Private sector involvement during national planning policy development

(1)

Private sector involvement during

national planning policy development

(2)

Author: Elsa Eskes Student number: 10183426

E-mail: elsa.eskes@student.uva.nl

Master Thesis

Master Urban and Regional Planning University of Amsterdam

First reader: dhr. dr. D.V.H. Evers Second reader: dhr. dr. J. de Vries

(3)

2

Summary

The turn towards a neoliberal planning practice has changed power relations between the government and the private sector. Private sector actors became more involved in planning. Nowadays, they lead most large development projects and collaborate with the public sector to match these projects with policy. Participation in planning is not a new concept. However, the planning literature focuses mostly on citizen participation or on collaborative planning among all stakeholders in projects. There appears to be a gap in the academic literature that aims to seek to what extent the public and private sector are collaborating during national planning policy development. This thesis will investigate the collaboration between the national government and the private actors when developing the Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte (SVIR) and see how this differs from the process of developing the former national planning policy, Nota Ruimte (NR) and upcoming planning policy, Nationale Omgevingsvisie (NOVI).

This research focuses on private companies, namely Schiphol Group, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, Brainport Development and NS, and private-sector branch organisations, Deltalinqs and Bouwend Nederland. Schiphol Group, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam and NS all experienced a positive participation process during the development of the SVIR. However, their positive experiences did not emerge from the involvement of the national government during the development, but from their tight relationship with the national government, which made it possible to influence the policy document. Brainport Development did not experience a positive participation process since they feel that the focus of the national government lies more in the development of the Randstad. However, they actively try to improve their relationship with the national government to gain more influence in the NOVI.

The branch organisation Deltalinqs and Bouwend Nederland represent different small businesses in their sector and they influence national planning policy on behalf of their members. Both Deltalinqs and Bouwend Nederland experienced a good participation process during the development of the SVIR. However, they both stated that their relationship with the national government is not as strong as the relationship between other companies and the national government. Therefore, they put more energy in the participation process by collaborating with other branch organisations to strengthen their position and participate in large discussions set up by the national government. For this reason, it is not always clear what the national government will include in the national policy and if the branch organisations influenced the planning policy.

(4)

1. Introduction

The role of the Dutch national government in planning is changing. In 2012, the reorganisation of the public sector led to restructuring the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer) (Zonneveld & Evers, 2014). Within the name of the new ministry, Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, the term spatial planning is absent. Most of the planning tasks are decentralised to lower governments. However, the Dutch national government still initiates national planning policy for “matters of national interest”. The Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte (SVIR, 2012) is the national policy document containing the current national policy interests.

The implementation of national government policy depends, for a large part, on the private sector. The national government has insufficient financial resources to execute all planning policies. The role of the private sector in planning is growing since the Dutch planning took a turn towards neoliberalism (Boogers et al, 2008). National government and the private sector have to collaborate in the implementation phase of the national planning policy at the project level to match the interests to the projects of the private sector.

The SVIR was adopted in 2012 and is already out-dated since the Dutch government agreed to a new spatial law, the Omgevingswet on the first of July 2015 (Rijksoverheid, 2015). This law obligates the national government, provinces and municipalities to draw up an Omgevingsvisie (spatial vision), which outlines the different interests in spatial planning (Rijksoverheid, 2015). The national government is now in the process of developing the new spatial vision, the Nationale Omgevingsvisie (NOVI). The NOVI will replace the SVIR and many other spatial laws and ministerial agreements. The national government introduced the Year of the Spatial Environment (Jaar van de Ruimte) in 2015. In this year, the national government, together with the private sector and citizens, wanted to identify the main spatial planning challenges in the coming years and on which subjects the NOVI should focus (Wie Maakt Nederland?, 2015). During this year, many different meetings, discussions and conferences were organised by the national government, where also different private organisations attended. The national government indicated that they wanted to include the private sector in the development of national planning policy and their support, since they are unable to execute the planning policy alone. But how much did they actually participate and how much influence did they actually have?

(7)

6

This thesis examines whether the public sector involved the private sector as much as it should have compared to their power in Dutch planning practice. There appears to be a gap in literature about private sector participation during national planning policy development and this thesis seeks to address this. This thesis seeks to give insight in the extent of collaboration between public and private actors by developing national planning policy.

The SVIR will be used as a test case. Two of the main priorities of Dutch national government are to strengthen national economy and exploit and maintain national infrastructure networks (Rijksoverheid, 2015). These are focus points in the SVIR. The SVIR indicates the “mainports” Schiphol and Rotterdam Harbour, the “brainport” Eindhoven and HSL stations as important places for economic growth and they are important places for the transport of people and goods. The national government and the private actors Schiphol Group, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, Brainport Development and Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), have to collaborate together to implement the plans of the SVIR for these places. Furthermore, branch organisations represent smaller businesses, which by themselves do not have a strong voice towards the national government. Bouwend Nederland and Deltalinqs are also included in this study. To show the relative level of private-sector participation in the SVIR, this thesis will also look at private-sector participation in the NR and the NOVI as well. This will also provide insights into whether participation is increasing or decreasing over time.

(8)

2. Literature review

2.1 Dutch market-oriented planning practice

The Dutch planning practice took a turn to neoliberalism in the 1980s. The Wassenaar agreement of 1982 is seen as the start of neoliberalism in the Netherlands, as this agreement stands for the end of the polarity between politicians and the private sector since the agreement is developed under joint consultation and making compromises on both sides (van der Meer, 2003). The state took a more positive attitude towards the involvement of the private sector (Roy, 2015). Power relations changed and growth was an important subject on the development agenda. Neoliberalism can be understood as a theory of political economic practices suggesting that the well-being of citizens can best be advanced by maximizing entrepreneurial freedoms and decreasing state interference (Harvey, 2006, Brenner & Theodore, 2002). Harvey (2006) characterizes neoliberalism by private property rights, individual liberty, creative markets, and free trade.

The neoliberalism concept connects the political discourses of the economisation of social life, the reform of the welfare state and the complex process of globalisation (Sager, 2011). Neoliberalisation can be seen as the logical result of globalisation and the increasing mobility of capital. Within planning, a parallel transformation took place from “traditionally interventionist land-use planning” towards “neoliberal planning dynamics” that requires more flexible intervention mechanisms (Tasan-Kok, 2011). Large-scale property-development projects became opportunities for capital investors. These capital investors replaced small-scale individual property owners. Nowadays, the major capital holders are willing to pay high prices for land development and redevelopment. Meanwhile, the small-scale property investors can only invest in the rest of the land market (Tasan-Kok, 2011). Both types of investors can exist alongside each other without interfering with one other. Comparing this process to the inflexible and controlling use planning process, a more flexible and negotiable form of land-use planning is needed to encourage these land and property market dynamics. This is where the neoliberalisation of planning occurs (Tasan-Kok, 2011).

Private sector-led urban development has come to dominate Dutch planning practice. Projects are ‘led’ by private developers and ‘facilitated’ by planning authorities. With a public-private organizational arrangement, the risks, profits, and responsibilities are shared between public and private organisations. Since 2000, this form of development increased in the Netherlands (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014). This

(9)

8

transformation of planning practice gives changes the role of the Dutch government in planning in managing spatial development projects. Deregulation, decentralisation, and privatization, all neoliberal political-economic principles, have caused the rise of market-oriented development projects wherein planners collaborate with private actors and build horizontal relations with other significant institutions (Heurkens & Hobma 2014).

Since 2008, the role of government in Dutch spatial planning has been up for debate, because municipalities had financial losses caused by its active land development policies. Heurkens & Hobma (2014) argued that the active land development model has reached its limits. Therefore, the role of Dutch government has changed towards facilitating development by inviting the private sector to participate in the planning practice.

The changing role of the Dutch government also has led to changes in national planning. The role of the state is to create and maintain an institutional framework to support economic practice (Harvey, 2006). According to neoliberal philosophy, not all topics are regulated via markets. The Dutch national government identified different areas of economic importance and is still responsible for the main infrastructure networks. The tasks among these areas of economic importance and infrastructure have to be dealt with by state action if necessary. Then again, beyond these tasks, state intervention has to be kept to a minimum, because the state does not have enough information to second guess market signals and because powerful interests will see state intervention as a threat for their own benefit (Harvey, 2006).

Eraydin (2011) discusses two different perspectives on the role of the state in a neoliberal society. First, the globalisation literature focuses on decentralization processes and defines cities and metropolitan areas as autonomous units. The role of the state decreases, however, this does not mean that the state has no function anymore. States focus on enhancing the competitiveness of their cities and metropolitan areas (Eraydin, 2011). This results in different metropolitan areas that are important for the national economy and are a source of competitiveness of the national economy. Second, central government institutions have a sustained interest in metropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas are fundamental for national economic development. The state tries to play a part in economic reform and regeneration and tries to retain control over certain activities, such as transport systems (Eraydin, 2011).

(10)

2.2 New Public Management and Governance as organising concepts

The growing involvement of the private sector leads towards entrepreneurial forms of governance (Tasan-Kok, 2010). Governance refers to the emerging structures and dynamics in governing that go beyond the scope of traditional ‘government’. This leads to externalisation of state functions, up-scaling of governance to delegate selected tasks to higher levels governance, and down-scaling of governance to local practices and arrangements to incorporate new social actors to the arena of governing (Tasan-Kok, 2010, p. 126).

Governance pertains to the roles of the private and the community sector in urban development. However, the relationships are not simple. For example, the private sector, government or civil society cannot be seen as single coherent players in a public policy game since they all consist of different agencies, components and individuals, with their own political agendas (Minnery, 2007).

Besides governance, there is also a competing concept of organising and managing projects, New Public Management (NPM). The difference between NPM and governance is shown in table 1. The applications of these concepts to planning practices give a better insight of relations between public and private actors and the ways they influence spatial development projects.

Characteristics NPM Governance

Conceptual origins Organisation theory Management theory

Public- private relations Vertical, role division Horizontal, role interdependency

Public- private roles Performance-oriented tasks Interaction-oriented tasks

Public- private collaboration Individual activities Collaborative activities Table 1 characteristic of NPM and governance (Heurkens & Hobman, 2014)

Osborne and Gaebler (1993) argue that NPM stimulates the government to focus on formulating policies and objectives, whereas the implementation of these plans should be carried out by private and non-profit sectors. The public sector has a supervising role in the process (Heurkens & Hobman, 2014). NPM focuses on reducing the influence of politicians. When policy and implementation are separate, politicians can concentrate on their core tasks (Heurkens & Hobman, 2014). In NPM, the public sector is there to support other parties (Osborne & Geabler, 1993). Therefore, NPM supports public-private contracts, the result of collaboration between the two sectors.

(11)

10

Paul Peterson ‘City Limits’ (1981) argues that the deregulation of state control results in competitive municipalities. Like private firms within the city, cities themselves must compete with each other to maximize their economic position. However, the public and private organisation within the city, have limited resources to commence a limited number of activities, since they are still part of the national economy and politics (Peterson, 1981). Cities try to compete through development policies, such as highway constructions. These developments, most likely, are the consensus of an elite structure of private business interests.

In contrast, governance organizes collective action toward specific goals based on network management activities (Heurkens & Hobman, 2014). Horizontal relations between actors characterize managing networks, because governance agrees that without this form of collaboration it is impossible that complex processes will lead to success (Heurkens & Hobman, 2014). Besides this reason, another reason for horizontal relationships is that parties are dependent on each other for knowledge and means for the realization of objectives. For these reasons, governance stimulates public-private collaboration based on partnership (Heurkens & Hobman, 2014) and therefore is more oriented to including private actors in the planning practice.

Governance-beyond-the-state gives a greater role to the private sector and social initiatives to provide for institutional arrangements that used to be provided by the national or local government. State-based arrangements have hierarchical and top-down characteristics and rules are set in a bureaucratic manner, where governance-beyond-the-state focuses more on participatory, inclusive and horizontally networked relations between socio-cultural, political, and business elites where trust among the stakeholders is high (Tasan-Kok, 2010). A new form of urban policy has occurred by the deregulation of state control, downsizing of public services and the enhancement of international capital mobility. A shift is taking place from ‘managerial government’ towards ‘entrepreneurial’ governance’ (Tasan-Kok, 2010).

The shift towards entrepreneurial governance resulted in the increased engagement of the private sector in Dutch planning practice. The private sector is in many cases the driver of processes of economic development, through partnerships with the public sector (Syrett & Bertotti, 2012). This is deemed necessary since the shift towards decentralisation combined with the development of business-led development. The role of private sector involvement in the scope of governance requires bringing

(12)

together an understanding of the wider restructuring and rescaling of state-market relations (Syrett & Bertotti, 2012).

The private sector does not only operate in spatial development projects. The national government increased the involvement of the private sector also in infrastructure planning (Lenferink, Tillema & Arts, 2013). Since the government is not able to grasp solutions that are too far out-the-box, involving the private sector can help provide more variety, but can also help the government increasing the capacity to handle this variety (Lenferink, Tillema & Arts, 2013).

2.3 Collaborative planning

In the 1990s, collaborative planning emerged as a dominant paradigm in the planning literature (Cullen et al., 2010). It can be defined as assigning planning responsibilities to stakeholders who participate in interest-based negotiation to reach consensus agreement on plans (Cullen et al., 2010). Since a few decades, the plan-making process is not only the primate of governments, but stakeholders as well. For this reason, planning theory has taken a ‘participatory turn’ (Kumar & Paddison, 2000). Stakeholders are those individuals, groups and organisations, which have a certain interest or concern and influence in a planning area, system or outcome (Kumar & Paddison, 2000). A stakeholder may not be directly connected to the planning area. However, as a result of their concerns or certain activities they pursue, they share risks, costs and benefits. Furthermore, they have responsibilities for themselves and other stakeholders of a planning area. But most important, stakeholders have the right to participate in the decision-making process (Kumar & Paddison, 2000). They can positively and negatively influence the outcomes of a spatial plan with their right to collaborate.

In a society where different interest groups have a say in the planning process, it is important to find a way to collaborate with each other. In collaborative planning, different interest groups, public and private, work together to create an agreed plan or activities to realise necessities that are not achievable by single actors of the process (Toniolo, Norman & Sycara, 2011). Collaboration includes the following elements according to Kilger & Reuter (2015, p. 261):

(13)

12

1. Develop and agree to common goals and directions 2. Share the responsibility to obtain those goals

3. Work together to achieve the aims and goals, using the knowledge of each actor

Despite all the advantages of collaborative planning, it is not always easy to identify the best course of action, since agents or a team represent different independent organisations with their own goals, activities and regulations. Furthermore, not all participants want to share their information with each other. However, to reach a common goal, sometimes it is important, and even necessary, to exchange knowledge (Kanovich, Rowe & Scedrov, 2010). Especially because all stakeholders have a different way in knowing the world, how they access the world and all reasoning and valuing the world in a different way (Kumar & Paddison, 2000). All forms of knowledge are important for the process and different perspective of different actors do not stand superior to another. It is important to make sure actors are confident and trust each other and to use the collaborative planning approach to manage conflicts if they occur (Healey, 1989).

Trust among stakeholders is vital for collaboration since trust among stakeholders is needed to successfully begin interaction and communication that leads to collaboration (Kumar & Paddington, 2000). Trust among stakeholders is the assumption that stakeholders do not act without considering the impact of the action on the other (Kumar & Paddison, 2000). Stakeholders have confidence in the reliability of the other person or system.

2.4 Involvement of the private sector

Hassan et al. (2009) discuss advantages of involving the private sector in planning practice. By combining the advantages of the private sector – efficient, access to finance, knowledge – with the social responsibility and knowledge of the public sector, private sector involvement could solve urban problems. By involving the private sector in spatial planning, the public and the private sector have to participate together in the planning domain. The participation of the private sector has led to stepping away from static, state driven planning processes and moving toward a planning process that is more dynamic and integrative (Hassan et al., 2011). Hassan et al. (2011) argue that participation planning is a better model for management compared to the ‘conventional’ model. Several reasons are given:

(14)

Private sector involvements is

-‐ A tool for shaping city system of rules and relations. The participants can contribute to the decision making process by contributing to the reorientation of norms and goals.

-‐ A tool for identifying and prioritizing needs. By including more stakeholders, their knowledge can be used by decision-making and by prioritizing needs. -‐ A tool for creating a new sense of ownership of both problems and solutions.

This will lead to a more effective form of planning.

-‐ A planning tool for analysing and evaluation. Participation provides a broader basis for analysing and evaluation. More knowledge is available to create relevant alternatives.

Since private sector involvement has advantages, there are also disadvantages of including the private sector in the planning process. The private sector is more interested in making profit and therefore often focuses on short-term financial return on investment (Koppenjan & Enserink, 2009). This does not always cohere with the long-term perspectives of the national government described in national planning policy.

Participation of the private sector is often held up as the answer to both government and market failure, when the public sector give some of their former tasks, risks and responsibilities to private partners (Koppenjan & Enserink, 2009). The ideal collaboration between the public and private sector is when the traditional distinction between the two spheres is dissolved. In recent yeas, collaboration becomes more focused on mutual development and the realisation of products (Klein & Teisman, 2003).

Koppenjan & Enserink (2006) showed that including the private sector in the planning process is a common form of spatial development in Dutch spatial and infrastructure planning. However, the influence of public-private partnership lies in the design phase, construction and maintain phase, and/or operate phase of the development projects. Durring these phases, public-private partnerships are formed between public and private actors (Figure 1). Klein & Teisman (2003) define public-private partnership as a “coorperation between public and private actors with a durable character in which actors develop mutual products and/or services and in which risk, costs, and benefits are shared” (Klein & Teisman, 2003, p. 137). Koppenjan (2005) argues that this form of involving the private sector is not promoting interaction between public and private

(15)

14

Figure 1: Formation process of public-private partnership (Koppenjan, 2005)

actors. Involving the private sector before the exploration and planning phase can intertwine the goals of different actors interweaved, what means that there will be fewer fixations in later stages. Furthermore, including the private sector in an earlier stage will positively influence developing platforms for emerging common understandings, trust and negotiation, connecting interactions with broader decision-making processes and increase commitment of all the actors through the whole process (Koppenjan, 2005).

2.5 Understanding actors

One way to look at how private parties provide input into government policy and implementation is pluralism. Pluralism is usually used to describe the input of different ethnic groups in civil society (Larson & Elliott, 1976). However, pluralism in planning focuses on how different interest groups participate in the planning process to gain knowledge, cope with conflict, take risks and collaborate. Each group should have the necessary power to ensure that their goals will be included in the plans (Jarzabkowski & Fenton, 2006). Pluralistic planning gives the opportunity to interest groups to present alternatives to the public plans. The diversity of groups that influence politics fit the concept of liberal democracy (Plattner, 2010). The diversity of economic interest offers advantageous for liberty and self-government and help by regulating conflicting and competing interests. This way, decision-making is not in the hands of an elite group, but in the hands of a various group that reflects society (Plattner, 2010). In Dutch planning, this means that not only the large private development organisations are included in the planning practice and the development of policy, but also the smaller organisations that play a role in spatial development.

Mazziotti (1982) describes characteristics of pluralist planning. First, a planning practice which openly invites political and social values to be exanimated and debated. The planner acts as a technician. Second, determination of what serves the public interest, in a society that contains diverse interest groups, that are almost always of a highly combative nature. Planners have to perform its role of advising courses of action leading to future desired conditions and must engage itself openly in the debate

(16)

surrounding political determination. And finally, a plan embodies the interest of a particular group. Therefore, planners see it as important that any group, which has interest at stake in the planning process, should have the chance to express those interests. The planner takes the role of an advocate planner.

Presthus (1970) described 4 conditions upon which pluralism must rise or fall:

1. Competing centres and bases of power and influence exist within a political community.

2. Individuals and organisations are given the opportunity to access the political system.

3. Individuals actively participate in organisations of many kinds.

4. A consensus exists on what is being called the ‘democratic creed’ (Presthus, 1970, p.109-110).

Pluralism rest on the assumption of a democratic system that is characterized by numbers of different organisations that compete with each other in relation to the government to ensure their own interests (Lundberg, 2014). The government has to position a relatively natural role and create an arena for mediating and finding compromises between all the different interests of the organisations. Therefore, the policy-making process is relatively open to ensure access of different organisations with a minimum of barriers. However, pluralists do not believe that power is equally divided among the stakeholders in the process (Lundberg, 2014). Power is unequally distributed among stakeholders since they have all their different resources. However, despite the unequal division of power, pluralists argue that the diffusion of power is backed by ‘checks and balances’ that prevent power of being engaged in the hands of an elite group in the decision-making process (Lundberg, 2014).

2.6 Arnsteins’ ladder of citizen participation

Arnstein introduced the ladder of citizen participation in 1969. Arnstein (1969) argues that citizen participation is another word for citizen power. Power that enables citizens to be included in political and economic processes that form their future. Arnstein argues that there is a difference between participating in a blank participation process and actual having the power to change the outcomes in the participation process. There are different types of participation and non-participation. Eight different levels of citizen participation can be distinguished (Figure 2) (Arnstein, 1996.)

(17)

16

Arnsteins’ ladder of participation is a tool to measure the degree of participation in a process (Arnstein, 1969). The current pluralistic planning practice involves different actors in the planning process. The pluralistic planning approach plies for a democratic process and give equal power to the different actors (Lundberg, 2014). Arnsteins’ ladder is used to compare the role of different actors and give insights in the influence the actors have in the process and how much power the actors are given (Arnstein, 1969).

(18)

There is a difference in having real power to affect the outcomes during a participation process and an “empty” participation process, what means that the power holders can claim that all sides were heard and considered, but only contribute to some of the sides whereby only a few sides profit from the participation process (Arnstein, 1969). Arnsteins’ ladder of citizen participation typologies eight levels between the two extremes. The level of participation can be measured by the influence on the end result the citizens have during the planning process. Arnstein measures the influence of the citizens based on the opportunities of citizens to:

-‐ Have the power to control the outcomes -‐ Provide feedback to the officials

-‐ Have power to negotiate

-‐ Be apart of the decision-making process 2.7 Ladder of stakeholder participation

Arnsteins’ ladder is designed to measure citizen involvement in the planning process and focuses on the ‘have-nots’ in society and that this group has to be involved in the planning practice since participation of the governed in their government is a cornerstone of democracy (Arnstein, 1969). However, the ladder can also be seen as a stakeholder involvement ladder and therefore be translated to private sector involvement (Roovers & van Buuren, 2016). The ladder can be used to determine the depth of stakeholder involvement. Edelenbos & Klijn (2006) developed a new ladder of stakeholder participation based on Arnsteins’ ladder of citizen participation to define the involvement of actors. This ladder indicates five different forms of involvement, instead of the eight of Arnstein. They did not include Arnsteins’ all the stages of participation. The influence of the private sector can be measured based on the same characteristics Arnstein uses for the ladder of citizen participation. Edelenbos & Klijn (2006) describe stakeholder participation as followed:

1. Informing: politicians determine the agenda of decision-making and administration and they inform those involved. Interested actors will not be invited to have input in policy development.

2. Consulting: also here, politicians and administration determine the agenda of decision-making. However, interested actors are respected as useful discussion partners. Still, politicians do not have to commit to the results of these discussions.

3. Advising: Politicians and administration are in charge of determining the agenda but give those involved the change to bring in their problems or formulate

(19)

18

solutions. The involved actors are fully involved in developing policy and politicians are committed to the results of the discussion. However, they may deviate from the final decision-making.

4. Coproducing: Politicians, administration and involved actors determine a problem-solving agenda together and search for solutions together. Politicians are committed to these solutions in final decision-making.

5. Co-deciding: Politicians and administration leave the development and decision making of policy to those involved, with civil services as advising organ. Politicians accept the outcomes. The outcomes have a binding force.

Kilger & Reuter (2015) mention three elements of collaboration. The implementation of planning policy will experience less delay when all the parties aspire the same goals and make clear agreements be forehand. Thereby, the exchange of knowledge and gaining trust among the different stakeholders are important features for good collaboration later on in the process (Heurkens & Hobman, 2014). Measuring the participation degree of the private sector by the development of national planning policy give insights in the way the national government involves different private actors in the development of national planning policy.

(20)

3. Research question & conceptual framework

This thesis will answer the following research question and sub questions:

To what extent has private sector participation influenced the development of the national planning policy the SVIR?

-‐ How did the national government try to involve different private sector actors in developing the SVIR?

-‐ What was the role of private actors during national planning policy development?

-‐ How does the participation of these private sector actors in the SVIR differ from that of the NR and the NOVI?

Different factors, such as politics, economics and finance, influence national planning policy (Figure 3). The national planning policy is a product of the national government, but since the private sector is needed for the implementation of the policy, it stands to reason that they play a role in policy development as well. To measure the level of input, the participation of different actors will be studied in three different national policies, namely the NR, SVIR and NOVI. The SVIR is the main research unit. This policy, released in 2012, is the latest national planning policy.

This research will use the NR and the NOVI as reference cases to see how the participation of private actors has changed over the years and why these changes were made. This will give insights in the “thickness” of the participation arrow. In other words, the more participation takes place, the thicker the arrow can be illustrated in this concept.

(21)

20

Figure 3 Conceptual framework

Participation can differ between national planning policies and between actors. Different actors will be studied. Large organisations, who are responsible for economic growth, Schiphol Group, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, Brainport Development and Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), but also branch organisations representing Dutch businesses, Deltalinqs and Bouwend Nederland.

(22)

4. Operationalization

Participation is divided into three categories; power, resources and influence (Table 2) (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2006, Hassan et al, 2011). There is plenty literature about private sector participation and the distribution of power. However, the focus of private actor participation mostly lies in the implementation phase of the planning process, but this thesis focuses on policy development process of planning policy. For this reason, Arnsteins’ ladder of citizen participation will be used as a source for the indicators of power. The eight levels of participation that are used for public participation can also be used in this case to measure private sector participation in national policy development. Edelenbos & Klijn (2006) re-designed Arnsteins’ ladder of citizen participation for stakeholder participation. Other categories of private sector participation are the resources of the private sector used, knowledge and finances (Hassan, et al, 2011) and actors that are involved. This study will use the SVIR as a source for the formal participation process of the national government. The interviews with private organisations give insight in the experience of the participation process of these organisations and will go into the informal participation process. In other words, the national government involves the private sector by the developing of national planning policy. However, the private actors also try to influence national planning policy besides the organised participation process.

Concept Categories Indicators Source

Participation

Power Included in the policy process (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2006)

Interview units of analysis + SVIR + Nota van Antwoord

Sharing information (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2006)

Interview units of analysis

Affect outcomes of the process (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2006)

Interview units of analysis + Nota van Antwoord

Resources Knowledge (Hassan et al., 2011) SVIR (Rijksoverheid, 2012) + Interview units of analysis Financial resources (Hassan et al., 2011) SVIR (Rijksoverheid, 2012) + Interview units of analysis

Influence Shared decision making Interview units of analysis

Agenda setting (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2005)

Interview units of analysis

(23)

22

5. Research design

This thesis uses the SVIR as a single case study with two reference cases of planning policy. The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment is working on a new national spatial vision, de Nationale Omgevingsvisie (NOVI); regrettably this process just started. The final document will only be ready in 2017 (Rijksoverheid, 2015). For this reason, the thesis main focus of this thesis is the SVIR, the current national planning policy and the first national planning policy since the restructuring of the planning ministry. To put the policy making process of the SVIR into perspective, the developing process of former national planning policy, Nota Ruimte (NR), and the upcoming national planning policy, NOVI, will also be looked into to discover the differences in participation.

The SVIR indicates Schiphol Airport, Rotterdam Harbour, Brainport Eindhoven and HSL stations as important places for economic growth. Furthermore, the national government depends on Schiphol Group, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam Brainport Development and NS for the development of these places, as it cannot develop these places without them. The SVIR acknowledges this and therefore identifies Schiphol Group, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, Brainport Development and NS as important stakeholders. Interviews with these stakeholders can give insights in their participation in the development of the SVIR. Moreover, Deltalinqs and Bouwend Nederland will be included in the research. These branch organisations are not mentioned in the SVIR, but they do represent Dutch businesses in their sector and can therefore provide insight in the participation process of national planning policy. The units of analysis will be Schiphol Group, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, NS, Brainport Development, Deltalinqs, Bouwend Nederland and the national government. Experts within the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment on the development of the SVIR, Nota Ruimte and/or NOVI and experts of Schiphol Group, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, Brainport Development, Deltalinqs and Bouwend Nederland on participation in the development process of national planning policy will be interviewed to reveal participation by developing national planning policy.

5.1. Analysis method

Two methods of data analysis will be used:

First, a single case study with two reference cases will be used to answer the research question. There are several reasons to do so. A single case study with reference cases provides the opportunity to build a general explanation that fits all the individual cases

(24)

and to create an overall explanation of the findings based on the results of several cases (Yin, 2009). The use of three cases has a holistic design, which means that units of analysis will be studied and compared in their totality. Comparing the single case, the SVIR, to the reference cases, the NOVI and the NR, is needed to answer the research question, because private sector participation has become more important over the years. By comparing the findings of the different cases, general conclusions can be made about private sector participation.

Second, next to single case studies, content analysis will be applied as a different level of analysis within the case. The SVIR and Nota van Antwoord SVIR will be used to discover what kind of role private actors had by the development of the SVIR. After developing national planning policy, the national government releases a draft version. Actors receive the chance to respond to this draft version. The national government collect all the reactions, respond to them and explains why they will, or will not, adjust the policy. The draft version of the SVIR received 258 responses, which were collected in the Nota van Antwoord SVIR. This document displays a formal form of participation. The SVIR will be analysed to examine how the national government has involved certain actors and how this participation is reflected in the document. The other document, Nota van Antwoord SVIR, will be used to analyse the implementation of the SVIR. These two documents are also units of analysis.

Content analysis will help answering the research question, because it provides the opportunity to research documents in a systematic and replicable manner (Bryman, 2008). First the SVIR will be analysed. The SVIR mentions different areas of national importance where the participants of this research operate. Chapter 4 shows that the SVIR is needed to indicate the level of participation by indicating the level of inclusion in the development process, the exchange of knowledge and the financial resources needed from the private actors. These indicators will be looked for in the document. Additionally, the SVIR will be analysed on the way the national government has involved the private sector in developing the policy document. Second, the Nota van Antwoord SVIR is used to get an insight in one part of the participation process of the SVIR, namely responding on the draft version of the planning policy. The Nota van Antwoord SVIR indicates different forms of power, namely the inclusion of the actors and their effect on the outcome (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2006). Everyone can respond to the draft version of the SVIR. Therefore, the response of the national government and the possible change of the policy document will reveal the two indicators of power. This research only focuses on the responses placed by the participants of this

(25)

24

research. Both documents give insight in the formal participation process that took place during the development of the SVIR, namely the participation process designed by the national government.

Using both a single case study with reference cases and content analysis will make answering the research question possible. First the documents have to be analysed to discover how the private sector is taken into account. in these documents. The findings can then be compared with the findings of the other units of analysis, experts of private actors and the national government:

-‐ B. Brenninkmeijer: NS Groep, Communication & Strategy

-‐ V. Dekker: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Participation Policy Coordinator

-‐ E. Driessen: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Knowledge Coordinator -‐ J. Feenstra: Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, Public Affairs Officer

-‐ E. van Leest: Brainport Development Manager Strategy & Public Affairs -‐ R. Mulder: Bouwend Nederland, Policy Advisor Infrastructure

-‐ J. Nagtegaal: Deltalinqs, Policy Advisor Infrastructure

-‐ H. Pálsdóttir: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Program Director NOVI

-‐ M. de Rooij: Bouwend Nederland, Policy Advisor Housing and Utility -‐ Schiphol Group, Urban Planner

All the participants where involved in the development of the SVIR, NR and/or NOVI and van therefore reveal the way in which power, resources and influence are divided among the actors. The participants can give insight in the informal ways of participation during the development of national planning policy. This form of participation is not included in the policy documents. Informal ways of participation arise when the relationship between the national government and the private sectors is growing, which leads to more frequent conversations between the actors allowing the private actor to influence the policy document aside from the participation process designed by the national government. In other words the units of analysis will provide insight in the way the private sector was involved in making the SVIR and how this has influenced the implementation of plans described in the SVIR where they were involved. Using these three cases provides the opportunity to discover how the participation process has changed over the years. Nevertheless, the main focus remains the SVIR.

(26)

5.2. Data collection methods and variables

The SVIR and Nota van Antwoord SVIR will be analysed for private sector participation. This will help with preparing the interviews with the units of analysis in order to compare the role of the private sector found in the documents and the role the interviewees felt they had during the process. Variables that will be used to analyse the documents are:

-‐ Number of times the actor is mentioned -‐ Role of the actor in the project

-‐ Role of the government in the project -‐ Resource needed from the actor

These variables provide insight into the importance of the actor and his role, according to the document, by implementing the policy and will be find by close reading of the policy documents.

Semi-structured interviews will be used to interview the private actors and experts of the ministry. Semi-structured interviews provide opportunity to prepare general questions; however, the sequence of the questions can differ and the interviewer can ask follow-up questions (Bryman, 2008). The interviews will generate information about:

-‐ The role of the private actors by developing the SVIR -‐ Their tasks according the SVIR

-‐ The resources needed from the actors

-‐ The collaboration between the private and public actors by developing the SVIR -‐ The actors influence by developing the SVIR

-‐ When they had the chance to collaborate in the process -‐ Whether they took the chance to participate

-‐ Their role in the Nota Ruimte and NOVI

-‐ Their opinion about the end result of the document -‐ Whether they act upon national planning policy

The participants have to be obtained via snowball sampling. Problematic in snowball sampling is that the researcher depends on other people to come in contact with the right persons. The sampling is not random. However, in qualitative research there are

(27)

26

fewer concerns about external validity and the ability to generalise, because the sample does not have to represent the population (Bryman, 2008).

The method described above can also be justified by looking at other scientific research. Hassan, et al. (2011) also used semi-structured interviews to analyse private participation. Apart from interviews with single participants, they used focus groups. Focus groups provide opportunity to obtain different actors around the table and to get in depth with these actors simultaneously. For this research, there is not choosen for a focus group, because it is not possible to bring all actors around the table at the same time in the short time phrase of the master thesis. Roovers & van Buuren (2016) also used multiple-case studies to analyse the participation of private actors. They used Arnsteins’ ladder of participation to indicate the participation per actor.

5.3. Data analysis method

The SVIR and the Nota van Antwoord SVIR are analysed by close reading in order to indicate the formal participation process. The Nota van Antwoord SVIR is an organised document where all the 258 responses to the draft version of the SVIR are bundled. Figure 4 shows a couple of responses the national government received. They react on the response and argue if they will adjust the SVIR or not. Different participants of this research submitted feedback in the form of a question or a direct request for an alteration of the SVIR. The analysis concentrates on the number of times different companies submitted a response and on the decision of the ministry to alter the SVIR. The analysis of the SVIR focuses on the areas wherein the companies of this research operate, what the ministry has planned for these areas and how they want to accomplish these plans. Additionally, the whole document will be analysed for the role the private sector has to take according to the ministry.

The interviews are also analysed by close reading, since different arguments can only be understood in the context. Therefore the interviews will not be analysed with a computer program. The interviews do not only focus on the SVIR, but also on the NOVI and the NR. They are the source for different indicators of private sector participation (Table 3). The analysis will focus on these indicators of private sector participation, on the possible change in participation over the years and how the participants experience their position during the development of national planning policy.

(28)

The information obtained from the documents and from the interviews combined is translated to the level of participation for each company. The most important indicators to decide the rung on the ladder of private actor participation per company are: the amount of power the private sectors have to influence national planning policies and how they use of this power; in which stage of the process the private actors become involved; and the reason for the national government to involve the private sector, for example financial reasons or to exchange knowledge.

(29)

28

(30)

6. National planning policy

Dutch planning practice has been considered top-down and regulatory for many years and therefore national planning policy was the leading planning policy in the field (Klerk, 2003). Since 2000, the national government has begun to decentralise most of its planning tasks to other levels of government and to focus only on spatial development of national interest. The national government does not have the resources to execute all of the spatial development that is written down in the planning policy. The private sector has to step up to implement different planning tasks. This chapter looks into three different planning policies, SVIR, NR and NOVI, to discover how the national government includes the private sector in the development stage of the policies. This provides insight into the dependence of the national government to the private sector. First, the content of the three different policy documents will be discussed, focused on the role of the private sector displayed in the documents. Then, the participation process of the different policy documents will be discussed.

6.1. Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte

The “Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte” (SVIR) is a national planning policy developed in 2012 and displays the national vision on spatial and transport policy. This new policy was developed to replace older national policy documents, including the “Nota Ruimte” (NR). The main goal of the national government is to make the Netherlands more competitive, accessible, liveable and safe. To achieve this, the national government aims for a powerful approach that makes room for regional customization, puts the user first, prioritizes investments and spatial development and links infrastructure to each other (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012). This will put the Netherlands in the position to compete on an economical level with other countries in Europe and in the rest of the world. The national government cannot accomplish these goals alone, but has to depend on lower governments, organizations, businesses and citizens to accomplish this together.

The new developments and challenges in spatial and infrastructure development need a new, future proof, policy that gives space to the user. Due to a neoliberal government, the role of the state is changing. Planning tasks are being decentralized to lower governments, where the national government focuses more on areas of

national importance (Eraydin, 2011). This shift is also recognizable in the SVIR. Figure

5 shows the ambition of the national government for 2040. The three largest areas of economic competiveness are Schiphol, Harbour Rotterdam

(31)

30

Figure 5 Ambition for 2040 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012)

(32)

and Brainport Eindhoven. The ambition of the national government is to strengthen these areas and to improve the accessibility. Together with lower governments, citizens and businesses, the national government wants to develop solutions and opportunities for these areas. The other actors are needed to adjust the national planning policy to the new form of spatial development, which would be a form less characterized by complicated regulations and administrative pressure (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012). Citizens, businesses and organizations are leading subjects for the interference of the national government. This brings spatial development closer to those who are concerned by it and gives more responsibility to lower governments. As a result, the national government interferes less and focuses mainly on the international economic position of the country and on challenges of national interest, such as main infrastructure networks for people and goods, energy and nature.

The SVIR identifies different spatial challenges of national interest. One of these challenges is focusing on economic growth and economic competiveness. The Netherlands has various sectors of strength that have opportunities in the international economic playing field. Examples are; Water, High Tech Systems and Materials, Life Science & Health, Agro & Food, Creative Industries and Chemistry and Horticulture (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012). Most of these sectors are concentrated in urban areas nearby main ports, brain ports, green ports and the valleys. The policy of the national government focuses on these areas to strengthen their position on national and international level (Figure 5).

Important nodes in the network of international connection of urban areas are the main ports Rotterdam, Schiphol, Amsterdam harbour and the “brain port” in the southeast of the Netherlands. These nodes need to have a good national connection and a good international connection with the Trans-Europe Network for the exchange of goods and knowledge (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012). Logistic development leads to an increase in the flow of goods. Especially for the largest harbour complex of Europe (Rotterdam – Antwerp) expansion of the logistic sector is of great importance for a favourable economic position.

6.2. Nota Ruimte

The SVIR replaces the former national planning policy, Nota Ruimte (NR). This document was published in 2006. In the NR, the national government also emphasized the importance of developing the Netherlands together with other actors.

(33)

32

The national government wants to create opportunities for the development of the Netherlands together with other actors (Ministerie van VROM, 2006). The main goals of the NR are contributing to a strong economy,creating a safe and liveable society and an attractive country (Ministerie an VROM, 2006). The national government focuses on three main objects:

1 National spatial main infrastructure

2 Projects of national importance

3 Rules that ensure a basis quality in the Netherlands

With their motto “Locally where possible, centralized where necessary”, the national government delegates many spatial development responsibilities to the lower governments. Where the NR has set the first steps toward a more localized spatial development the SVIR persecuted and enlarged this approach.

The national government depends on the private sector in different projects of national interest, or key projects. The NR stimulates public-private partnerships and emphasizes the importance of democratic forms of decision-making in public-private partnerships. Furthermore, the national government stimulates involvement of the private sector through knowledge dissemination (Ministerie van VROM, 2006). The NR has indicated the same main ports, brain port and green port as important areas for economic growth as the SVIR. The focus thus has not changed over the years. The NR gives space to the businesses in the important areas to develop and to create a better economic structure for the Netherlands, in order to improve the international status of the Netherlands (Ministerie van VROM, 2006).

6.3. Nationale Omgevingsvisie

The SVIR was released in 2012 and the ideas and plans introduced in the document are now implemented. However, in 2015 the national government agreed to a new spatial planning law, the “Omgevingswet” (surroundings law), which decides that the national government has to establish an “omgevingsvisie” (surroundings vision) as a structuring and strategizing framework for necessary and desired spatial development for the long term (Rli, 2015). Different spatial developments will be observed and the document provides ways of guidance of the national governance.

The national government is developing the new planning policy “Nationale Omgevingsvisie” (NOVI) that will replace the SVIR and will be the leading planning

(34)

document of the national government. It will be an integral vision on a more strategic level that will replace sectoral visions and planning policies. The development of the NOVI is an on-going process at the moment. The final national vision has to be finished in 2018. In 2015, the first steps were made towards the final product. Discussions with governments and stakeholders provide insights into the important spatial subjects of the coming years for the NOVI and led to prioritizing of subjects that are of national importance for the coming years (Rli, 2015). The broad discussion has resulted in the agenda of the NOVI. In 2016, the subjects on the agenda will be further explored. After that, different alternatives will be explored and the final document will be formed.

The private sector is included throughout the whole process of the policy development so far. Different meetings, debates and events are organised by the ministry of Infrastructure and development to gather as much information from businesses and organisations.

6.4. Differences between the SVIR, NR and NOVI

The SVIR was developed with the main goal to decentralize spatial planning tasks to lower governments even further and to clarify the spatial planning tasks that will continue to be the priority of the national government. The SVIR makes it clear that the main focus of the national government is infrastructure of (inter-)national importance

and stimulating the economic growth of the country pressure (Ministerie van

Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012). By decentralizing planning tasks and only focus on areas of national importance, the Dutch national planning practice becomes more neoliberal. The role of the state is to invest in the competiveness of metropolitan areas and focus on economic growth (Eraydin, 2011). By focusing on these areas in the Netherlands, the SVIR has a main focus on the Randstad area and does not have a particular national view of the areas outside of the Randstad. Remarkable in the development of the SVIR is the little time the ministry has to develop the document. It had only six months from beginning to end to clarify planning tasks of national importance for the coming years (Interview, Driessen, 2016). The reason for this was the reorganisation of the ministry and the agreement of decentralising national planning tasks even more to the lower governments (Interview, Driessen, 2016). The ministry had to release a new planning policy as soon as possible to clarify their new ideas on spatial planning.

(35)

34

The difference between the NR and the SVIR is the narrower focus of the SVIR. The NR focused on provincial development and stimulated new spatial development in urban concentration areas. Table 4 shows the change in spatial planning policies over the years. Different policies are being abolished to simplify national spatial planning (Zonneveld & Evers, 2014). The national government has more planning tasks labelled as nationally important in the NR. For instance, housing and urban development were subjects of high importance in the NR. The national government prioritized spatial development in the NR more than in the SVIR. This can be explained by the role the national government has in spatial development in times of the NR compared to the SVIR. The motto of the NR, “Locally where possible, centralized where necessary”, indicates the decentralization process. However, this process was furthermore executed in the SVIR. The different names of the documents, nota (NR) and vision (SVIR), indicate the difference in juridical bounding of the documents. The SVIR is only juridical bounding for the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, were more actors are connected to the NR (Interview, Driessen, 2016).

Discontinued Spatial Memorandum (2004) policies New SVIR (2012) policies

Urban bundling (more than half of development must occur in designated bundling areas)

Top-sectors (aid to nine economic clusters) Intensification (about 40 percent of new

development should occur within the built-up area)

Priority regions (involvement in development of Amsterdam and Rotterdam metropolitan areas and Eindhoven)

Location policy for businesses and retail (in centers or near multimodal transport)

Sustainable urban development ladder (three-step approach to urban development)

Basic environmental quality levels Olympic Games Urban networks (development of)

National landscapes (restricted urban development)

Urban renewal policy

Buffer zones (development restrictions within) Recreation around cities (funds for)

Concentration of intensive agriculture

Table 4 Changes in spatial planning policies (Zonneveld & Evers, 2014)

The NOVI is not yet finished and therefore the content of the document cannot be compared to that of the SVIR. However, the development process of the NOVI is eight times longer than the development process of the SVIR, namely half a year of the SVIR against approximately 4 years of the NOVI. This gives the ministry of Infrastructure and Environment time to investigate the path the national government will follow in spatial development in the coming years (Interview, Pálsdóttir, 2016). At this moment, the

(36)

ministry is exploring lots of different subjects to discover what the future developments will be and how the national government has to respond to these future developments. Eventually, the NOVI should make clear what the future developments will be, according to the national government, and how to reject on the developments (Interview, Pálsdóttir, 2016). The result will be a more complex document than the SVIR. The role of the national government changes towards a more facilitating role where the private sector has a more leading role. This form of planning increased in the Netherlands since 2000 (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014). During the development of the NOVI, this is further more elaborated. The neoliberal character of Dutch planning is still enlarging.

6.5. Participation process SVIR

Society has to be involved in forming spatial policy. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment has stated that Dutch society is full of active citizens, innovative and contemporary businesses and constructive social organizations (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2014). All these parties want to contribute to society by connecting to different networks and by getting involved in spatial planning. This “energetic society” takes initiatives, is creative and does not passively wait for an invitation of the national government to become involved in spatial planning issues. There are different social developments for increasing participation in developing spatial planning policy:

1. Increasing self-organizing capability of society

2. Retreating government

3. Rising demand of social connection

For this reason, the goal of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment is to give more space to citizens, businesses and other levels of government and to give them the chance to contribute to the spatial development plans of the ministry (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2014). Involving the private sector is necessary in a pluralistic society. Planners try to involve any group that has an interest at stake in the planning process to express their interests. The national government starts the dialogue with these different groups. Only then a plan will embody the needs of society. These actions correspond with the characteristics of pluralism of Maziotti (1982). It can be argued that the national government acknowledges the plural society and tries to create the right circumstances for the private sector to contribute to the development of national planning policy.

Private sector involvement during national planning policy development