Public interests and social justice in mixed-use Waterfront Mega-Project developments : an exploration of Anglo-Saxon and Continental-European focused cases

(1)

Public Interests and Social Justice in Mixed-Use Waterfront

Mega-Project Developments

An exploration of Anglo-Saxon and Continental-European focused cases

Masters Thesis Project Jared Harper Sammet (11128070)

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Urban and Regional Planning (MSc)

Graduate School of Social Sciences August 15, 2016

Kop van Zuid, Rotterdam - Netherlands HafenCity, Hamburg - Germany Glasgow Harbour, Glasgow - UK Dublin Docklands, Dublin - Ireland

(2)

(3)

Abstract

Mixed-use mega-project developments have become an increasingly commonplace public-private partnership development activity. The expectation is that they will act as catalysts for cities to achieve a variety of different goals and objectives. While cities seek iconic and transformative development projects, social scientists question the public benefits and social justice implications of underwriting these predominantly private-serving development activities with publicly sourced finances. The balance between commercial and public interests varies from project to project. In light of this, the research aims to investigate how public interests are incorporated into mixed-use flagship mega-project development with different development process architectures. I assess four case-study projects, located across Anglo-Saxon and Continental-European socio-cultural settings, according to the composition of the project’s institutional architecture on the one hand and social justice outcomes on the other. The present study found that more public sector participation and management in the public-private partnership results in more successful incorporation of public interests and social justice and that this is more visible in projects that are developed within the Continental-European socio-cultural settings.

Keywords: mega-project development, neoliberalism, public interest, social justice, public-private partnership, coalition building

(4)

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the love and support of my family and friends around the world. I would like to especially thank my thesis supervisor Dr. David Evers for his valued insight, guidance, and understanding throughout this entire process. I would like to thank Professor Tuna Tasan-Kok for triggering my interest in the subjects of this thesis through her teachings on neoliberalism and entrepreneurial governance. This educational experience would not have been possible without the University of Amsterdam, which has provided me with the incredible opportunity of studying in such a high level of academia. Lastly, I would like to give a special thanks to my fellow classmates of the Master of Urban and Regional Planning program, they were instrumental in making this educational experience a true pleasure.

(5)

1. Introduction

1.1 - Introduction to the Study

In cities throughout the world, municipalities and private entities have partnered with each other to compete on the global level through developing iconic mixed-use flagship mega-projects in hope of regenerating local urban environments, increasing economic

development and productivity, and elevating the competitive position of their metropolitan regions. Commonly in these partnerships, the public acts as a significant financier behind the steep development costs of the projects. Public entities take on significant risks while ultimately private interests and stakeholders reap considerable financial rewards stemming from mega-project development. This relationship within the partnership raises serious questions regarding social justice implications for the public constituents that are responsible for financing these projects, as well as raises questions as to what true public benefits are returned back to the community as a result of development. This thesis examines the relationship of mixed-use mega-project development and the incorporation of public interests, benefits, and socially just outcomes. This research project will explore public-private partnership flagship mega-projects by analyzing four waterfront case studies located in two different socio-cultural regions, specifically, Anglo-Saxon and Continental-European settings. By comparing these cases, the research will investigate how different cities

incorporate public interests into their mega-project developments. The research will concentrate on the relationship between the composition of the project’s institutional architecture and social justice outcomes in order to investigate their influences on one-another. My working hypothesis is that more public sector participation in the public-private partnership results in more successful incorporation of public interests and social justice. My research will illuminate whether or not this is actually the case and why, as I explore differing aspects of my research that evaluate social, economic, and physical outcomes.

(8)

1.2 - Problem Statement

Given the nearly universal public-private partnership component involved in mixed-use mega-project development, outcomes stemming from public investment in these types of development activities should be socially just and incorporate meaningful public interests. One can thus posit that the more public sector involvement, the more public interests are realized. I intend to investigate whether, and to what extent this is a result of the

institutional architecture of public-private partnerships.

1.3 - Structure of the Study

This thesis will explore the incorporation of public interests and social justice outcomes through a multi-pronged process. First, a variety of key concepts will be explored objectively in order to achieve a theoretical basis for the research. This theoretical

framework will justify the scope of the conceptual rationale for how and why public interests and social justice outcomes are a necessary element of focus with respect to mixed-use waterfront mega-project development. The next section presents the thesis’ research questions, research design, case study selection and rationale, relevance of study, and the limitations of the research. Next, the thesis will delve into the exploration of four waterfront mega-projects, their process architectures, and their development outcomes of public interests and social justice. The case studies are grouped on the basis of their socio-cultural context. Following the exploration of the case studies, the next section of the thesis will be oriented on the synthesis of case study findings. The synthesis section considers the

respective case studies through a comparative analysis disclosing outcomes where cases overlap and diverge. In the final section of the thesis, I revisit the research question with reflection on the findings, deliver methodological reflections, and revisit the theoretical framework in relation to my case study conclusions.

(9)

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 – Prelude & Conceptual Rationale

This thesis research is focused on how, and to what capacity, are public interests and social justice incorporated into mixed-use waterfront mega-project developments. The chosen methodology to analyze this research is through the comparative analysis of four waterfront mega-project developments located in socio-cultural contexts with differing development process architectures and varying levels of public sector influence. The mega-project developments under focus will be analyzed under a neoliberal context, which is centered on involving laissez-faire and market practices into the arena of real-estate development and the spatial environment. In the context of waterfront mega-project development, in order to build development projects of this size and scope, public-private partnerships will (almost always) need to be formed in which public entities and private entities combine in order to carry out the planning, implementation, finance, construction, and operation of these developments. From these linkages, we have identified that, for the confines of this research, public-private partnerships act as the predominant component of the process and institutional architecture formed in order to successfully carry out with the development of a waterfront mega-project. As the incorporation of public interests and social justice depends upon the implementation of the project, we expect that the composition of project’s public-private partnership activities are also intrinsically linked to the incorporation of public interests and social justice. In order to analyze the incorporation of public interests in a given project, we must also analyze the processes from which the public interests and social justice implementations were formulated, debated, collaborated, and eventually decided upon for the project. This alludes to a further need to analyze interface and interaction: coalition building, collaboration and how institutional entities affect the behavior of

one-another. The rationale of including the discussion of neoliberalism is simple, yet

important. Neoliberalism, essentially, functions as the leading paradigm of governance that enables the continuance of PPPs and mega-projects as development schemes that are being used by countries throughout the world. It acts as the key source of enablement.

(10)

2.2 – Mega-Project Development in the Neoliberal World

Mega-Project Development

The concept of public-private partnership mega-project development has been discussed abundantly in academic literature. In many academic works, mega-project development has been intertwined and used in the same context as the term large-scale development projects. For the purposes of this research, it is important to clarify that both of these labels will be synonymous to one another and most commonly referred to as mega-projects in this

document. Scholars contend with the discussion that large-scale mega-project developments are a “key element in contemporary city-building strategies” globally (Bornstein, 2011). Cities and public entities are streamlining and heavily financing major projects under the conviction that they will act as transformative catalysts to the urban fabric, through either placing cities on the world stage, attracting jobs and investment, inducing urban regeneration and revitalization, and/or ultimately bringing a higher quality of life to city residents as a direct result of the mega-project development (Bornstein, 2011). As discussed by Harris, “the literature is remarkably consistent in its criticism of the delivery and governance methods for being exclusionary, lacking accountability and focusing on profitability at the expense of local issues and is as equally consistent in its criticism of the built outcomes for being generic, disconnected from their context and providing minimal public benefit” (Harris, 2014). Alternatively, some scholars contend that the addition of mega-project developments add vibrancy, economic robustness that are in the best interests of the public (Vickerman, 2008). While these perspectives are not definitive, this thesis will weigh in on this debate.

Definitions for the term, mega-project development, differ depending on the context and the level of specificity, but from a more general notion, Susan Fainstein describes the concept as large-scale development initiatives encompassing either singular large scale projects or entailing wider urban efforts such as remodeling large swaths of cities through urban renewal and redevelopment initiatives, large public housing estates, and massive mixed-use master planned redevelopments (Fainstein, 2008). While building upon

(11)

will specifically be oriented toward high-investment, large-scale waterfront development projects that feature of mix of residential, commercial, and cultural uses whose functions are physically and functionally integrated in an effort to attract multinational business, sites for new housing, urban regeneration and/or boost international visibility and global

competitiveness. Waterfront mega-projects represent a rescue effort for the ruins left by the previous stage of capitalism, industrialism, the decayed waterfront is almost the ideal symbol of the passing of the old order of organized capitalism with unionized workers and a

regulatory state (Vaccaro et. al., 2015). Their decay is a symbolic and functional marker of deindustrialization and the decline of old urban cores.

Neoliberalism

The concept of neoliberalism has continuously emerged throughout the development patterns of democratized nations incorporating a mentality of laissez-faire economics, and societal sculpture oriented around the free market. As discussed by Harris, “mega-projects are a result of a shift in the global political and economic climate beginning in the early 1980s during a period that saw fundamental changes in the nature of the world economy in terms of financial capital becoming more fluid in a world of increasing complexity,

interconnectedness, mobility and competitiveness” (Harris, 2014). Neoliberal policies proliferated at this time as a method of enabling and responding to economic globalization processes, and it is under these processes of which mega-projects are a prominent spatial outcome (del Cerro, 2013). Neoliberalism encompasses the hegemonic perspective that what works in the private sector will also work in the public sector. Under this rationale, cities and nations alike are continuously seeking answers to public problems, as well as the incorporation of public objectives, through partnering with private actors in complex

arrangements in order to develop private serving amenities, with the hope that they may also resolve public-oriented issues. Under the logic of neoliberalism, the public sector is

expected to not only follow the private sector’s rules, but also subsidize the activities of the private sector with public money and/or fiscal tools. With respect to the research in this report, neoliberalism is an important concept to be incorporated, as it represents the leading line of discourse relating to the development of mixed-use flagship mega-project

(12)

the market presides as the reason why the public engages in these development activities, absorbing financial risks, in order to essentially benefit the coffers of private actors and institutions. One of the key fundamental enabling tools in which cities and public institutions participate in, in order to make the development of mega-projects possible, is through the development of public-private partnerships.

2.3 – Public Interest & Social Justice

Public Interest

One of the fundamental components of this research is oriented towards the identification and analysis of public interest in relation to the development outcomes of waterfront mega-project developments. As global competitiveness and the stemming factors of neoliberalism have become a focus of cities with respect to the development of their waterfront areas, a vested strategy for cities to market themselves is through the development of mega-projects oriented around the attraction of multi-national businesses, luxury housing, and private sector investment. However, beyond the scope of these entrepreneurial focuses comes a need for the interests of the public to be factored into development. As the public sector invests and makes decisions on behalf of public populations, planning and public-private collaboration is needed in order for investments and decisions to be accountable to the benefits a project provides for the community. Public interest, as a concept, is a highly contested construct and a clear definition is not widely accepted in contemporary academic communities (Campbell & Marshall, 2002). For the purpose of providing a preliminary conceptual definition of public interest, we will first break it down into its terms. From the perspective of “public,” the term represents the meaning of anything not distinguished as exclusively for one’s own (Dewey, 1927). The term “interest” in this context is characterized as common goods, values, satisfactions, and desires (Blitz, 2015). As a basic definition, public interest can be recognized as the common population’s values, goods, satisfactions, and desires reflected in sharable outcomes. With this being said, in order to interpret the most appropriate definition of public interest and its relationship to planning and the built

(13)

environment I look at two of the leading interpretations of its function: utilitarian public interest and unitary public interest.

In essence, the concept of public justice correlates to determining whether government policy and the actions of the political order are generating justifiable outcomes that best represents the ideals and benefit of the constituents for which they serve and represent. Some view the concept of interest in a utilitarian manner, such as those rooted in more Anglo-Saxon typified cultures in which policy functioned to maximize the aggregate utility in ways instigated by individuals. In this context, it recognizes that the “state has a necessary role in ensuring that the individual’s pursuit of private pleasure is consonant with the

collective good as represented by general welfare” (Campbell & Marshall, 2002). However, a key drawback from this mentality is based on whether or not individuals can be accounted on to provide for the public interest because utility is a subjective preference. In contrast to the utilitarian concept of public interest, the unitary public interest concept is recognized as the basis point for this thesis’ operationalization of public interests reflected into the built environment. As posited by Campbell & Marshall, the basis for the unitary public interest concept is characterized by three considerations. The first consideration is that there is the existence of inequalities of various kinds (status, resources, and other personal attributes), which requires the public to compensate for the differences. The second consideration is that individuals may be mistaken in their interests. Lastly, the third consideration

acknowledges the existence of collective values and principles, which transcend private interests and their summation (Campbell & Marshall, 2002). The unitary public interest concept recognizes that planning and public sector action requires the recognition that values conflict, and that its duty is to promote collective values and interests which not all individuals can achieve.

In this thesis, public interest will be operationalized in conjunction with a variety of indicators that are related to specific outcomes in the physical and social dynamics of waterfront mega-project developments on the basis of how they justifiably promote collective values and interests. These indicators were identified through Susan Fainstein’s The Just City, and in respect to mega-project developments include: public space, quality of the built environment, planning, social control, housing, segregation, mega-project basis,

(14)

social services, economic development, and the environment (Fainstein, 2010). As

Sandercock argues, “class, gender, and race-based critiques have left the notion of the public interest in tatters, as we have lived realities of late twentieth century existence” (Sandercock, 1998). With this in mind, evolving considerations of justice are important to associate with public interests and planning that factors diverse considerations.

The Just City – Social Justice

As public and private actors continue to collaborate and engage in order to enable mega-project development, the outcomes that are featured are commonly focalized around large-scale and abrupt changes to the physical environments of which they are located. In many instances, new waterfront development involves revitalization efforts to a location featuring blight or less than desirable urban settings. Locations commonly in need of revitalization are also places where working-class (low-income), and minority populations live and work due to factors such as immigrant population convergence, housing availability, and access to low-skilled work (Vandergrift, 2006). It is in these areas, that mega-project redevelopment projects are selected for development, and resident populations are often displaced due to construction, priced-out of their units due to gentrification, and suffer losses of employment due to changing economic conditions and land uses. With these considerations under fold, it is essential to discuss the concept of social justice and its relationship to the developed outcomes of large-scale development projects and their incorporation of public interests. Social justice can be defined in its most basic form as “the fair and just relationship between the individual and society measured through the distribution of wealth, opportunities, common resources, and social privileges” (Miller, 1999). With this definition, it becomes evident that the concept of social justice is multi-dimensional, featuring a variety of different indicators of justice that can be both negative and positive. In many instances, situations pertaining to social justice are more clearly defined through evident injustices, as Susan Fainstein contends, “taking away housing, employment, or access to public space from the politically or economically weak seems fairly obviously to comprise injustice, albeit such action is usually rationalized as being in the long run interest of the majority or deemed actually helpful to the poor” (Fainstein, 2010).

(15)

Interest in the concept of social justice has steadily grown in the recent decades. Due to the rise of inequality since the 1970s, the attention for social justice in the spatial environment have led to often to calls for redistribution (Cambell and Fainstein, 2012).

For the purpose of this thesis, the key method of supporting the exploration of social justice outcomes in the built environment will be through the discussions prompted within Susan Fainstein’s The Just City, in which she explores the current dilemma revolving around the concept of the planning of social justice as being too often oriented around one single remedy that ails all cities, “a more open, more democratic process” (Fainstein, 2010). Fainstein argues this mentality of predominantly seeking justice through public involvement as being inadequate by itself, as it “over idealizes open communication and neglects the substance of debate” (Fainstein, 2010). The consideration of social justice in the planning and built environment represents a dynamic that features far more complexity than merely creating a platform of public discourse, as that can be manipulated and altered by a variety of different factors. Similarly to Fainstein’s work, the key consideration of social justice is not based on the tidying up of the planning process, but rather, the relationship between “democratic processes and just outcomes” (Fainstein, 2010). With respect to the built environment, processes may readily include considerations of social justice, but if the built environment does not reflect these processes, then social justice is not truly being achieved.

Fainstein explores the concept of social justice through three encompassing considerations that act as the umbrella for various direct indicators of social justie. These considerations are equity, diversity, and democratic practices (Fainstein, 2010). In order to operationalize these social justice objectives, Fainstein provides a framework, which she labels the Principles to Guide Planning and Policy. The following ten noted principles will contribute as the indicators for analyzing social justice outcomes in this thesis. With respect to the

furtherance of equity, Fainstein stresses the importance of five key principles resulting in the desired outcomes of social justice. The first principle is with respect to housing, in which she stresses that, “all new housing development should provide units for households with incomes below the median,” and affordable housing units developed must remain in perpetuity (Fainstein, 2010). The next equity-related principle is through the concept of segregation, in which “households should not be involuntarily relocated for the purpose of

(16)

obtaining economic development or community balance,” “boundaries between districts should be porous,” and public intracity transit should be fair and accessible because “low-income people disproportionately rely on public transit” (Fainstein, 2010). The next key principle identified is based on economic development, in which Fainstein states, “economic development programs should give priority to the interests of employees and small businesses, which generally are more locally rooted than large corporations” (Fainstein, 2010). The next equity concerning principle regards project basis, in which mega-projects should be required to provide direct benefits to low-income people in the form of employment provisions, include public participation, and should be developed incrementally and with multiple developers. The last key principle identified with the social justice

consideration of equity pertains to the dimensions of planning. Fainstein considers a socially just planning outcome to feature planners taking an active role in deliberative settings to press for egalitarian solutions, and plan formation should be developed in

consultation with the target population as well as representatives of groups living outside the affected area.

With respect to Fainstein’s second encompassing consideration, diversity, two key principles are identified in order to establish social justice outcomes. The first is public space, in which “ample public spaces should be widely accessible and varied” (Fainstein, 2010). The second key principle noted is social services. Fainstein considers the principle of social services to be fulfilled by public authorities assisting groups who have historically suffered from discrimination in achieving access to opportunity in housing, education, and

employment (Fainstein, 2010). The last consideration, democracy, is achieved through the principle focused on social control. Fainstein believes that it is imperative for groups that are not able to participate directly in decision-making processes should be represented by advocates, and that citywide considerations should be applied to the consultation processes of a project. In this respect, the conception of social control is through fostering dialogue and resistance among citizens, not merely blind acceptance. Lastly, the principle of environmental considerations is presented as an associated, important characteristic of socially just outcomes, and that environmental regulation and sustainable development focuses are imperative. With consideration of Fainstein’s outcome-oriented social justice principles, in this thesis, the concepts of public interest and social justice will be considered

(17)

closely related with one another, representing synonymous objectives for the built environment to incorporate.

2.4 – Public-Private Partnerships & Coalition Building

Public-Private Partnerships

At the core of my analysis of the incorporation of public interest and social justice outcomes of waterfront mega-project developments are the process architectures from which the projects were contemplated, designed and ultimately developed. Given the more laissez-faire orientation of many neoliberal countries in relation to the massive size and scope of waterfront mega-projects, partnerships between an array of actors working in tandem with one-another have become a preferred vehicle for the planning, financing and

implementation of large scale development in contemporary cities (Goldstein & Mele, 2016). According to the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, and in conjunction with most existing academic literature, public-private partnerships (or PPPs) can be defined as an arrangement (in most cases contractual) between a public agency and one or more private sector entities, in which the skills and assets (resources) of each sector are shared in delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public, and in addition, each party shares in the risks and rewards potential in the delivery of the service and/or facility

(NCPPP, 2016). This research project focuses on the public-private partnerships to develop mixed-use waterfront mega-projects. Public-private partnerships persist in their significance as a tool for local governments to develop and rejuvenate underutilized or deteriorating waterfront urban areas due to a variety factors, including diminishing government funding for redevelopment programs and the decline of private sector business associations that were previously reliable growth machines (Altshuler & Luberoff, 2003; Sagalyn, 2007; Strom, 2008; Goldstein & Mele, 2016). The proliferation of PPPs stemmed from a perceived need to optimize the financial resources necessary for large-scale development projects.

Researcher Gordon MacLoud posits that there is optimism on behalf of the creation of PPPs due to the concept of mutual dependence and benefit, in which, ideally, governments are able to gain from the practical knowledge and skill of established business elites, such as

(18)

financing and deal negotiations, and the private sector is able to profit from normalized ties to government that often results in financing tools and expedited regulatory processes (MacLoud, 2011). Public-private partnerships can also represent an intriguing opportunity to act as a magnet in attracting private capital that goes beyond the original scope of the project, while incorporating market criteria in projects’ construction and operation processes (Irimia-Dieguez & Oliver-Alfonso, 2012). Some private entities have relationships with an expanded network of stakeholders and professional specialists that can be more effectively incorporate into projects, while ensuring that the confines of the project are actually obtainable, relevant, accessible, and appropriate given the market dynamics of a region. In instances where private entities find or predict projects to be substantially lucrative they often will invest more capital than what was originally expected, and in some circumstances, allowing a good development project to be transformed into an excellent project.

On the other hand, a large amount of criticism has unfolded from experts in the academic community with respect to public-private partnerships, centered on their representation as another gateway for “institutionalizing the command of private sector elites over traditional urban politics” (Goldstein & Mele, 2016). Swyngedouw posits an important questioning against PPPs and large-scale urban development, in which they represent a shift in the conceptual understanding of the ‘public good’ to be oriented towards tailoring to the needs of and constituencies of economic development, as opposed to the needs of people and low-income housing (Swyngedouw et. al, 2002). He argues that mega-project developments are commonly used to bypass firm planning and policy procedures and essentially represents a method of escaping from democratic procedures of planning. Swyngedouw links this transgression to his theory on the emerging neoliberal “New Urban Policy” approach that is tailored towards less democratic planning processes and “elite-driven priorities” as opposed to planning for the disenfranchised (Swyngedouw et. al., 2002). Under this approach, public interests can be assumed to be more diluted as profit driven economic elite-influence

infiltrates the development process. In building with this idea, it seems assumable to say that socioeconomic polarization can often be accentuated through these large scale development projects, simply due to the fact that they are often built under the pretense of

waterfront/urban regeneration, thus low end real estate areas are redeveloped in conjunction with displacing low-income units, and rental prices rise with the completion of the project.

(19)

Both the proponents and critiques represent important considerations, and it seems fair to conclude that if a development project is being built to feature a mix of uses, including significant private uses, then private entities should have a level of stakeholdership in collaborating with what and how the project is built. Due to the encapsulating function of the PPP input on the varied stages of waterfront mega-projects and ultimately its outcomes of public interest and social justice, this study will continue under the assumption that PPPs act as the most important component of the process architecture behind these projects. To reiterate what was previously discussed, PPPs act as the vehicle that drives, reroutes, and delivers the development process of these large-scale development projects and ultimately decides the scope of public interest and social justice outcomes. The emphasis on the discussion of the emergence, benefits, and negatives stemming from PPPs is focalized around the underlying reasons “why the public and private sectors cooperate in the first place (motivations) and what each expects to achieve from working together on urban development projects (outcomes)” (Goldstein & Mele, 2016; Huxham & Vangen 2013; O’Leary & Vij, 2012). With respect to the motivations and outcomes of actors and these projects, successful or failed coalition building can offer explanation to the incorporation of public interests and social justice.

Coalition Building & Collaboration

In order for a waterfront mega-project to integrate a successful public-private partnership in which actors are able to cooperate in order to achieve their individual and collective goals, coalition building must be an integral component of the process architecture. Successful incorporation of goals, such as public interests and social justice, depends on “the formal and informal efforts aimed at building consensus or obtaining consent necessary to carry out urban development in a situation where many different (and potentially conflicting) public and private interests are in play” (Goldstein & Mele, 2016). To ensure that these formal and informal efforts oriented around consensus building and consent for internal decision-making are possible requires the development of a coalition, or coalition building. For the purposes of this study, a coalition can be defined as an organization of different actors, including public, private, and nongovernmental, who commit to an agreed-on purpose and

(20)

shared decision making to influence a target or desired outcome, while these actor

organizations maintain their own autonomy (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001). Due to the large scale, and interdisciplinary complexity of waterfront mega-project development, many theorists believe that in order for a mega-project to truly be successful in achieving its intentions, the internal architecture requires the successful implementation of three dimensions of the coalition, which include: a collective purpose within the coalition, a leadership structure within the coalition, and lastly an effective organizational style within the coalition (Goldstein & Mele, 2016). These three dimensions act as indicators to success or failure, but also help to further differentiate models and gradients of partnerships within waterfront mega-projects that vary in structure.

Collective Purpose

For the purposes of this research, the collective purpose dynamic existing within the coalition of the institutional architecture of the mega-project is exceedingly important with respect to showing the journey of the motivational goals, in this case public interests and social justice, to their actual incorporation in the development outcomes. As the collective purpose tends to vary considerably between different projects based on unique

considerations particular to their circumstances, for the purposes of this study, this dynamic will not be used as a typology indicator differentiating different public-private partnerships. However, collective purpose can be evaluated as a qualitative descriptor of either the success or failure of a coalition (Goldstein & Mele, 2016).

(21)

3. Methodological Framework

3.1 - Introduction to the Research

The predominant goal of this study is to understand the linkages between public interests and social justice outcomes in the context of waterfront mega-project developments. In order to achieve this goal, the following section will discuss the guiding research question and subquestions chosen in order to operationalize research findings. This methodological framework will also disclose the research design, case study selection, key typologies, and relevance of study. The fundamental basis of the methodological framework will be geared towards establishing a rationale for the application of procedures and strategies necessary in order to analyze information as applied to the research question presented in the following subsection.

3.2 - Research Question & Hypothesis

Based upon document and plan analysis, the comparative case analysis of four mixed-use flagship mega-projects, how, and to what capacity, are public interests incorporated into mixed-use waterfront flagship mega-project developments? This research predicts that public interests and social justice outcomes are most successfully incorporated into

waterfront mega-projects when the public sector takes more of an active leadership role in the PPP, and combines its leadership with a tight public management structure that enable mega-projects with the ability to adapt to changing characteristics involved with

development.

In order to operationalize research towards answering the research question, multiple subquestions will need to be investigated:

• Who are the key actors involved with promoting agency behind the incorporation of public interests?

• What are the legal and regulatory tools being used and implemented in order to promote public interests and socially just outcomes?

(22)

• How, and to what effectiveness, is public participation factored into the process? • What physical and social amenities are produced for the purposes of the public as a

direct result of these projects?

The key purpose of the research question is to open up a discussion that is geared to explore the relationship mixed-use flagship mega-projects have with the incorporation of social justice, and the related public interests that serve the constituencies that contribute to finance and enable these partnerships.

3.3 - Research Design

Research Design & Data Collection Method

For the purposes of this research that is focused on the concepts of neoliberalism, public-private partnerships, and social justice and public interest incorporation in mega-project developments, the closest aligned research methods that were found viable are document and content analysis. More specifically, I compare key contextual factors including municipal policies, presence or absence of residents’ mobilization, socioeconomic (racial/ethnic if applicable) status of the community affected, and relative power of the public/private entities involved in the public-private partnership arrangement. These factors are measured and compared against one another based upon the positive success versus failed incorporation of public interests among the varied cases. In order to do this, criteria was developed that specifically analyzed the effectiveness of the incorporation of legal tools, partnership agreements, public amenity incorporation, and inclusion of participation in the development process within the various projects based on a typology of outcome

comparisons. In order to establish solid grounding between the various case studies, the relative substantive criteria paid attention to project scale, governance background, existing urban setting, among a plethora of other factors in order to bring legitimacy for comparisons to be made between the respective cases. The key research method to be used is a

(23)

disparities between similarly oriented public-private partnership mixed-use mega-project developments.

The research design of the thesis features an introductory and background component, that discusses the existing academic literature, as well as an in-depth discussion of key concepts that are touched upon by the later comparative case study analysis. In this initial stage the research delved into the current academic literature on both the status of mega-project development, social justice, and public-private partnerships, as well as the rationale behind the selection of my four individual case studies. Within this first component, a clear statement of the problem is conveyed, as well as a preliminary research hypothesis.

The second component of my research design involves the individual analysis of each of the case studies, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative characteristics that provide

information pertaining to how public interests and social justice is incorporated into the projects. In this second part, the majority of the data is found from the analysis of plan documents, primary studies, discourse documents such as public meeting notes, and media/press documents discussing the respective cases. In addition, quantitative information was sought from government documents such as census, and municipal/national statistical databases.

Following the discussions of each of the four waterfront mega-project cases, I analyze the findings from each of the cases, and systematically compare and contrast each of the cases in order to make conclusive findings derived from a variety of factors, including partnership architectures and socio-cultural backgrounds. Based upon these findings, I discuss whether or not the findings are to be applied to a broader planning context. Lastly, the research focuses on revisiting the research questions, and making theoretical and methodological reflections.

Operationalization of Concepts

For the purposes of planning, designing, and collecting evidence for the findings of my comparative case study analysis, the main source of method information and guidelines will

(24)

be derived from Robert Yin’s “Case Study Research: Design and Methods.” According to Yin, and with respect to my research questions, case studies represent the best way to guide my research as it is operationalized behind the explanatory functions that address ‘how’ and ‘why,’ with no control over events (my research is not experimental), and is in the focus of a contemporary phenomenon within real-life context (Yin, 2009). The focus of the case study research is centered on an explanatory lens that deals with tracing operational links over time between the relationship of the case studies to their variables and then ultimately to their outcomes of incorporating public interest. With respect to Yin’s guidelines, I will follow a research design that incorporates five procedural components: (1) forming appropriate research questions, (2) identifying propositions, if any, (3) identifying and exploring key units of analysis, (4) linking data to the research questions and propositions, (5) develop criteria for interpreting the findings (Yin, 2009). To draw specifics to the case study design, the following tables will outline the development of my research questions:

RQ1: Who are the key actors involved with promoting agency behind the incorporation of public interests?

Research

Question Hypothesis or Assumptions Data or Evidence Needed

Best Data Collection Method

Sampling

Strategy Data Processing Analysis Procedures Key Actors Promoting Agency Key community figures, politicians, lobbying groups, and stakeholders taking strong agency with the incorporation of public interests in a project results in more successful inclusion of public interests. Publicly/privately made statements in support or in opposition to the project. Personal agency taken by key figures in community. Narratives detailing perceptions, beliefs, or opinions regarding the project. Websites, newspaper articles, magazines, speech transcripts, interviews, public meeting minutes, policy documents, plan documents. Identify politicians, key businessme n, community organizatio n leaders, nonprofit leaders, and figures with social clout (ex. celebrities). Actor analysis. Organizing correlated data, statements, remarks, and personal accountability-related connections between prominent actors and the incorporation of public interests. Graphing specific relationship between what is stated and what is incorporated. Establish criteria based on level of agency, and amounts of attention received, and references.

Coding for key relevant stated objectives, phrases, ideas, promises, or themes and then relating them to the physical, social, and economic outcomes. Focus on repeated remarks. Look at the lack of key actors and the resulting effects.

(25)

RQ2: What are the legal and regulatory tools being used and implemented in order to promote public interests and socially just outcomes?

Research Question Hypothesis or Assumptions Data or Evidence Needed Best Data Collection Method Sampling

Strategy Data Processing Analysis Procedures Legal & Regulatory Tools When partnerships’ incorporate more focused legal and regulatory tools there is a greater incorporation of public interests because they are held legally/ publicly accountable. Any contractual, legal, binding, or publicly issued agreements, contracts, or discourse pertaining to the incorporatio n of public interests (PI’s) in the mega-project. Community agreements, contracts, city regulations, community meeting minutes, public promises, plan documents, policy documents, financial contracts, legal contracts, environmental analysis studies, approval documents, zoning regulations. Identify government websites, and references to contractual agreements in plan documents. Any references in documents related to outcomes that incorporate public interests in the project. Graphing data, and then organizing correlated data. Tracking relevant info from tools to their actual incorporation. Establishing analysis of power (im)balance. Measuring indicators pertaining to levels of complexity in various legal and regulatory tools. Focus predominantly on publicly led discourses within these documents. Identify physical, social, and economic links to public interest incorporation, and track the outcomes. Key community NGO discourse could give further leads to

perceptions.

Table 2: Methodology for researching RQ2

RQ 3: How, and to what effectiveness, is public participation factored into the process? Research

Sampling

Strategy Data Processing Analysis Procedures Public

Participation Partnerships that incorporate a greater level of attention and effort to include community members and their input into the mega-project

development process will show better incorporation of public interests and social justice. Participation at events, meetings, approval processes, and other related procedures. Protests, workshops, dialogues, or identifiable inputs. Community minutes, approval documents, NGO discourses, plan documents, environmental studies, impact analysis’, council meetings, community benefit agreements, contracts. Graphing, organizing correlated data and levels of input from identified NGO’s and public. Actor analysis, graphing, organizing correlated data. Email corresponde nces sourcing relevant info pertaining to research objectives. Establish criteria based on gradients of possible public participation incorporation, and measured to actual incorporation. Link specific/repeated instances of desired amenities to what was produced. Table 3: Methodology for researching RQ3

(26)

RQ 4: What physical and social amenities are produced for the purposes of the public as a direct result of these projects?

Research

Sampling

Strategy Data Processing Analysis Procedures Physical & Social Amenities When partnerships incorporate more publicly oriented physical and social amenities to the mega-project it results in a higher account of public interests being incorporated. Identifiable physical, and social amenities resulting as a product of the mega-project partnership.

Plan visuals and documents, policy documents, designated public space, parks, pedestrian and bike trails, public art installations, social programs, activities plans. Correlating physical mapping of areas, and accountability of usage of programs for listed amenities. Graphing, transcribing, organizing correlated data. Track responses, with keen focus on ‘emotion’ words in public dialogues. Qualitative/qua ntitative analysis of thematic elements Trace partnership incorporations of physical and social amenities to a criteria of analysis based on extremes. Identify trends and discourses in the post-development. Link availability of amenities and measure how meaningful. Table 4: Methodology for researching RQ3

Key Typologies

The following typologies were drafted in order to operationalize the analysis of the four case studies selected. The research aims to investigate the linkages between process architectures between the various waterfront mega-projects, and the development outcomes that stem from a variety of key indicators ranging between more neoliberalism and social justice.

Abbreviation Leadership Structure Public Management Style Case Study PAT

Principal-Agency-Tight

Principal (Public) Agency, Subsidiary Agency

(Hierarchy)

Tight Public Management Structure (contractual, legal,

strong regulatory features)

Kop van Zuid, Rotterdam – Netherlands (Continental-European) PAL Principal-Agency-Loose Principal (Private) Agency, Subsidiary Agency (Hierarchy)

Loose Public Management Structure (flexibility, freedom,

malleable, with little to no contractual ties) Glasgow Harbour Glasgow, Scotland – UK (Anglo-Saxon) PPT Principal-Principal-Tight Principal Agency,

Principal Agency (Equal) Structure (contractual, legal, Tight Public Management strong regulatory features)

HafenCity Hamburg, Germany (Continental-European) PPL Principal-Principal-Loose Principal Agency,

Principal Agency (Equal) Structure (flexibility, freedom, Loose Public Management malleable, with little to no

contractual ties)

Dublin Docklands Dublin, Ireland

(Anglo-Saxon) Table 4: Typology of Partnership Models (or Development Process Architectures)

(27)

The typology of partnership models will be an important aspect towards differentiating the selected four waterfront mega-project case studies from a basis of their public-private partnership composition. The key characteristics of these project’s composition has been identified as their leadership structure hegemony, ranging from principal agency to more mutual leadership, and their organizational style, ranging from tightly structured to more loose. Cases featuring a leadership typology incorporating principal agency can be described as having either public entities or private entities predominantly leading the physical

development dynamic within the public-private processes, absorbing more risk in relation to the development of the majority of sites. Cases featuring principal-principal leadership can be described as incorporating more shared leadership over the public-private dimension, and more collaborative processes in relation to development outcomes. The public management style is a key emphasis within this study, as it pertains to the level of inherent regulation or freedom endowed over the project by the public sector, and can largely be attributed to the project’s sociocultural context. This typology is important in conjunction to the

development outcomes of the projects, because it allows for the ability to synthesize projects based on a variety of inherent factors. This will be further discussed in the following section relating to case study selection.

Indicators Anglo-Liberal Euro-Social

1 Public Space Lack of access,

homogeneity Heterogeneity 2 Quality of Built

Environment Inauthenticity, conformist architecture Historical accuracy; cutting edge architecture 3 Planning Rule of experts Citizen participation 4 Social Control Order and domination Resistance and conflict

5 Housing Luxury dwellings Affordable units

6 Segregation Exclusion Mixing, even if

conflictural

7 Mega-Project Basis Large, top-down planned Popular, incremental, preservation

8 Social Services Privatization,

individualization Collective consumption

9 Economic

Development Entrepreneurial state Small business; cooperatives 10 Environment Laissez-faire Regulation; green

development Table 5: Typology of Socially Just Outcomes (Fainstein, 2010)

(28)

As previously discussed in the theoretical framework, a variety of indicators, or outcomes, have ramifications towards typifying a projects characteristic, especially with consideration of the concept of social justice. In order to operationalize a level of analysis between the development outcomes of the four case studies, a typology of ten significant indicators of public interest have been created which include: public space, quality of built environment, planning, social control, housing, segregation, mega-project basis, social services, economic development, and environment. These outcomes are anticipated to range in levels of significance between the various projects, with some indicators carrying staggering strength, and in some cases, indicators not being transparent at all. In order to establish criteria to compare the composition of projects development outcomes, the typology includes two contrasting development paradigms, which are identified as Anglo-Liberal, and Euro-Social. The fundamental goal of this typology will be to better characterize where the various waterfront mega-projects fit in relation to these varying paradigms as a result of their indicators and development outcomes.

3.4 - Case Study Selection !

The Anglo-Saxon model

The Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism is centralized in English speaking countries, which include the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland (Sapir, 2006). For the purposes of this research, two waterfront mega-project case studies have been selected to be European focused in Ireland and the United Kingdom. While both of these case studies are located under the similar Anglo-Saxon socio-cultural context, they slightly differ from one another with respect to the model of development process architecture that they have incorporated in order to develop their project. The Dublin Docklands waterfront mega-project can be distinguished by featuring a principal-principal-loose (PPL) public-private partnership development process architecture in which the public and private entities have both established mutual stakeholdership in the

partnership’s leadership, with more a loose public management structure. Rotterdam’s Kop van Zuid waterfront flagship mega-project features a principal-agency-loose (PAL)

(29)

development process architecture that features public sector actors dominating leadership role in enacting development of the mega-project, and a loose public management structure.

The historical roots of the Anglo-Saxon model can be traced back to 18th_{century England,}

and is patterned after the liberal ideas of the philosopher Adam Smith, widely considered to be the father of modern capitalism. Smith’s theory was presented in his work, The Wealth of Nations (1776), which was largely considered to be a response to the impositions presented by mercantilism which is the concept that through imposing government regulation over all of the commercial interests concerning a country, that countries wealth and trade generation can be maximized, stimulated, and protected by the nation. At the core of the theoretical origins of the Anglo-Saxon model is the concept that government intervention in the economy should be limited and that free market competition is best for all participants in an economy. According to Professor Madsen Pirie, a free-market advocator and current President of the Adam Smith Institute, at the root of the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism lies the adversarial principle, which strongly emphasizes the significance of competition by market forces. Pirie characterizes the economy to the likeness of a battlefield in which ritualized combat takes place between rivals towards commercial enterprise (Pirie, 2012). Believers in the Anglo-Saxon model posit that the best route towards economic

improvement and wealth generation isn’t found through society working collectively towards a common good, but rather the development of a strong sphere of competition in which competitors compete against one-another to incrementally continue to produce the most favorable economic outcomes based on the favor of consumers. The second fundamental principle of the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism is focused on the evolutionary principle. It can be characterized as the theory that “change is not best accomplished by sudden and violent disruptions which overthrow the status quo, but by a process which allows continual modifications to be made and incorporated” (Pirie, 2012). In order for these incremental modifications to be successfully made, it is required that an economic system must be tolerant and liberal enough to continually accept variation and change, and flexible enough to incorporate the incremental changes presented through market competition into the contemporary practice of the sector. Given the characteristics of these two fundamental principles at the core of the Anglo-Saxon model (adversarial, and evolutionary), the concept of government regulation acts as one of the, if not the most, significant threats towards

(30)

successful free-market oriented capitalistic economic activity. According to Anglo-Saxon model advocates, “the more detailed the regulation, the greater are the costs of compliance, and the more it restricts the development of better alternatives” (Pirie, 2012).

Anglo-Saxon Model European-Social Model Long-term development

path immigrants: Mentality of Citizens as (former) adventurers, Competition as

dominant form of social interaction

Citizens embedded in social contexts feudal system,

communities, interest groups, welfare state) Pursuit of interests Predominantly as individuals

in markets

Mainly through organizations (unions, etc.)

Fundamental values Individual freedom Individual freedom and justice/order Importance of trade unions

and organizations of entrepreneurs

Of minimal importance Of great importance

Labour relations No institutionalized cooperation

Corporatism

Labour markets Hire and fire Regulated

Insurance against illness,

old-age, poverty, unemployment Provided modestly Provided by welfare state Economic culture Real and financial capitalism Real capitalism combined

with welfare state Relation between market and

state

Mainly private Primarily run by welfare state

Importance of welfare state Little Great

Focus on making profits Real and Financial Economy (Traditionally) Real economy Importance of the financial

sector Great (Traditionally) Little

Table 6: Anglo-Saxon model versus European-social model (Schulmeister, 2014)

Given the theoretical basis and characteristics behind the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, multiple parallels can be made towards how Anglo-Saxon socio-cultural settings link with the development of waterfront mega-projects, and subsequently, the incorporation of public interests and social justice outcomes stemming from these development activities. In theory, governance schemes operating under this model can be assumed to be more laissez-faire oriented with respect to project development, with low levels of regulation and taxes, more emphasis on the private sector providing services rather than the public, stronger contract enforcement, heightened private property rights, and an overall restriction on the barriers to

(31)

free trade than that of socio-cultural contexts that promote more government regulation. It is assumed that in countries actively promoting the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, the private sector will have more control over investment outcomes with respect to mega-project development, and thus, have more autonomy in the incorporation of public interests and social justice outcomes stemming from the activities of development. Critics of the Anglo-Saxon model contend that by having less government regulation and an increased emphasis on enterprise, the scope of collective bargaining rights of the government are reduced resulting in less of an ability for the public sector to successfully integrate non-money generating services that combat inequality, and resources that benefit specifically for the public in the development outcomes. Advocates of the Anglo-Saxon model posit that by liberalizing economies, overall prosperity will be increased through development that has an inherent focus on creating successful, useful, and inclusive development that can draw people and commerce to the development. The following two case studies will explore how public interests and social justice outcomes are incorporated under Anglo-Saxon models of capitalism while using differing development process architectures.

Anglo-Saxon Case Selection 1: Glasgow Harbour, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

The first case study selected was the Glasgow Harbour Project located along the banks of the Clyde River in Glasgow, Scotland. The project met the key criteria set forth within the confines of the study, in which it is an urban-regeneration focused waterfront mega-project, the development scheme incorporates a public-private partnership, and it is characterized under economic governance that can be typified with one of the research’s socio-cultural context relating to the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. One of the key rationales for selecting the Glasgow Harbour Project is based on its model of development process architecture which can be explained as featuring a unequal leadership structure that is led by private sector entities of public-private partnership, referred to as a principal-agency, and a public management structure that can be characterized as loose in a matter typical of the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. Complementing these attributes was the consideration that the project was regarded as a flagship project by the City of Glasgow (Clydewaterfront, 2016). Lastly, the project was considered interesting given that it was located on a

(32)

social contributor” to both Glasgow and Scotland alike (Clydewaterfront, 2016). Given these traits, the Glasgow Harbour Project was assessed to provide an ample basis of

characteristics that would allow for the analysis of how project incorporates public interests and social justice outcomes.

Anglo-Saxon Case Selection 2: Dublin Docklands, Dublin, Ireland

The second Anglo-Saxon case study selected is the Dublin Docklands, situated on the River Liffey in Dublin, Ireland. The Dublin Docklands features a large-scale waterfront

regeneration project unique in many characteristics due to its efforts in creating an International Financial Services Centre in conjunction with residential, commercial, and leisure land uses. The project incorporates a public-private leadership structure that varies, but maintains a level shared agency between the public and private sector and loose

organizational structure, leading to a typology characterization of PPL (principal-principal-loose). The project is considered a flagship project for the city of Dublin, and has amassed billions of euros in investment since its onset. The Dublin Docklands is a project that is fundamentally rooted as a response to the post-industrial waterfront characteristics of former active port area, characterized by de-industrialization, facility vacancy, and unemployment.

Continental-European model

The Continental-European model of capitalism can be understood as one of the types of models characterized under European-social models of capitalism, which ultimately is a product of the shared vision between many European states that was formulated as a product of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (TEEC 1958) of which operates towards establishing societal and economic conditions that enable economic growth, high living standards, equitability, and good working conditions. As Grahl and Teague state, “the European-Social model is understood as a specific combination of comprehensive welfare systems and strongly institutionalized and politicized forms of industrial relations” (Grahl & Teague, 1997). Given this definition, it becomes apparent that the European-social model does not represent one singular economic context, but rather

(33)

multiple, which include the Scandinavian model, the Mediterranean model, and lastly the Continental European model. For the purposes of this research, this study will focus on the Continental European model and will analyze the public interests and social justice outcomes incorporated in two waterfront mega-project case studies operating within countries under the Continental-European model domain. The countries that operate with the Continental European model of capitalism include France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands (Schulmeister, 2014). As previously discussed, the case study mega-projects selected for this research are the HafenCity Project, located in Hamburg, Germany, and the Kop van Zuid, located in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Hamburg’s HafenCity Project can be distinguished by featuring a principal-principal-loose (PPT) public-private partnership process architecture in which the public and private entities have both

established more of a mutually led stakeholdership, with a tight public management structure that incorporates heightened levels of public sector regulation and control over the

development outcomes. Rotterdam’s Kop van Zuid features a principal-agency-tight (PAT) process architecture featuring a dominant public sector as the project’s leader, and a tight public management structure between other actors in the public-private partnership arrangements.

The European-social model, and subsequently the Continental-European model, can be traced back to the 1956 negotiations leading to the Treaties of Rome and the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in an effort by multiple European nations to harmonize social regulations, and loosen fiscal burdens on the integration of industrial markets (Scharpf, 2002). What resulted from the negotiations of the Treaty of Rome was “the political commitment of other governments to increase social protection nationally” in conjunction with countries economic pursuits (Sharpf, 2002). This linkage between social welfare and economic growth has posited the European-social model, and the Continental-European model, as a model of capitalism that is more directed by top-down regulatory governance, and targets efforts towards social justice, fair income distribution, social security, full employment and social coherence (Schulmeister, 2014). Aiginger and Leoni characterize the Continental European model of capitalism as one that emphasizes

employment as the basis of social transfers, with benefits that are considered moderate and linked to income (Aiginger & Leoni, 2009). In the Continental European model,

(34)

government regulation is involved in the labour markets, and there is more focus given towards the importance of consolidating benefits of the welfare state, rather than focuses on economic profit-growth (Schulmeister, 2014). In contrast to the Anglo-Saxon model, Continental-European countries can be characterized as viewing the relationship between the state and the market as complementary, as opposed to antagonistic (Anglo-Saxon), in which the state acts, through regulation, to ensure a greater interest towards citizens being embedded in social contexts during societal development. Given the stated social objectives of the Continental-European model, namely the increased concentration on social justice, social welfare, and government regulation over the physical, and economic activities existing within its sphere of influence, advocates of the model posit that it operates as a more

equitable model with respect to creating a more equal society for all people through strategic government decision-making, as well as ensuring social protection over the interests of the people (etuc.org, 2006).

Given the theoretical basis behind the Continental-European model of capitalism, it can be assumed that various differences may exist between the socio-cultural settings of

development in of waterfront mega-projects in Continental-European contexts as opposed to Anglo-Saxon liberal market contexts. In Continental countries, government regulation will be stronger and more institutionalized, presumably giving the public sphere more control over the outcomes of projects. Also, as opposed to operating under the

predominance of the fundamental value of individual freedom, such as in the Anglo-Saxon model, the Continental European model operates with a posited embedded interest towards social justice, as exemplified through its attentive efforts in social welfare, and redistribution of wealth. In many instances, private entities located within Continental-European socio-cultural settings do not have as much leverage over the public sector with respect to physical development, given the increased emphasis of regulatory control operated by the public. This often results in less absolute autonomy of the private sector over project outcomes, and its perception of the incorporation of public interests and social justice outcomes

(Schulmeister, 2014). Critics of the Continental-European model contend that the model is responsible for the stagnant economic growth rates of European economies in the recent years while markets around the world become increasingly competitive (etuc.org, 2016). Critics also posit that more government control and regulation does not necessarily result in

Public interests and social justice in mixed-use Waterfront Mega-Project developments : an exploration of Anglo-Saxon and Continental-European focused cases