss and/or decide on matters of public interest, whereas ‘public’ refers to the diffuse public sphere, such as mass-media and other informal venues of discussion. Therefore, in some cases the decision-making process is open to all, whereas others include only ‘elite stakeholders’.

Figure 2: Participant selection methods

Fung (2006, p. 69)

The second dimension of Fung (2006) sheds light on the ways of communication and decision-making (see figure 3). It indicates how participants make decisions and exchange information on a scale from least intense to most intense.

(23)

23

Figure 3: Modes of communication and decision-making

Fung (2006, p. 69)

The first three modes refer to modes of communication and the second three to modes of decision-making. The first three modes of communication refer to methods that do not aim to translate the preferences of participants into a collective decision. However, they are essential in the decision-making process as meetings, such as public hearings, provide participants with important information. This means that modes, such as

listening as a spectator, expressing and developing preferences do not require more

than receiving the statements of participants and possibly using these statements in further discussions among the decision-makers. Modes of decision-making come into play when collective choice is developed through the combination of methods of decision-making, namely: aggregate and bargain, deliberate and negotiate, and deploy

technique and expertise. According to Fung (2006), the most common of these methods

is aggregation and bargaining, where the preferences of participants are ‘aggregated’ into a social choice. Furthermore, the intensity of participation is an indicator of “the

level of investment, knowledge, and commitment required of participants” (Fung, 2006, p. 69). Decision-making processes often stem from interactions among various arenas, such as stakeholder negotiations, public hearings, city boards etc. Sometimes the process is defined to consist of arenas where there is no citizen participation at all. Various initiatives have sought to address the lack of participation by creating more inclusive and representative participatory forums (Fung, 2006).

The modes of communication and decision-making are relevant to analyse in this research because by changing and activating public opinion they can influence the decision-making outcome. Moreover, this has a communicative influence on the officials and members of public, as possibilities for a dialogue occur. Thus, citizen participation can be regarded as a mode of interaction and it can be examined, for instance, through the two dimensions (the scope of participation and modes of

(24)

24 communication and decision-making) presented by Fung (2006). The use of Fung in this research is also a useful way to evaluate and assess the outcome of Scharpf’s model of actor-centered institutionalism.

2.4 Conceptual scheme

This section presents the conceptual scheme of this research. It follows the model of Scharpf introduced in section 2.2 with a few exceptions, as it combines ideas of Fung (2006) presented in sub-section 2.3.1. This scheme will help in finding explanations and forms the basis for the case study presenting the variables that are relevant for this re-search in a table in order to analyse the decision-making process (chapters 4 and 5).

The unit of analysis, decision-making process, will be analysed considering different variables that are believed to influence the process. The following table (see table 1) illustrates the operationalized variables and their dimensions and indicators used for the analysis of the empirical findings discussed in the chapters 4 and 5.

The first variable, the institutional setting of interaction plays an important role in the scheme, because actors, actor constellations, their orientations and capabilities and their mode of participation are framed by formal and informal rules of interaction. It can be divided in two different dimensions. Formal rules of interaction are indicated by ‘policy and legislation’ operationalized based on the rules that enable and restrict interaction and by ‘the type of decision-making’. The types of decision-making are Scharpf’s (1997) categories for modes of interaction (mutual adjustment, negotiated agreements, majority vote, and hierarchical direction). In this research, they are used as part of the institutional setting of interaction since they are considered to have explanatory power, however, representing in the research a higher level of interaction, whereas the modes of participation (fourth variable) indicate a lower level of interaction and are more focused upon because of the aim of this study. Formal rules regulate how actors in the decision-making process can follow and possibly participate in the decision-making process, thus, indirectly influencing the decision-making outcomes. The second dimension of the first variable, informal rules, entail indicators: ‘public opinion’ and ‘norms’, because institutional setting of interaction involves also factors that are not as tangible as formal factors, such as shared expectations moulding the patterns of interaction.

(25)

25 The second variable of this research is ‘actors’. Actors in this research refer to both individual and composite actors that are included and involved in the decision-making process. However, the decision-making process of this research takes place mainly on the level of composite actors (e.g. the Helsinki City Board) because actors alone cannot determine the outcome. For actors this means that it is required for them to organise on the level of composite actors if they desire to be part of the process. This applies also in the case of citizens that are interested in joining the process. Thus, individual actors who join and become part of constellations, consequently become composite actors, which is the level of actors and interactions that will be researched. Composite actors are guided by the preferences and resources of the constellation they belong to (Scharpf, 1997). Two dimensions of this variable will be looked at, namely actor orientations and actor resources. On the one hand, actor orientations will be operationalized partly ac-cording to Scharpf’s typology: ‘identities’ and ‘self-interest’ with the expectation that this conceptualization will make it easier to find indications for each concept. On the other hand, actor resources will be analysed and operationalized as ‘money’ and ‘time’, ‘expertise’ and ‘network position’.

Looking at these dimensions, it will be easier to examine which interests are excluded or included, preferences represented and other factors possibly contributing to the out-come of the decision-making process. The actors can increase some of their capabilities by forming actor constellations. Thus, the third variable is “actor constellations” and can be divided in two dimensions: “constellation preferences” and “constellation

for-mation”. Constellation preferences will be analysed based on ‘identities and interests of the group’, such as internal party rules and cliques. In turn, constellation formation can

be indicated by the type of formation: coalition, club or association. This dimension helps explain how different sets of actors have organised themselves to accomplish the desirable goal, as the constellation has normally specific preferences and is structured in a certain way.

The fourth variable of this research is ‘modes of participation’, which is influenced by the first three variables and has an effect on the decision-making outcome. In order to analyse this variable, Fung’s (2006) typology for modes of participation has been cus-tomized into three dimensions, namely: scope of participation, modes of communication and modes of decision-making.

(26)

26

Table 1: Table of Operationalization

Variable Dimension Indicators

Institutional setting of interaction

Formal rules

Policy and legislation: rules enabling or restricting interaction (e.g. lack of lobbying rules)

Type of decision-making: mutual adjustment, negotiated agreements, majority vote, hierarchical direction

Informal/unwritten rules

Public opinion: positive or negative towards culture-led development initiatives Norms: role-specific norms and shared expectations

Actors

Actor orientations

Identities: Pro-Guggenheim, Anti-Guggenheim, other Self-interest: (not) having a personal interest or investment in the initiative

Actor resources

Time: time span of the decision-making process, availability of time

Money: who is financing the project? (public, private sector), the amount of money involved

Expertise: high vs. low expertise

Network position: who knows whom, sphere of influence

Actor constellations

Constellation preferences Identities and interests of the group: internal party rules, cliques

Constellation formation Coalition, Club or Association

Modes of participation

Scope of participation

From more exclusive to more inclusive: state, mini-public, public Modes of communication Intensity of communication: Listening, Expressing, Developing preferences Modes of decision-making Intensity of decision-making: 1) Aggregate & bargain 2) Deliberate & negotiate, 3) Deploy technique &

expertise

Decision-making outcomes Outcome: plan goes through,

undecided, plan does not go through

(27)

27 Firstly, the scope of participation is indicated on a scale from more inclusive to more exclusive and will be operationalized according to Fung’s (2006) typology: ‘state’, ‘mini-publics’ and ‘public’, state being at the more exclusive and public being at the more inclusive end. The second dimension, modes of communication, has three indicators: listening as a spectator, expressing and developing preferences. Finally, the modes of decision-making can be categorized also in three indicators: aggregate and

bargain, deliberate and negotiate, and deploy technique and expertise. These modes are

displayed from least intensive to most intensive. The intensity here points to the level of commitment and knowledge that is required from participants.

Finally, the above mentioned variables contribute to the ‘decision-making outcomes’, which is the fifth and the final variable of this research. The other variables influence this variable either in the form of approval or rejection of the initiative. In case the decision has not been approved or rejected yet, the outcome is undecided. Additionally, the decision-making outcome influences the modes of participation changing the existing relationships, for instance, if the outcome is not desirable.

In sum, these variables together structure the analysis of the decision-making process in this research and help explain the process more in-depth. These variables have been chosen because in order to analyse in the decision-making process of the chosen cul-ture-led development initiative, identifying sets of actors, their orientations and capa-bilities, and the way they interact in a specific institutional setting of interaction in the decision-making process provides an instrument to examine the role of participation.

2.5 Conclusions

This chapter attempted to shed light on the context of culture-led development and examine the role of it in urban development. It questioned the actual benefits of culture-led development strategies – despite their stated originality and efficiency. In order to make sense of culture-led development, it was argued that there is a need to look at it from a holistic perspective, since the issue is complicated and multi-dimensional. Thus, a framework of actor-centered institutionalism was introduced in order to understand the underlying stimuli that move these people to act toward a certain strategy. It was shown, for instance, how the institutional setting can frame the way in which the decision-making process occurs, albeit actors still have an important influence on shaping the outcome of the process through different capabilities, constellations and modes of interaction. Theories on participation - presented in the

(28)

28 following section (2.3) were embedded within this framework as participation can be considered as a mode of interaction. The concept of citizen participation, its definitional complexity and how it can be seen as a mode of interaction was laid out. Moreover, the role of citizen participation in culture-led development was also examined briefly. Finally, the conceptual scheme (2.4) brought the framework of actor-centered institutionalism and the theory on citizen participation together. This scheme enables to better understand the decision-making process within the context of culture-led development that will be analysed in the case study chapters 4 and 5. The conceptual scheme is an integral part of the methodology of this research and was introduced in this chapter to provide a link between the theory and the following chapters. Thus, the following chapter will elaborate on the methodology that links this chapter and the chapters followed by it with each other.

(29)

29

CHAPTER 3:

Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology connecting the theoretical and the empirical parts of the research. The first section outlines the research design and aims to clarify the methodological approach for investigating the research problem in question. The research design has been chosen based on the criterion whether it enables to answer the research question introduced in chapter 1: How did participation

influence the outcome of the decision-making process of the culture-led development plan of Guggenheim Helsinki? The second section will represent the case selection

followed by the third section describing the different research methods that have been applied in this research acquiring the needed data. The fourth section seeks to explain the ways in which the data has been analysed. Finally, a discussion regarding the limitations of the research will be stated followed by conclusions.

3.1 Research design

In order to answer the research question as unambiguously as possible, a case study-design with an explanatory approach has been chosen. First of all, the research question is an explanatory ‘how’ question implying that it is searching for an answer to ‘how did something happen?’ rather than only describing a phenomenon (Yin, 2009). Therefore, the case study design helps explain more in-depth the underlying factors that led to the outcomes of the Guggenheim Helsinki decision-making phases, beyond a descriptive case study. Moreover, the type of question hints at the type of answer, which will analyse and identify factors that had an influence on something (e.g. participation on the outcome of the decision-making process).

Even one well-described case study can be scientifically significant. The significance of the case study stems from its relationship with the theory and the generalizability of it can be found based on how well the case has been depicted and conceptualized (Eskola and Suoranta, 2000; Yin 2009). Analysing the decision-making process more in-depth as required by institutional approaches is important as it allows recognising the underlying dynamics behind the process and how participation influenced the outcome. Although the project could be considered as a part of a bigger franchise, the local context of it makes it a unique case study. Furthermore, this design makes it possible to reveal the potential causes behind the decision-making outcome. It provides the

(30)

30 flexibility that is needed in order to explain the changing circumstances of the variables presented in the conceptual scheme (chapter 2, section 2.4).

Secondly, the intention to explain a specific phenomenon (i.e. the decision-making process of the Guggenheim Helsinki) fits in the chosen design, since the objective is to understand a specific type of development instead of testing or falsifying a general theory, for instance, on citizen participation. This is displayed in the research question where the context of this research is mentioned: only Guggenheim Helsinki is examined in the data analysis and conclusions of this research. This research applies the framework of actor-centered institutionalism and citizen participation theory to the case of Guggenheim Helsinki-plan in the sense that explicit theories are not imposed on the data but the data is interconnected to this framework of ideas, namely the conceptual scheme. In other words, the data will be interpreted with reference to the literature but the data might also contribute to the development of a new hypothesis or theory in the field of participation in culture-led development.

Finally, answering the research question involves the attempt to develop causal explanations, i.e. Y (e.g. the outcome of the decision-making process) is affected by factor X (e.g. modes of participation). The causation sought after in this research is not deterministic but probabilistic, which means that a given factor increases the probability of a certain outcome (Kirshenblatt-Gimblet, 2006). Deterministic explanations cannot be achieved due to the complex institutional structure, however if different causes are identified, constrained probabilistic explanations can be reached.

Thus, having chosen the case study design, this methodological approach for investigating the research problem in question enables to choose a case to study. The following section will explain the case selection of this research.

3.2 Case selection

The case study of this research is the culture-led development project of Guggenheim Helsinki. This section will explain the reasons behind the selection of the case.

The case has been chosen mainly for theoretical reasons. Firstly, if the aim is to study the role of participation within the field of culture-led development, Guggenheim Helsinki provides a good case study as it can be considered as a culture-led initiative that has both excluded and included (along the decision-making process) participation by those who are affected by the outcome of the decision-making process. Several

(31)

31 critics of the project have questioned the decision-making process in terms of its openness and the lack of alternatives in discussion.

Secondly, the case is conceptually interesting because it can be considered as a culture-led development initiative that has both strong supporters10

and opponents11

. In general, the political and public discussion about the case has been lively. Both proposals that have been published have generated an overflow of opinions and discussions in printed and digital media. This matter gives the case also societal relevance. Since the case of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (e.g. Plaza, 2008; Rodríguez et al, 2005), the Guggenheim foundation has explored many cities in which to expand its network in order to repeat its ‘success story’. This has resulted in a profound interest by the Foundation in expanding to Helsinki since 2011. The project itself is still an on-going process, however as the unit of analysis in this research is the decision-making process; it is possible to use this specific case in the research.

3.3 Research methods and data analysis

This section describes the ways the empirical data of this research was collected and analysed. The main methods of data collection were written source material (e.g. the concept and development studies, proposals, blogs and newspaper articles) and semi-structured interviews. In terms of these methods, this research is qualitative in nature. In order to answer the research question, qualitative data was collected, since this research is concerned with micro-scale aspects of social reality, such as modes of participation. Qualitative data also allows understanding this reality in terms of the context in which the research has been conducted (Bryman, 2008, p. 394), since it describes the on-going reality of the situation. The methods chosen for this research can be considered appropriate within the context of culture-led development because they help to reveal the underlying institutional structures and actors interacting within them. The following sub-sections will elaborate on these methods.

3.3.1 Written source material

As soon as the case study was selected, several written sources, such as first-hand data (official policy documents and reports) and secondary data (newspaper articles, blogs and other websites) were used to gain more insight to the research. For instance, all

10

“Guggenheim-museo on loistava mahdollisuus”, (in English: The Guggenheim-museum is an excellent opportunity”, the title of the editorial published in HS (19.01.2011)

From failure to success? : the role of citizen participation in the Guggenheim Helsinki decision-making process.

UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

GSSS