A review of the impact of the Metropolitan area of Amsterdam collaboration on its members in adaptation towards sustainable energy

(1)

Running head: THE MRA IN TRANSITION TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY 29

Master thesis political science Track international relations

‘A review of the impact of the Metropolitan area of Amsterdam collaboration on its members in adaptation towards sustainable energy’

Figure 1 (Toala Olivares, 2017)

Author: M. Jonk

Student number: 11016337 First reader: Dr. J.G.W. Blom Second reader: Dr. P. Schleifer Date of completion: 29-06-2018

(2)

THE MRA IN TRANSITION TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY 2

Abstract

Due to continuing climate developments, governments are faced with policy

challenges to deal with this problem collectively at the international, national, (sub)regional and local level. Efforts to achieve goals to overcome climate change are partly motivated by treaties or laws but often through soft law (Guardian, 2018; MRA, 2016; Sustainable

degrees, 2014). For the current study, the decision has been made to focus on the significance of the Metropolitan area of Amsterdam (MRA) in motivating their MRA members in adaptation towards sustainable energy (MRA, 2016).

This study aims to contribute to the broader debate about the effectiveness of the increased number of different type of collaborations at the regional and sub-regional level. Moreover, the research has the aspiration to provide a more profound insight into the academic controversy about the effectiveness of ‘soft law’ practices in policymaking. To achieve this goal, the study researched the capacity of the MRA collaboration to function as ‘soft law’ framework to motivate the MRA members to adapt towards sustainable energy.

The central question which has been answered in this study is the following: What is

the impact of the metropolitan area of Amsterdam collaboration in motivating the MRA members to adapt towards sustainable energy?

The main finding of the research is that the impact of the MRA governance level, as a motivating factor in a structural sense for the MRA members, to adapt towards

sustainability, seems to be limited and should, and therefore, be viewed with restraint. Even though the MRA mainly satisfies the set-up conditions, the legitimacy and sovereignty aspects to function and perform as a soft law framework, some potential theoretical explanations for the limited impact of the ‘soft law’ mechanisms were identified (Brink et al., 2005). First of all, the MRA does not have specific targets at the MRA individual

organization level. Second, the MRA meetings and documents seem to fall short regarding like the quality of resources, trust, and expertise. Third, other than at the MRA level, the findings potentially provide support for the functioning of the mechanism of peer review within the sub-regions. This potentially could be explained by the efforts of the Province of North Holland, although many other influences were identified as well. Nonetheless, the empirical findings provided a certain level of support for the ‘soft law’ mechanism of peer pressure as a result of MRA efforts, however these findings were limited to the specific project leading to the of gas-clear covenant.

(3)

As a result, the main contribution to the academic debate is that the impact of the ‘soft law’ mechanisms within the MRA context tends to be limited (Zeitlin, 2009). The findings in this research, therefore, tend to support the argument that the ‘OMC is just one source of learning amongst many’ in the transition towards sustainable energy (Idema & Kelemen, 2006 p.115).

Concerning the public debate, it became clear that the overall impact of this MRA collaboration is limited and that the legitimacy of the MRA members seems to be assured. However, the study brought up some new questions. The research provided a plausible level of support to assume a certain level of functioning of ‘soft law’ mechanism within the

historical, existing sub-regions, which, therefore, including the role of the alderman could be further researched.

Besides, the research has provided insight into -and recommendations for- different fields of potential improvement for the MRA collaboration which could help to further strengthen as such. The researcher of the current study, therefore, supports the potential of the recently started MRA collaboration, and underlines the following interview quote: ‘one

can see that the MRA level is, of course, a beautiful level, a beautiful scale, to look at developments and to accomplish things together’ (Interview 11, p.1).

(4)

Table of contents Acknowledgements ... 6

1. Introduction ... 7

1.1 Background and problem description ... 7

1.2 Research Question ... 9

1.3 Readers guide ... 10

2. Theoretical framework ... 12

2.1 Origin of different governance types explained in relation to the open method of coordination (OMC) ... 12

2.2 Institutional set-up factors ... 15

2.3 Open method of coordination mechanisms of mutual learning ... 15

2.4 The environmental OMC performance and success factors ... 17

3. Methodological approach ... 19

3.1 Multiple case design Metropolitan area of Amsterdam ... 19

3.2 Methodological- and Validity/reliability approach... 21

3.3 Operationalization ... 22

3.4 Scope and limitations... 24

4. Findings regarding the MRA context in relation to the OMC instruments ... 25

4.1 Institutional set-up ... 25

4.2 The MRA and beyond in relation to the OMC mechanisms and success factors... 31

4.2.1 MRA alderman level in a structural sense ... 31

4.2.2 MRA initiated gas-clear construction covenant ... 35

4.2.3 MRA civil servant level in a structural sense ... 36

4.2.4 The sub-regional level ... 37

5. Findings regarding the MRA context in relation to the performance factors ... 41

5.1 Nature and timing of the challenge ... 41

5.2 Resources/ actor constellation ... 42

5.3 Institutional structure and legitimacy ... 43

6. Analyses & Discussion ... 46

6.1 Institutional set-up of the MRA and the legitimacy and sovereignty of the MRA members ... 46

6.2 The impact of the MRA level on the MRA members in a structural sense ... 47

6.3 The impact of the MRA initiated gas-clear covenant on the MRA members ... 50

6.4 The impact of the sub-regional level and others on the MRA members ... 51

7. Conclusion and answer to the central research question... 53

(5)

8.1 Academic references ... 57

8.2 Empirical references ... 60

9. Appendix ... 62

(6)

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank my thesis advisor Dr. Blom of the faculty of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam. Dr. Blom was always available whenever I ran into a trouble spot or had a question about my research or writing. He consistently allowed this paper to be my own work, but steered me in the right the direction whenever he thought I needed it. Moreover, I always enjoyed the last part of the meetings at which we often passionately discussed the latest political developments.

In addition, I would also like to thank the experts who were involved in the interviews for this research project from the following organizations: The municipalities of: Amsterdam, Edam-Volendam, Landsmeer, Purmerend and Zaanstad, the regional collaboration of: Gooi & Vechstreek and Odijmond, the province of North Holland and the MRA board. Without their passionate participation and input, interview data could not have been successfully conducted.

Moreover, I would like to thank my girlfriend Cindy for her useful feedback on my concept versions. Furthermore, I would like to thank the municipality of Waterland and my

colleagues for the flexibility they offered that allowed me to successfully finish my thesis. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Schleifer of the faculty of Political Science at the

University of Amsterdam as the second reader of this thesis, and I am gratefully indebted to his valuable comments on this thesis.

(7)

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and problem description

The urgency to adapt towards a sustainable society has received significant attention within society from non-governmental organizations, media and different levels of

governance at the Global, European, national, and regional level (Guardian, 2018; MRA, 2016; Sustainable degrees, 2014). The ambition to adapt towards a sustainable society has been on the European, the national and the regional level policy agenda for many years (EU member states, 2009). In 2009, the EU and its member state published a binding directive to force the member states to realize a significant increase of renewable energy in the decades to come. Combined with this directive, member states have developed action plans to accomplish the ambition of a more sustainable society. Besides, the EU published the action plan ‘closing the loop’ in 2015 to create a circular economy which is also part of the overall sustainability goals (European Commission, 2015). Furthermore, the importance of the transition to a circular economy and renewable energy has been addressed by the Dutch national government within several reports and policy agendas which aim to make the Dutch economy utterly sustainable by the year 2050. Consistently the Dutch government has set the ambition to reduce the use of primary sources within national programs. The government aims to re-use all resources which should be combined with the renewable energy targets and leads to an economy without emissions for the environment.

(Rijksoverheid, 2016). According to these reports there lies an important shared

responsibility at the national and local government level to achieve these sustainable goals. Surveys among different municipalities demonstrate that the level of ambition and feeling of responsibility for these goals varies significantly among municipalities (De Thouars, 2017; Ministerie van economische zaken, 2016).

Consistently with the strategies and ambitions formed by European and national governments, there are also sustainable transition ambitions formulated at the regional governance level like within the metropolitan region Amsterdam collaboration (MRA) which has started in its current institutional form at the beginning of 2017 (MRA, 2016; MRA, 2018b). The transition towards a sustainable economy within the MRA involves two main elements, on the one hand, the realization of a circular economy and on the other hand the shift towards clean and renewable energy (MRA, 2016, 2017).

(8)

Within the period leading up to the MRA, different types of formations collaborated in the period starting from the 90's onwards. However, the Dutch parliament decided within the year 2014 that the collaboration at that time called: ‘the city region’ of Amsterdam had to be transformed towards the transportation region of Amsterdam. Even this ‘transport region' which formed the first draft of the current MRA has been developed further mainly due to the effort of the mayor of Amsterdam and the commissioner of the king in 2016 (Interview 2; MRA, 2018). In the year 2016 several local governments of which most municipalities within the geographical MRA decided to take their often informal

collaborations a step further towards the formation of an alliance called ‘the metropolitan area of Amsterdam’ starting in 2017 (MRA, 2016). The MRA collaboration's geographical area currently has the following economic statistics: 2.4 million residents, 1.1 million houses, 230.000 companies and 1.5 million jobs. The MRA collaboration together with different partners published and financed multiple reports on their sustainable

development goals (including the transition to clean energy) which underline the European and national policy ambitions towards a sustainable economy by 2050 (Broekman et al., 2017; MRA, 2018a; MRA, 2018d). The MRA-collaboration currently exists out of a group of 33 municipalities and two provinces and a transport region. This group forms a regional collaboration which will be described further in chapter four(MRA, 2016).

The central focus of the current study will be to define the impact of the MRA collaboration as a trigger for the MRA members to adapt and to transform their local society's towards renewable energy within the context of sustainability.

The social relevance of the current research is to contribute to the broader public debate about democratic legitimacy and efficiency of MRA type collaborations within the policy forming processes. This research aims to achieve this goal by creating a better understanding of the actual level of influence of these MRA like institutions on the

behaviour of the MRA members affected like municipalities (Voermans & Waling, 2018). The MRA region currently works on an informal base and makes use of covenants. At present, the MRA does not have an official legal and institutional status yet and currently has no official staff. However, the MRA has -since the signing of the MRA founding covenant in 2016- a more organized character, a formal agenda setting structure, combined with targets and a detached group of staff members which are officially employed at the MRA-member institutions but function as the MRA staff (MRA, 2016).

(9)

Furthermore, the current research aims to contribute to the academic literature by examining to what extent the ‘new type of governance' mechanisms of ‘soft law' can explain the regional/local dynamics involved concerning the sustainable energy policy

developments since this has only received limited academic attention. In addition this research aims to contribute to broader academic debate about if ‘new governance' soft law mechanisms have a significant, or limited impact in contrast to hard law instruments on policy developments processes, by adding a viewpoint to these debates (Idema & Kelemen, 2006; McGuiness & O'Carroll, 2010; Zeitlin, 2009).

1.2 Research Question

The overall aim of the current research is to discover, to what extent the MRA collaboration functions a motivating factor for the MRA-members to adapt towards sustainable energy, in accordance to the "new governance" soft law mechanisms derived from the open method of coordination (OMC) (Idema & Kelemen, 2006; McGuiness & O'Carroll, 2010; Zeitlin, 2009).The central research question therefore is:

‘What is the impact of the metropolitan area of Amsterdam collaboration in motivating the MRA members to adapt towards sustainable energy? ‘

More specific the research aims to examine in the first instance, to what extent the environmental OMC institutional conditions are satisfied within the MRA collaboration, to define the potential of the MRA to function following the principles of the OMC theory according to the following sub-questions:

(1) ‘What is the potential of the MRA's collaboration -on the topic of adaptation towards sustainable energy- concerning the institutional set-up conditions of a sustainable OMC?'

In the second instance, the research aims to determine to what extent the defined OMC mechanisms of mutual learning are experienced by the MRA members. These findings will be linked to the governance levels at which these mechanisms are at play in order to demonstrate the significance of the MRA collaboration’s governance level compared to potential other governance levels. This part of the research will be explored with the following sub-question:

(2) ‘To which OMC mechanisms and combined governance levels are referred by the MRA-members as a trigger of the development of sustainable energy policy?'

(10)

In the third instance, the research will explain in what kind of dynamic the sustainable energy transition takes place line with performance factors of a sustainable OMC within the MRA context. This will be done to provide insight into what other elements potentially could have influenced the performance of the OMC mechanisms. The latest sub-question will answer this part of the research:

(3) ‘Which elements (potentially) influenced the performance of the sustainable OMC mechanisms within the MRA context?'

By answering the sub-questions, the research will answer the central question and will reveal the impact of the MRA collaboration on its members in adaption towards the development of a sustainable society. Besides, the research has been conducted to

examine, the academic relevance of OMC soft law mechanisms within the regional context of the MRA in the light of the broader international debate about the effectiveness of these ‘new' forms of these ‘soft law' type of governance mechanisms. The study will help to provide an insight into what extent the –since 2017 further institutionalized- MRA collaboration has contributed to the pace (of policy development), level of ambition and actions of their members (Idema & Kelemen, 2006; MRA, 2016).

1.3 Readers guide

This current research will be structured in the following order: the present chapter is the introduction introducing the topic and academic and societal relevance.

The second chapter will introduce the theoretical background of the academic debate regarding ‘soft law' and ‘hard law' This chapter will continue by explaining the theoretical lens which will be used within the research as a toolkit to answer the central research question. Moreover, the chapter will explain theoretical insights which has shown their use in defining the potential of a sustainable OMC institutional set-up. Besides chapter two will present the most attested elements from the ‘soft law derived' OMC theory,

namely the mechanisms combined mechanims of peer pressure and peer review. The chapter will conclude with the explanation of elements which could have an influence on the success and performance of the OMC mechanisms within an environmental OMC framework.

The third chapter will describe how the current qualitative research is executed by a deductive theoretical approach. Moreover, the chapter will describe reliability and validity

(11)

concerns, the limitations and scope of the current research. The chapter will also present how the case selection and population of the study is formed. Furthermore, there will be argued how the theoretical insights from chapter two are operationalized to answer the formulated research question.

The fourth chapter will present the empirical findings from the interviews and empirical documents by answering the formulated sub-question. In the first section, the chapter will present the findings in line with the conditions of an environmental OMC Framework. In the second section, the findings regarding the functioning of the combined OMC mechanism peer pressure and peer review and success elements within and beyond the MRA level will be demonstrated.

The fifth chapter will present the findings regarding the OMC performance factors which could potentially influence the OMC’s performance in the following order. The first section will present findings related to the nature and timing of the sustainable energy transition. The second section will present the resource and actor constellation within the MRA. The last section will describe the findings regarding institutional performance and legitimacy concerns related to the MRA and its members.

The sixth chapter will analyse and discuss the findings and will provide some limitations of the current study. As a result, the following argument will be made. The impact of the MRA governance level in motivating the MRA-members towards sustainability have to be viewed with restraint. Even though the MRA institutional set-up shows a clear potential to function as a sustainable OMC ‘ soft law' framework, empiric reality tells a different story. Within the research, only limited evidence was found to support the impact of the in 2016 further intensified MRA collaboration in motivating the MRA-members towards sustainability in line with the OMC combined soft law mechanisms of peer pressure and peer review. However, the chapter will argue that -the period leading up to the gas-clear new construction agreement- provided a certain level of support for the functioning of the OMC mechanism peer pressure as a result of the MRA level.

In addition, the chapter will provide some potential explanations for this limited function of the OMC mechanisms with the MRA like an issue with benchmarking and success elements. Moreover, this chapter will demonstrate findings that provide a certain level of support for the potential functioning of the mechanisms of peer review at the sub-regional level. Within

(12)

this section will be argued that this potentially is strengthened by the leadership role of the province of North Holland.

The seventh chapter will answer the central research question in line with the

analyses and discussion from chapter six. The chapter will conclude with the answer that the MRA governance level has a limited impact on its members in the transition towards

sustainable energy. Moreover, it will highlight the central elements from the analyses in chapter six and will conclude with some and suggestions for future research and policy improvement.

2. Theoretical framework

In the first section of this chapter, the academic debate will be explained about the ‘old/hard law' versus ‘new/soft law' type of governance (Lopez-Santana, 2006). Furthermore the explanatory value of these ‘soft law scholars' will be explained from a constructivist theoretical lens. In the second section of this chapter, the institutional set-up condition for a sustainable OMC framework will be explained. Within the third section, the most attested aspect of the OMC theory will be explored, namely: the mechanisms of mutual learning. In the fourth part of this chapter potential success and performance elements of an

environmental OMC will be further defined. (Brink et al., 2005; Zeitlin, 2009)

2.1 Origin of different governance types explained in relation to the open method of coordination (OMC)

Multi-level governance studies of the European Union have shown that a significant shift of authority took place from national governments to sub-state authorities (especially regions). These shift in levels of authorities has been explained by a formation of several approaches to European integration. The ‘old governance' IR-derived readings emphasized mainly the top-down view of ‘hard law' governance focused on legal binding processes. In contrast to ‘soft law', types of ‘new governance' tend to suggest that integration takes place best without legal binding proceedings and sanctions. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001; Lopez-Santana, 2006). One of the most important and attested forms of ‘soft law' and ‘new governance is the concept of mutual learning derived from the theory of the ‘open method of coordination'. The following mechanisms demonstrate the concept of mutual learning in accordance with the OMC theory: ‘peer pressure, mutual surveillance, benchmarking, peer

(13)

review, deliberation, and exchange of good practices’ (Lopez-Santana, 2006; Zeitlin, 2002, p. 10; Zeitlin, 2009, p. 229). According to Zeitlin (2009), the different OMC mutual learning mechanisms have shown their usefulness within the European context where they originate from. The first version of OMC emerged within European Employment Strategies within 1997 (McGuinnes & O'Caroll, 2010). In a later stage during the Lisbon strategy, the OMC framework was developed to a more widely known governance instrument. According to the European Council (2000), the central idea of OMC is defined as follows: ‘the means of spreading best practice and achieving greater convergence towards the main EU goals' (Paragraph 37).

According to different scholars, the OMC theory could be explained by the

international relations school of constructivism (Checkel, 1998; Tsarouhas, 2009). Tsarouhas (2009) claims that the core elements of OMC could be directly linked to the core

assumptions about how constructivist are viewing policy change (Tsarouhas, 2009). The main argument for this claim, follows the strong link that could be made between

participation and learning in policy-making (Tsarouhas, 2009). According to a constructivist view, the membership of the EU is not exclusively a process of institutionalization, combined with severe political effects, but more as an gradual process that contributes to a new social reality that has its impact on the members involved by means of socialization and

identification (Checkel, 1998; Tsarouhas, 2009)

According to Zeitlin (2009), the OMC theory has shown a significant relevance in explaining EU and national policy processes and creation. However, Idema and Kelemen (2006) suggest that the significance and the likely impact when accessing the OMC framework within a European context is highly exaggerated. Moreover, they argue that empirical evidence shows that due to the limited participation in the OMC structure by policymakers, and the wide availability of different sources of learning and information the overall impact of OMC type soft law mechanisms is likely to be limited. As became clear in the process of policy learning among the member-states. According to this view, the OMC should be viewed as ‘just one source of learning amongst many.' (Idema & Kelemen, 2006, p.115). On the one hand, Radaelli (2003) argues in line with Idema & Kelemen (2006) and supports the idea that certain aspects of the OMC are exaggerated. On the other hand, Radaelli (2003) argues that the potential of the OMC is ready to be exploited. Radaelli (2003) especially underlines that: ‘the discussion should be cast in terms of a realistic diagnosis of

(14)

the instruments and methodologies, policy by policy which should include an eye for macro but micro governance developments as well' (p.10). However, which policy instruments have to be used to measure the extent of the OMC's impact, has been one of the central debates among OMC scholars. McGuinnes and O'Caroll (2010) therefore argue that it is logical that the extent of the impact success and level of convergence should be defined in other terms than applied to hard law. However, the discussions remain fuelled by the question which yardstick needs to be used then to measure the extent and impact of the OMC mechanisms. (Ania & Wagner, 2014; McGuinnes & O'Carroll, 2010) Some have been arguing that the impact of OMC should be viewed already even when the total consensus among the members remains elusive. According to this view, the establishment of for example shared objectives itself, could already be viewed as a serious achievement as a consequence of OMC mechanisms. Although there has been argued that it is difficult to measure progress following this view compared to topics such as investment targets which provide clear statistical insight in progress (Jacobsson, 2004).

Within the ‘OMC wilderness' Citi and Rhodes (2007) made a clear attempt to develop an analytical framework to define the level impact by examining the level of the combined OMC mechanisms convergence capacity (McGuinnes & O'Caroll, 2010). This framework, therefore, allows to draw certain conclusions about the level of impact of the OMC as a form of ‘social learning' regarding policy development (see figure 2). This analytical

framework provides scales that are linked to the level of convergence and thus to the level of impact of the combined OMC mechanisms within (national) policies ranging from 1=low, to 5= high (Citi & Rhodes, 2007a, pp. 468-469; McGuinnes & O'Caroll, 2010; Zeitlin, 2009).

(15)

2.2 Institutional set-up factors

In order to set a ‘realistic diagnosis' and to define and identify the potential set-up of an environmental OMC within a certain context, Brink and colleague's (2005) made a serious attempt to develop an instruments to explore the institutional potential of an OMC

framework within environmental policy within the Netherlands (Radaelli, 2003). The importance of these institutional conditions have been further underlined by Citi and Rhodes (2007b). In contrast to many other OMC academics -who have made their contributions to the OMC debate mainly within the field of employment and welfare regimes- the application of OMC within environmental policy studies seems to be limited (Zeitlin, 2009; Brink et al., 2005). Within the study of Brink and colleagues (2005),

instruments have been developed to examine and identify if certain institutional boundary conditions are in place to consider the potential of a framework to function as an

institutional OMC . Within their study, an instrument has been developed to measure the institutional framework to check which conditions are satisfied. Examples of these

conditions are the availability of ‘a committee, regular reviews, targets, guidelines,

indicators, decision-making procedures' and other comparable elements (Brink et al., 2005 p.8).

2.3 Open method of coordination mechanisms of mutual learning

The OMC mechanisms described in chapter 2.1 will be further defined within the current section according to different examples within the European context. According to the theory, an important element within the OMC is the creation of a framework which defines common indicators and targets. The creation of common indicators and targets helped -according to the theory- to behaviour by which member states could compare their national progress concerning the common European targets and objectives. (Zeitlin, 2009)

By the improvement and creation of statistical databases, the European Union has made a clear attempt to created common indicators although this led to a broader

European debate of academic experts about how this had to be done in legitimate way, to increase the comparability among EU member states (Heidenreich & Zeitlin, 2009). The primary element of this debate is the way different approaches of indicators are used to compare in various policy fields. For example, the social inclusions program refuses to use quantitative targets even though these are available, which makes it hard or almost

(16)

impossible to determine whether an individual state is on track to accomplish the undefined and general targets (Idema & Kelemen, 2006). Even though this on-going debate about the indicators, there has been argued that the effective strategic use of comparison and

evaluation could lead to the voluntary implementation and gradual acceptance of norms in the end (Jacobsson, 2004). The main argument according to the theory, therefore, is that clear definitions help to make member states more receptive to compare their effort to these common targets and objectives which leads to a form of mutual

surveillance/benchmarking. As a consequence, states arguably became also more reflective towards rethink policy approaches and practices compared to other countries (Jacobsson, 2004; Zeitlin, 2009). Furthermore, empirical evidence has shown the governments within the European Union stated to view their policy in the light of ‘common concerns'. According to the OMC theory the concept of ‘common concerns' supports the idea that the European policy will not replace the national one but could form a complementing framework to certain policy areas (Lopez-Santana, 2006; Zeitlin, 2002; Zeitlin, 2009, p. 229). According to different OMC scholars, these forms of re-evaluation of practices are often guided by the mechanism of peer review through ‘deliberation' and ‘exchange of good practices' (Jacobsson, 2004; Zeitlin, 2009). According to Zeitlin (2009), these re-evaluations of practices have shown their impact by important reforms in policy developments in the European context (Zeitlin, 2009).

However, the OMC theory has not provided clear empirical evidence so far which supports the concept of first-order learning which consists a direct transfer of a policy from one country to another country. Studies show that states often use the policies of others as a form of inspiration and selectively use certain parts selectively which they adapt to their local context (Optem, 2007). According to Zeitlin (2009), this should be viewed as a ‘natural and appropriate response' since he argues that ‘reflexive learning through contextualized benchmarking which the OMC' is designed to promote policy, in contrast to the ‘one-size-fits-all' reform models published by ‘expertocratic' bodies like the OECD, the IMF and the World bank (Zeitlin, 2009, p. 230).

In contrast to policy areas like the labour market or child poverty, there is only a limited set of examples of the OMC mechanism which have provided empirical proof of a significant impact of bottom-up learning from local examples. However, this could potentially be caused by limited participation among the European member states to

(17)

European roundtables. (Zeitlin, 2009) As a consequence of the functioning of the

mechanism of mutual surveillance and benchmarking by states, the mechanisms of peer pressure can come into play. According to the theory this mechanism is known for its effectiveness on European member states both horizontally (between member states), as vertically (between the European Commission and a member state).

The main element of the OMC is based on the vision that national governments are induced to live up to their commitments and, therefore, will implement reforms to avoid embarrassment and to uphold their reputation for the wider public and their peers. Empirical evidence within a Dutch and Danish case has shown that the governments were more committed to agree and meet common targets to live up to the European

commission's objectives as a result of being exposed to ‘mutual surveillance/benchmarking' of each other's performances. (Zeitlin, 2009) The effect of peer pressure to achieve a level of convergence is argued to be even higher when the media and public are involved (City & Rhodes, 2007). However within the European context, the effectiveness of these forms of peer pressure is argued to be highly dependent of domestic conditions. Especially the perceived legitimacy, procedural fairness of the common European objectives, targets, and levels of public support are argued to play a notable role. (Trubek & Trubek, 2005; Zeitlin, 2009).

Furthermore, McGuinness and O'Carroll (2010) have argued that a legitimate balance between the costs (concerning public exposure/naming and shaming' and

resources) and the returns is desirable/needed for to achieve a high level of impact of the OMC and combined level of convergence. In addition there has been argued that it could be effective to use small incentives to achieve further convergence like ‘a carrot in the form of a financial incentive to underpin the OMC' (Hatzopoulos , 2007; Lodge, 2007; McGuiness & O'Carroll, 2010 p.312).

2.4 The environmental OMC performance and success factors

Other than the institutional framework, Brink and colleagues (2005) also developed a set of certain conditions which could have -according to their view- a potential influence on the performance of OMC mechanisms within the field of environmental policy:

(18)

(1) ‘Nature (and timing) of the challenge: there must be an important challenge/need for solutions, and there must be a window of opportunity to come up with a solution or contribute to a solution.

(2) Resources: there needs to be a clear commitment for inputs and continued inputs from one or more champions and range of other contributors. It is generally easier to obtain resources for the start-up and more difficult for the continuation, if and where this is still needed.

(3) Actor constellation: there needs to be a leader (or leaders) who provides crucial resources and has a strong interest in obtaining a solution, and the leader needs to be complemented by other stakeholders and a process to ensure that the ‘leadership' is deemed acceptable and that there is some ‘buy-in' to the process.

(4) Institutional factors: environmental OMC type measures tend to be characterized by a low degree of institutionalization, at least partly reflecting sovereignty and subsidiarity concerns. Among other things, this may have negative impacts on trust, broad consultation and, consequently, learning.

(5) Legitimacy: the legitimacy of environmental OMC type measures is primarily based on the principles of subsidiarity and sovereignty, expertise, and output. However, participation may be needed to shore up the democratic legitimacy of OMC types which directly result in important decisions.‘ (Brink et al., 2005, p. 5-6).

Furthermore, Brink and colleagues (2005) also formulated some additional factors concerning success of the OMC resources (like meetings) involved within a certain context. According to their point of view, it is important to include the quality of the following aspects: First; attendance/representativeness, they value to have ‘good people' and sufficient country coverage. Second; the underline importance of seniority and authority of the people who are present at the meeting. According to them, this helps to have a

meaningful meeting of high quality. In addition to this, the seniority/authority is presented as a reliable indicator to determine if the message will be taken home, and is listened to. Third; expertise, the meetings and materials should be useful and be discussed by well-informed people. Fourth; the quality and credibility of data are presented a critical aspect of knowledge transfer.

Moreover, it should present representative situations and be independent and not be intended to support a particular agenda. Fifth; The aspect of trust among the players

(19)

involved has is considered to be an important success factor. Sixth; there need to be sufficient financial means. (Brink et al., 2005)

To sum up, the first section of this chapter has provided insights in the development and accompanying debates about the explanatory value of the -from ‘soft law' derived- OMC theory within the European context where it originated from including the OMC mechanisms of mutual learning. The second section of the chapter includes an instrument to measure the impact of an environmental OMC framework. Besides this, the most attested OMC elements of mutual learning have been explained and described. Moreover, last, the chapter finished with a set of performance and success conditions which could influence the functioning of an Environmental OMC.

3. Methodological approach

Within this chapter, the methodological approach will be explained. In the first section of this chapter, the case selection will be demonstrated. In the second section, the reliability and validity approach will be further highlighted. The third section of this chapter will explain how the theory is operationalized in order to be used as an instrument, to answer the formulated sub-questions and provide an insight of the theoretical implications. In the last section of this chapter, the scope and limitations of the current research

approach will be clarified.

3.1 Multiple case design Metropolitan area of Amsterdam

For the present study, a combination of different cases of MRA members and related actors will be chosen, namely an influential case, five typical cases and two deviant cases (Seawright & Gerring, 2008). Since the overall population of the MRA includes 33

municipalities, two provinces and one transport region, the following choices are made: For the current research five out of eight cases (namely the municipalities) are selected as ‘typical cases’ since these form the overall majority within the population. Due to the selection of these typical cases within the research, there is expected to have a

representative selection to research the central phenomenon in order to potentially explore the causal mechanisms. The typical cases will be formed by five small to largely sized

municipalities, namely: Landsmeer, Edam-Volendam, Purmerend, Zaanstad and Amsterdam. By analysing differently sized municipalities, the research aims to produce representative

(20)

findings for the population of the MRA region as a whole (Seawright & Gerring, 2008). In addition, the province of North Holland is selected as an influential case, whereas this province is expected to have an unusual influence on the relationships of the MRA as a whole compared to the majority of other MRA members. The main reason for this

expectation is that this case will have a major influence on the region as a whole due to its geographical scale, budgets and different institutional role. Even though the province of North Holland is defined as an MRA member, like the municipalities in the MRA alliance, it has a different institutional role compared to the municipalities within the Dutch state policy. (Pots & Randeraad, 2014) As a result of these differences, the expectation exists that the findings within this case could influence the findings of the whole population (Bosch et al., 2016; Seawright & Gerring, 2008). In addition, the MRA (as an institution), the Gooi & Vechtstreek and Odijmond are selected as deviant cases, since they fulfil a connecting function within the (different) groups of MRA members. These cases therefore potentially provide an alternative or deepening perspective on the developments at play within the MRA and among the MRA members. (MRA, 2018b; Seawright & Gerring, 2008) This research could potentially be externalized to other regional collaborations as well. As a result of the way the case selection has been made the current research aims and expects to provide a representative sample. The main reason for this assumption lies by the relevance of the approached organizations and the expected knowledge of the respondents due to their position and experience of the topic being researched (Morse et al., 2002).

The case selections that will be used for the systematic comparison of findings among the eight different cases will be derived from a multiple case design (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Zeitlin, 2009, p. 215-216). The reason to choose for a multiple case study approach is that this will provide the opportunity to understand and explain differences and similarities between the MRA members who will be consulted during the research (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Zeitlin, 2009). Moreover, multiple cases will be analysed because this will help to explain findings across and within each MRA member organisation that is researched (Yin, 2003). Besides, this method can be used to either contrast results or to underline similarities among results, which can help determine if the findings are meaningful (Yin, 2003; Eisenhardt, 2001). Another advantage of a multiple case study is that the findings of the study can be more convincing when they are based on empirical evidence found in different cases. Moreover, the multiple case study design will allow on the one hand to reaffirm or

(21)

falsify the institutional elements of mutual learning of the OMC theory and on the other hand suggests alternative explanations which could be explored in future research

(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Zeitlin, 2009). The approach of systematic comparison based on a multiple case design will, therefore, increase the level of external validity (Baxter & Jack, 2008).

3.2 Methodological- and Validity/reliability approach

The goal of the current deductive research is to get a better understanding of how MRA members are influenced by the mechanisms of the OMC theory. The research aims to draw a conclusion to what extent the functioning of the mechanisms of mutual learning can be supported within the MRA context. During the research, the following principles will be taken into account to increase the validity and credibility.

For the current research, the decision has been made to choose for semi-structured interviews as the main form of data gathering. The reason to choose for a semi-structured interview approach lies by the choice of interviewing the respondents within this research once. The semi-structure approach will allow the researcher to discuss all the topics necessary for this study during this single visit. Moreover this type of interviewing will provide sufficient room for the interviewees to express the views they hold within their own terms (Diefenbach, 2009). The expectation is that the interviews of municipality

representatives will shine a light on the involvement and impact of the MRA as a driving force in policy forming among the municipalities. Since the researcher of the current study fulfils a part-time position within the MRA municipality of Waterland, the researcher has to be aware of his biases, implicit assumptions and prejudices he will take with him during the interviews. Thereby, the researcher has to be transparent about his role. As a consequence the municipality of Waterland will, therefore, be excluded from the research. The reason to do so is that there has to be prevented that any biases have a significant influence on the quality of the data and the research as a whole (Collins, 1992). To overcome this concern, the semi-structured interview structure will help to assure that the interviews will happen systematically and objectively in order to prevent that the role of the interviewer will influence the responses (Diefenbach, 2009).

The methodological approach for the current research will be formed by a framework of OMC research strategies described by Zeitlin (2009) and others, which

(22)

involves elements of: triangulation of documentary and interview evidence, systematic comparison of research findings across the MRA members (in this case) among different time periods and policy domains (p. 215-216; Golafshani, 2003).

The current study will focus on the period from the installation of the official board of the MRA and combined covenant in 2017 up to June 2018. This timeframe will help the present research to examine the extent of influence of the MRA within the OMC framework (alongside potential other factors) on the development of policy among MRA members before and after MRA collaboration started off in its current (semi) institutional form (MRA, 2017-MRA, 2018b; Zeitlin, 2009, 215-216). The research will make use of triangulation to collect data which will be done by: (a) interview evidence and (b) documentary research in order to prevent sources of bias (Golafshani, 2003). Moreover the strategy of ’triangulation’ involves the use of multiple sources of data in order to either support or contrast the

findings from the interviews. This will help to either verify or falsify the explanatory value of the OMC theory in regional context. In addition, this method of triangulation will contribute to extend the range and depth of the data findings and could therefore support the

methodological quality and reliability of the thesis as a whole (Staa & Evers, 2010).

To fulfil the requirements of triangulation the data for the current research will be gathered by semi structured interviews among civil servants involved in policy making from different municipalities and a province. Furthermore, staff members of the MRA institution, the province and the municipalities are approached to provide a wide range of perspectives on the topics involved in the research as being described in the section of case selection. Moreover elements of two non-public presentations/interviews at the province at which the researcher could opt in due to his position as sustainability civil servant at the MRA

municipality of Waterland will be included as well. The expectation is that this method of data gathering will help to determine what the level of MRA-influence is on the pace of the adaptation process towards sustainable energy among the MRA-members.

3.3 Operationalization

To operationalize the research, different instruments will be used to define and explore if the impact and potential of the MRA governance level by different elements derived from the OMC theory.

(23)

First, the institutional frameworks of Brink and colleagues (2005) will be used to determine to what extent the MRA set-up could be viewed institutionally as an

environmental OMC framework. This will be done by a check to what extent the formulated conditions are satisfied (see section 2.2). The main reason to do this institutional examining is that the MRA collaboration not officially has been set-up in line with the principals of mutual learning derived from the OMC theory, other than the EU. This makes it logically to examine if the institutional conditions are in place in the current research context, since these could have severe influence on the performance of the environmental OMC, and therefore influence the potential impact of the OMC mechanisms (Brink et al., 2005; City & Rhodes,2007; Zeitlin, 2009). This examination will be done by a slightly adjusted framework derived from a theoretical setup for an environmental OMC which has been developed within figure 4. For the purpose of the current research, the nation set up of the original framework is transformed towards a more regional setup (Brink et al., 2005).

Second, the empirical findings will be presented in line with the theoretical

definitions of different OMC mechanisms of mutual learning. The research will demonstrate findings that either support or reject the functioning of this mechanism at the different governance levels at play. The most attested OMC element of mutual learning will be used to measure the OMC influence level of the MRA according to the specific mechanisms of: ‘peer pressure, mutual surveillance, benchmarking, peer review, mutual learning and exchange of good practices’ (Brink et al, 2005; Citi & Rhodes, 2007a; Zeitlin, 2009, pp. 229-231). This study will aim to define the different mechanisms in conformity with the

examples described in section 2.3 and the case studies in the book of Heidenreich and Zeitlin (2009). These mechanisms will, therefore, be transformed into coding themes and analysed systematically with the program Atlas Ti. to increase the reliability of the research (Joffe et al., 2004). Moreover, the success factors (described in chapter 2.4) will be used as an additional toolkit to define the quality of the resources. These elements will be included in the same analyses section as the OMC mechanism (Brink et al., 2005).

For the purpose of this research, the mechanisms of peer pressure, mutual surveillance and benchmarking of will be described as the combined mechanisms of peer pressure. Moreover, the mechanisms of peer review, deliberation, and exchange of good practices will be described as the combined mechanisms of peer review. The reason to do so is that these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive and by many scholars deployed at the

(24)

same time (Trubek & Trubek, 2005). For the purpose of this research, a division has been made as a result of the data between two types of governance levels namely the MRA level and the MRA sub-regional level to draw conclusions about the significance of mechanisms and compare the different levels at stake. This distinction in governance levels is also supported by the official MRA documents (Interview 1-12; MRA, 2018b). Moreover, the results and analyses will differentiate the findings by the alderman, the civil level and the MRA level. The reason to choose for these distinction have been made because these two levels follow the line within the empirical evidence and are therefore developed inductively (Morse et al., 2002; Gioia et al., 2012).

Regarding the sub-regional level references, six out of the seven regions will be counted. Amsterdam will be excluded as a region for the analyses because Amsterdam only counts for one municipality and a region which makes this region, therefore, unsuitable for measuring the OMC mechanisms. Besides, the framework of Citi and Rhodes (2007a) will be used to draw conclusions about the capacity of convergence and, therefore, the impact of the described OMC mechanisms as such (Figure 2).

Third, within the final section, a derived analysis of the performance framework of Brink and colleagues (2005) will be used to see if there are elements identified which could influence the performance of OMC mechanisms which are described in chapter 2.4. By doing so, the research will provide an additional analysis to explain possible other aspects influencing the performance of the OMC mechanisms/framework within the MRA context and beyond. The main data source to identify the performance elements will come from the data gathered during the interviews. Additionally, the research will make use of

documentary comments to support the interview claims being made.

3.4 Scope and limitations

The scope of the current research will be to define the influence of the MRA

collaboration since the start in 2017 after the signing of the founding covenant (MRA, 2016). Within the research, there will be an open eye for OMC type mechanisms at play within the process towards sustainability. However, the central focus will limit the possibility to

elaborate other influences such as hard juridical influences. These aspects will therefore only be described briefly since the overall effort of the current research is to examine the significance of the MRA as a soft law mechanism and its related sub-regions in influencing

(25)

the involved MRA members (Idema & Keleman, 2006). Moreover, within the research, the decision has been made to get insights from civil servants and board members from the municipalities, the sub-regional actors, the Province and the MRA which leaves out the municipality and province council members. The main argumentation, therefore, lies by the expectation that the involvement of city council members will mainly provide insight into local political differences instead of regional developments (Voermans, & Waling, 2018). Within this research, the sub-regions will be treated equally. However, the history and setup of these regions could involve organizational differences, which will be left outside of the scope of the current research due to time restraints (MRA, 2018).

4. Findings regarding the MRA context in relation to the OMC instruments

This chapter will be divided into two parts. The first section of this chapter will present empirical findings by the environmental OMC institutional set-up conditions. By presenting these findings, the research provides an insight to what extent the boundary conditions are satisfied to define the institutional potential of a sustainable OMC framework within the MRA context (Brink et al., 2005). The second section of this chapter will describe the findings in line with the OMC mechanisms of mutual learning (see section 2.3) and the theoretically defined success factors (see section 2.4) in order to the determine the impact of the MRA context.

4.1 Institutional set-up

This section of the chapter will describe the results of the empirical research to answer the first sub-question: ‘What is the potential of the MRA's collaboration -on the topic

of adaptation towards sustainable energy- concerning the institutional set-up conditions of a sustainable OMC?' To answer this question, empirical interview and documentary findings

will be first described in the first section in accordance with the set-up conditions derived from the institutional classification scheme for an environmental OMC. In the second section, the findings will be schematically illustrated in Figure 4 (Brink et al., 2005).

In the year 2016, a founding covenant was set up by the members of the new MRA alliance starting January 2017. As a result of the founding covenant, the MRA is provided with a certain legal status (MRA, 2016). Moreover, procedures (guidelines) and MRA actions (targets) were agreed upon (MRA, 2016). The 36 MRA members involved municipalities

(26)

provinces and a transport region) described a procedure how the City council and the province council will be informed within their founding covenant.

Figure 3 (adjusted from MRA, 2018b, p.11).

The MRA members agreed within the covenant that the provision of information from the MRA towards their members will be done by the periodic presentation of a transparent agenda. This agenda will include a planning for the participants like the

alderman, municipalities, and the responsible officials of the municipalities (MRA, 2018b). Moreover, yearly plans will be published including financial overviews which will be sent towards the involved province and city councils (Regular review). Furthermore, the

alderman’s and the mayor who form the daily board at the involved municipalities have to inform their city councils according to the agreements in the founding covenant about all the necessary developments on the MRA level. (MRA, 2018b, p. 9)

The MRA has been built with three central pillars (platforms) which are the following: economy, spatial planning, and mobility (Figure 3). On top in red, there is the control group that has a two-year consultation cycle with an alderman representative from each of the following seven sub-regions: Almere-Lelystad, Amsterdam,

Amsterdam-Meerlanden, Gooi en Vechtstreek, Zaanstreek-Waterland, Ijmond, Zuid Kennemerland (Gooi & Vechstreek, 2017; MRA, 2016). The MRA collaboration’s founding document includes a remark that the historical and organizational agreements within the sub regions could be upheld next to the MRA collaboration of which certain have an existence for many years or even decades. (Gooi & Vechstreek, 2017; Interview 4; 9; MRA, 2016) The focus of the

(27)

control commission lays at the monitoring of finances, practical plans and the evaluation of the progress within the collaboration. The central agenda commission is formed by two MRA officials from each platform. (MRA, 2018b)

Furthermore, there is the MRA office. The MRA office does not have an official institutional character. The office is formed by a group of civil servants who are detached to the office by the different member municipalities and the province. The central tasks of the MRA civil servants are to arrange meetings and reassure good collaboration among the program and project managers. Moreover, they are obtained to visit the city and province councils, inform the members by newsletters and keep the website up to date. (MRA, 2018b)

Currently, the MRA has seven central agenda actions formulated ranging from: space for living and working to making the MRA more versatile. The current study will focus on agenda action four: the transition to a clean economy. More specifically the study will zoom in on the energy transition (MRA, 2018c). Concerning the energy transition, the MRA agenda has formulated the following actions namely: 4.8. ‘creation and execution of a regional program for energy at which the MRA partners comply with the Dutch energy agreement and the complementary energy map’, 4.9. ‘The scale-up of smart and flexible energy systems like smart grids and energy storage’, 4.10. ‘The extension of hot/cold energy networks in the MRA to achieve the connection of 300.000 extra houses’, 4.11. ‘The draw up and execution of a regional program to speed up energy savings’ (Targets).

Within the MRA the ‘traffic light’ system is used to keep the action points from the MRA on the agenda each meeting and could therefore be viewed as an monitoring

instrument which potentially could facilitate the OMC mechanisms of mutual

surveillance/benchmarking (Interview 7; MRA, 2018e) to measure progress (regular review). This ‘traffic light’ monitoring instrument at the MRA level is intended to monitor the

progress of the actions. Within the MRA alderman deliberations, the responsible alderman of the region has to present the status of the process of a certain agenda/action to the others alderman involved following this traffic light system. (MRA, 2018b; MRA, 2018e) Other than the ‘traffic light’ monitoring instrument the MRA office and partners created a report called the ‘MRA spatial discovery report’ ’which includes common indictors and targets linked to the overall energy exercise within the MRA. Within this report, the MRA and partners aimed to provide an assessment of all the possibilities to generate renewable

(28)

energy within the geographical MRA (Broekman et al., 2007; Idema & Kelemen, 2006; interview 7). Since the report includes targets, it could help from a theoretical viewpoint to function as a facilitating instrument for the mechanisms of mutual surveillance/benchmark (Brink et al., 2005; 2006; Zeitlin, 2009). However, during the analyses of the documents coupled to these monitoring instruments, it became clear that there are no individual organization targets formulated, which makes it therefore difficult to compare and determine if MRA members are on track (Idema & Kelemen, 2006 MRA, 2018b; MRA, 2018e)

When the findings in this section are analyzed schematically in accordance with the institutional framework of Brink and colleagues (2005), this leads to the following scheme (figure 4):

(29)

Running head: THE MRA IN TRANSITION TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY 29

Institutional / OMC instrument illustration

In place or not

Committee/ Council Role

Yes in place. The MRA Board is appointed to take care of the day to day management Moreover there is an alderman deliberation on sustainability two times a year.

Regular Review Yes, Two times a year. Progress is measured by the traffic light system/action agenda. (MRA, 2018b; MRA, 2018e)

Regional action plan Yes the report ‘ MRA spatial discovery report’ (Broekman et al., 2017)

Targets Yes, in place one general target: the maintaining of the top 5 strongest regions within Europe. (MRA, 2018b).

More specific targets formulated with regard to sustainable development in the MRA action agenda (MRA, 2018e).

Guidelines/ indicators Yes, formulated in the report ‘ MRA spatial discovery report’ (Broekman et al., 2017). In addition formulated in traffic light system/action agenda (MRA, 2018e)

Regional Reports Yes in place, at several municipalities and regions (Nispen tot Pannerden & Buitenhuis, 2017; Velthoven & Brand van den, 2018; Gooi en verchstreek 2017; Bosch et al., 2016; Provincie Noord Holland, 2018a-d).

Commission Report (Eg Benchmarking Report)

Yes in place (Broekman et al., 2017; MRA, 2018e). Focus on progress made at the different MRA topics including sustainability and energy.

(30)

Figure 4 (Adjusted from: Brink et al., 2005) Commission

Recommendation

Not in place

Municipality visits Yes planned for 2018. Not direct visits but invitations for meetings (Bond & Hoek van der, 2018; MRA, 2018b; Interview 7).

Decision-Making Procedure

Yes in place, formulated within the MRA founding document (MRA, 2016).

(31)

Running head: THE MRA IN TRANSITION TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY 31 29

To sum up, as described within section 4.1 and schematically displayed in figure four, the MRA collaboration satisfies to a certain extent ten out of eleven of the formulated institutional assumptions provided for the potential functioning of an environmental OMC framework.

4.2 The MRA and beyond in relation to the OMC mechanisms and success factors

This section of the chapter will describe the results of the empirical research of the second sub-question: ‘To which OMC mechanisms and combined governance level are

referred by the MRA-members as a trigger of the development of sustainable energy policy?’

Since the findings in section 4.1 show that the MRA satisfies most assumptions concerning the institutional set-up of an OMC framework, the research will now demonstrate the findings in line with the OMC mechanism of mutual learning and the success factor of ten Brink and colleagues (2005).

4.2.1 MRA alderman level in a structural sense

At the MRA level, the following quotes and examples tend to support to a certain extent the functioning of the combined mechanisms of peer pressure (Zeitlin, 2009). One of the respondents claimed to experience a form of peer pressure by the emails sent by the MRA program managers. He argued that ‘the MRA asks within an email for 20 civil servants within each workgroup [from their municipalities]’, at which he elaborated ‘we don’t even have them within the municipalities, or here [the Gooi & Vechstreek region]’ (Interview 9, p.1 ). The argument seems to be further underlined by a civil servant of Edam-Volendam who argued to get: ‘drowned in invitations [by the MRA and others]’ (Interview 5). However, according to a province official who was involved at the organization of the MRA sustainable network day at the 19th of April, there was an above-expected level of participants from the entire region represented (interview 11; MRA, 2018f). This shows, therefore, a good level of quality of this meeting related to the element of participation and the success aspect of attendance and representativeness (Brink et al., 2005).

Regarding the MRA alderman meetings, one respondent made the following claim in line with to combined mechanism of peer pressure at the MRA governance level: ‘at the moment agreements are made about a certain actions or about programs or name it, the representatives appeal to each other [with regard to these agreements], so it isn’t without

(32)

obligations’ (Interview 7, p.1). This quote supports the argument that if for example, the alderman in the MRA deliberation makes agreements together, they are keeping the

responsible leader alderman in person accountable for the progress of a certain topic during the meetings (Interview 7). This has been further underlined by another official of the province who argued: ‘You can make appointments together, and good governance means that you have to stick to these appointments. And even though there is no official decision-making process, it is still we are going to push for this certain topic [regarding the MRA actions]. You win some you lose some’ (Interview 11, p.1.) Both quotes seem to underline the importance of appointments made at the MRA level. However, the second quote seems to be more in a hypothetical sense instead of an experience of peer pressure (Zeitlin, 2009).

The same civil servant (interview 11) from the province argued that at the

alderman’s level the following dynamics are at play which seems to reject the significance of peer pressure: ‘with regard to the energy transition, the necessity [to achieve results] is very high, however I don’t see that many results yet personally [as a consequence of the MRA collaboration]’. This statement was further underlined by the same respondent by the following quotes: ‘From the provinces view, we do not see the maximal usefulness of it so far’ [and] ‘a lot of talking has been done and paper is produced (…) now we have to make a fist and start realizing, however this is where we fall short, to talk about the issue’s that actually matter’ (Interview 11, p.1). Moreover, this respondent argued that ‘the alderman walk around [try to avoid] each other instead of discussing the real difficulties’ (Interview 11, p.1). This claim is further supported by a civil servant from the municipality of Zaanstad who argued the following: ‘there are a lot of talks about the process and not about the content within these meetings’ (Interview 12). A respondent from the Gooi & Vechtstreek underlined this even further by the following claim: It's still a lot of chess currently at the MRA tables, who gets what, who is allowed to run a certain shop [project] (…) and it does not appeal at al’ ‘we do not see any results yet’ (Interview 9, p.1). According to this

respondent, it also has to do with trust: ‘you also see those municipality directors, (...) are in a kind of game of what does it mean [for their position/ organization] here and there and if I lose control or not, so it has a lot to do with trust’ (Interview 9). The latest quote tends to show a lack of trust which is considered theoretically of significant importance for success according to the theory (Brink et al., 2005; interview 9).

(33)

Another respondent referred to the way the progress is discussed with the ’traffic light instrument (described in section 4.1) at the alderman meetings (Interview 11).

According to this respondent, the traffic light instrument leads potentially to a form of peer pressure because ‘nobody likes to have thumbs down’ [concerning their responsibilities, for the MRA action actions]. Although these are ‘informal measures () to create movement’ according to the respondent, they could be more effective than a complete ‘closed system’. (Interview 11, p.1 ; MRA, 2018e). However, the findings did not provide any clear examples of the functioning of mechanisms as a result of this traffic light instruments concerning the mechanisms of mutual surveillance/benchmarking and peer pressure (Zeitlin, 2009). This seems to be similar for the ‘MRA spatial discovery report’ which was identified as a potential instrument for mutual surveillance/benchmarking in section 4.1 (Broekman, 2017). One respondent argued to be aware of the report and argued that it will be included within a project plan for the region next year to define the potential level of solar and wind

(Interview 10). In contrast, another respondent argued that there are not many colleagues within the region who read this report. However, the respondent underlined the importance to be aware of the extent of the energy assignment for the entire MRA. (Interview 12). Another respondent argued: ’who understands that (report)?’ (Interview 9).

According to a civil servant of the municipality of Zaandam who is closely linked to the alderman of their municipality, there is a low level of information exchanged at the MRA meetings for alderman. This could potentially be explained by the fact that there is being argued that the records and preparation documents for the meetings are difficult to understand (Interview 10, 12). According to a civil servant, it is therefore, hard for the aldermen to provide their region with any substantial information about on-going projects which is why this also applies for the civil servant (interview 12). ‘Once in a while we receive a very thick pack of paper with all kinds of things from the MRA and that includes huge long texts without good summaries or clearly defined decision points, but just from here it is a pile, throw it over the wall and then the chair alderman of the sub-region should just report back what the co-aldermen think of it, and discuss this at the following alderman

deliberation’ (Interview 12, p.1).

There is also being argued that documents and presentations provided by the MRA seem to stay at a really ‘abstract level’ and only take in consideration ’the mayor lines’ instead of providing a more hands-on and practical advice approach (interview 7; 9; 10; 12).