Branding a protest : NIMBY or noble? : a detailed study of the sources and development of resistance against an asylum seekers center in Ede

(1)

Branding a Protest: NIMBY or Noble?

A detailed study of the sources and development of resistance

against an asylum seekers center in Ede

(de Volkskrant)

Sara Rubingh 10024905 Master Thesis Conflict Resolution and Governance Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam Dr David Laws Dr Imrat Verhoeven 24-06-2016 24,473 words

(2)

2

Abstract

The variety of local activity that develops around proposals to site asylum seekers centers cannot be fully captured by the diagnosis that is implied when the term NIMBY is invoked. Earlier research on the topic have been ambiguous. The mixed messages suggest something complex may be going on when people are protesting against refugees or asylum seekers centers. This is especially interesting since resistance against asylum seekers centers is unlikely to fade away. This study has identified several features that contributed to the development of resistance against asylum seekers centers in Ede. NIMBY characteristics can be identified, but if you look closely these characteristics are mixed with other features that make resistance against asylum seekers centers more complex. One important feature for residents’ resistance was the lack of trust for the municipality in making the right decision. The lack of trust was exacerbated by the lack of consultation during the decision-making process. Residents felt that decisions were set in stone, which contributed to their resistance as they could not influence the municipalities’ decision for the location of an asylum seekers center. Another source for resistance can be seen in certain assumptions regarding asylum seekers that contributed to local concerns. Their worries were genuine, but became fixed because they felt the sources of anxiety were never addressed appropriately by the municipality. The perception that these anxieties had not been addressed properly enhanced residents’ feelings of anxiety and threat and contributed to the development of resistance. The resistance developed further, when protestors tried to unite within their own community close to locations that were under consideration. People came together at this level to articulate and express their claims and concerns. They sought to display worthiness in their actions. There are concerns articulated which provide a basis for more sustained interaction, like the preservation for nature and issues concerning the municipality referenced above. Residents, however, seem uninterested in sustaining their actions for a longer period of time. Organization never moved beyond this immediate level, not even within Ede. The sources and development of resistance in this study emphasizes the importance of social processes, before and during the development of resistance.

(3)

3

Chapter 1: Introduction

Since last year, there have been many protests against asylum seekers centers in the Netherlands. They have taken several forms. In Ede two dead pigs were dropped near a presumed location for an asylum seekers center as a protest against Muslim refugees (Volkskrant, 2016b). The day before, residents in Enschede demonstrated against a proposed asylum seekers center (Volkskrant, 2016a). In October 2015 aldermen were threatened, because of the plans for an asylum seekers center in Enschede (Volkskrant, 2015b). Similarly, a Council meeting concerning an asylum seekers center in Geldermalsen was disrupted by citizens throwing rocks and fireworks (Volkskrant, 2016c).

“Those who look up the word NIMBY, or ‘not in my backyard’ on the internet are one click away from another abbreviation, AZC or asylum seekers center. The two search terms seem to be inseparable. As befits a civilized society, the majority of the Dutch people agree that we should help people in need, and give refugees shelter. It is thus important that there are asylum seekers centers. NIMBY implies that this is only ok as long as it is not in my backyardi” (Balkster Courant, 2015).

This fragment of an article in Balkster Courant (2015) clearly states that resistance against asylum seekers centers simply revolves around not wanting a center in their backyard. Local resistance to asylum seekers centers was also mentioned as NIMBY in an article that appeared in de Volkskrant (2015a). At the end of last century, Centraal Orgaan opvang Asielzoekers (COA), the organization responsible for asylum seekers centers, wanted to locate an asylum seekers center in a former institute for the blind in Vught. The Council of the municipality had already come to an agreement. The neighborhood, a villa area, was against the Council’s plan. So the residents bought the building for 1,7 million euros, literally poaching the asylum seekers center from COA. They later sold the building to a coffee and tea business. The residents were happy, rather this business as a neighbor than 320 asylum seekers (De Volkskrant, 2015a). At the same time, groups who protest the arrival of refugees in the Netherlands often also operate together on a national level. Members of the group Demonstranten Tegen Gemeente (Protesters against Municipality) are originally from Enschede, but were also present during protests in Apeldoorn, Amsterdam and Ede (De Volkskrant, 2016d). The question I address here is, can the variety of local activity that develops around proposals to site asylum seekers centers be fully captured by the diagnosis that is implied when the term NIMBY is invoked?

(6)

6

Recent opinion research on the issue is ambiguous. A study by the Social and Cultural Planning Bureau (SCP) suggests that almost half of the Dutch people currently find the refugee crisis the most important problem (SCP, 2015). 56% of those polled stated that they were against the statement: The Netherlands should take in more refugees than it does now (ibid.). Recent research by I&O, a research company, found that 42% of the Dutch people would find it acceptable to have an asylum seekers center in their municipality at least when asked abstractly (2015). Another 29% would also find it acceptable if some perquisites, like a balance between the amount of refugees and citizens of the village or the location, were met. Only 21% finds asylum seekers centers unacceptable as such (ibid). These mixed messages suggest something complex may be going on when people are protesting against refugees of asylum seekers centers. In the study described in this thesis, I have tried to find out what the sources of this resistance are and how this resistance has developed. I try to get behind the headlines and focus on questions about concerns that protestors have and the role that interactions between citizens and public authority have played in the development of resistance. I also focus on interactions with other communities.

(7)

7

This is especially interesting since resistance against asylum seekers centers is unlikely to fade away. The occupancy rate of asylum seekers centers has more than tripled since two years (Website COA, 2016a). COA has also stated they are looking for more possible locations in order to be able to keep providing centers for refugees (COA, 2015).

The chapters that follow are each concerned with questions about the resistance against asylum seekers centers in a different way. This thesis is structured as follows. In chapter 2, I develop the research question ‘What are the sources of resistance against asylum seekers centers in Ede and how did this resistance develop?’ by linking it relevant bodies of theory. The theoretical framework starts with a discussion of NIMBY theory as local protests are often characterized as NIMBY. I move on by showing how NIMBY protests can emerge and what NIMBY theory actually leaves out. Furthermore, NIMBY groups can transform by focusing on larger issues or forging links with protestors from other communities, mirroring social movements. I will therefore discuss social movements next. Social movements theory provides some insights into both sources of resistance and patterns of development. I will also discuss framing as a central concept. The last section of chapter 2 describes the research question of this thesis. Chapter 3 will show how I examined the research question by discussing the research design and its execution. I will elaborate on the selection of the case, Ede and the selection of methods, observations and interviews. Chapter 4 gives an overview of the events related to the resistance against asylum seekers centers in Ede of the past two years. This overview is based on articles in the media. I will then discuss my findings based on observations and interviews in chapter 5. In chapter 6, I will answer my research question and discuss different sources of resistance against asylum seekers centers in Ede. I will end this thesis with theoretical implications, recommendations for further research and policy recommendations.

(8)

(9)

9

Chapter 2: Sources and development of resistance

In this chapter I draw on different bodies of theory to make sense of local patterns of resistance. Since protests against local facilities are often characterized as NIMBY, theories that embrace this term will be discussed first. Behavior that is labelled as NIMBY is often at least potentially legitimate and is complex in a way that NIMBY obscures or crowds out. In particular, interactions between frustrated or angry citizens and public officials have proven to be a driver for protests. Moreover, those who become involved in local protests often seek to extend their diagnosis, claims and goals and forge links to protestors in other localities. Patterns of resistance that are initially characterized as NIMBY protests can also evolve beyond local borders in social movements. The literature on social movements is explored next, focusing on political opportunities to influence public officials and interactions within the movement itself and among affected communities. Framing is also discussed as it helps us understand how residents perceive a situation and how their perception activates them to resist In the last section, I develop the research question by demonstrating how the discussed theories provide insights into the sources and development of resistance.

Not In My Backyard

NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) is an effort to account for patterns of local resistance against different kinds of facilities. The need for these facilities often seems clear for its advocates, however this is not always the case for the nearby residents of the facility (Botetzagias & Karamichas, 2009: 240). NIMBY theory brings together a variety of conceptual strands in a diagnosis of the problems that governments and project proponents face when discussions about these facilities move from the general—we need a place to put our trash, we need windmills or we need asylum seeker centers—to the local and site specific.

On the one hand NIMBY can be seen as the outcome of the balance between costs and benefits. These sort of facilities tend to create benefits that may be large, but that are widely distributed as well. Everyone enjoys the benefits, but any group’s or individual’s share of these benefits will be small (Olson, 1965). Furthermore, there is a tendency for an unequal sharing of the burdens of providing the collective goods. With NIMBY, the costs are mostly located in the local host community or neighborhood. The imbalance that is experienced locally, a small share of general benefits and high costs, provides a motivation to resist.

(10)

10

As Quah and Tan state: “The asymmetric distribution of the costs and benefits of NIMBY facilities is often a prominent reason for local opposition” (Quah & Tan, 1998: 261).

In NIMBY conflicts, residents may enjoy public services provided by the facility, but they also endure most of the negative externalities (Mingyuan & Bin, 2016: 376). Olson (1965: 43) poses the question what would happen if one member of the group would cease paying his share of the cost of the good. First and foremost, the costs will rise noticeably for each of the other members of the group. Subsequently, they might refuse to pay their share of the costs of the good and the collective good may no longer be provided (ibid.). With NIMBY, the nearby residents feel like they bare all the costs and therefore they do not want to provide the collective good.

This is compounded by the fact that potential opponents face low organizational costs, they live in the same area and may be able to draw on established networks, particularly in comparison to the beneficiaries who are diverse and widely distributed. The costs of organization entail the costs of communication among group members, the costs of any bargaining among them and the costs of creating, staffing and maintaining any formal group organization (Olson, 1965: 47). According to Olson, larger groups have more trouble organizing, because they need to include large numbers of members from the whole country, which makes it difficult to bring them together (ibid.: 46-47). In certain cases a group will already be organized for some other purpose, and then these costs of organization are already being met (ibid.).

The community that emerges thus has strong incentives to resist and low costs of organizing. This take suggests that NIMBY is purely a numbers game and that local resistance is, in a way, reasonable. But NIMBY is often also a normative judgment that demonizes local resistance as being narrow self-interested and neglecting broader shared interests. People are selfish or somehow lose sight of their broader interests.

Wolsink (1994) describes several assumptions in NIMBY theory. He states that the decision-making process for local facilities is often seen as laborious. The facilities involved in this process represent higher interests than those of the local population. The resistance by the local population is therefore seen as based on self-interest, lacking a regard for what society needs, especially to those in favor of building new facilities (Wolsink, 1994: 853-855). According to NIMBY theory as described by Wolsink, everyone agrees on the usefulness of the facility, but everyone also prefers not to have the facilities situated in their own backyard.

(11)

11

Simultaneously, everyone prefers to have the facilities situated in someone else’s backyard (ibid.). In other words, there is a discrepancy between their opinion on a local level and their opinion in general. There are no other motives or a general opposition to the type of facilities. Lastly, Wolsink states that the attitudes and opinions which go make up the NIMBY phenomenon are seen as static. The NIMBY theory does not appear to allow for possible alterations of insights regarding usefulness and location (ibid. 855). I will challenge this view and discuss what NIMBY leaves out later on in this chapter.

When something is perceived as NIMBY, responses often involve ignoring or delegitimizing the resistance and building the facility anyway. For example, there was resistance in the United States against certain facilities, especially nuclear power plants and hazardous waste facilities, because of negative externalities (Popper, 1985: 9). The federal state therefore designed central and local bodies which would measure, research and regulate negative externalities of these facilities. They also gave a role to environmental groups to dispute the bodies’ findings about these externalities through citizens’ participation processes. However, “the thrust of environmental politics since the late 1970s has been to narrow the scope of the examined negative externalities by reversing and undoing the previous measures” (Popper, 1985: 9). It turned out the administration often largely ignored the negative externalities and build the facilities despite the resistance to them (ibid.). Similarly, the Dutch government has made radical changes in the decision making process concerning the amount of influence the public, local authorities and regional interests can have in the future. The bill has limited municipalities in decisions on development and planning in their own localities. Now, the national government can allocate the ground for a facility and change the zoning scheme. In order to speed up procedures, the period of discussion in only eight weeks. This is said to be too short for most people from organizations with limited manpower and resources to contest the plans (Wolsink, 1994: 851-852). In other words, local authorities and the public will not be able to counter these decisions.

The former framing of NIMBY as an imbalance between costs and benefits leads to proposals to address local resistance by rebalancing the distribution of costs and benefits through some sort of negotiation or benefit sharing program. The latter framing of NIMBY tends to frame local resistance as anti-social and leads to proposals by the authority to override local resistance. However, both do not take into account the complexity of the NIMBY protest, which will be discussed in the next section.

(12)

12

How protest emerges and what NIMBY leaves out

Now I turn and look at NIMBY from the perspective of protest to get a contrasting view. NIMBY is often identified as something inside everyone waiting to be expressed in certain circumstances, like plans for the building of windmills. However, I claim that these ideas neglect the social processes from which NIMBY claims emerge. As Futrell (2003) tried to show, NIMBY protests are dynamic, their claims and actions change as the dispute changes. Furthermore, as mentioned before, NIMBY responses are often seen as a reflection of narrow self-interests by public authority and proponents of the facilities. However, there are cases where the opposition is based on values that can hardly be described as selfish, like equity, democracy or concerns for health, safety and security, which NIMBY leaves out. Moreover, it is often difficult to separate different reasons for protest. NIMBY and other reasons are interwoven. Protestors respond to the whole of reasons and not only to the NIMBY part. Furthermore, residents consciously try not to be labelled as NIMBY and articulate socially more accepted reasons (Botetzagias & Karamichas, 2009: 941).

According to Futrell (2003) there are important social processes from which NIMBY claims emerge. He explains the pattern of actions in a local case from the perspective of the affected community. Residents first experienced an information haze, meaning “a condition in which there are conflicting, contradicting, multiparty, multidirectional communications that fail to clarify the risks associated with a project, thus rendering lay interpretations of a situation increasingly vague and difficult” (Futrell, 2003: 365). There are often differences in the way that technical experts and government officials talk and the way citizens do. Furthermore, technical experts and government officials can disagree. This information haze can trigger communication problems that contribute to the development of protest. The public might ask questions and when these questions are not answered in a way or to a degree that is acceptable, they can enhance feelings of anxiety, and threat and contribute to the development of local resistance (ibid. 366-369). The dynamics of collective action itself can contribute to the development of resistance. Collective action needs a direction to move in, a remedy. It needs to replace uncomfortable feelings of anxiety, ambiguity and doubt with certainty, commitment and action. In Futrell’s example, members of the resistance encountered the possible risks through a tour organized by the army along a prototype facility. Instead of calming their caution, it provided empirical grounds for their concerns, a possible solution for removing this threat and a target for their collective action: they wanted the army to transport the facility to somewhere else (Futrell, 2003: 370-371).

(13)

13

Some researches on local development disputes have tried to move beyond NIMBY-related explanations and focus instead on understanding the broader system that creates such conflicts in the first place. In many local mobilizations citizens have been particularly distrustful of developers and state officials (Botetzagas & Karamichas, 2009: 940-941; Jasper, 1997: 115). Various studies have pointed out that locals are less likely to protest if they consider both the siting process and the distribution of costs to be fair and equitable or when they trust the administration (Botetzagas & Karamichas, 2009: 940-941).

Furthermore, changes in the decision-making process might have a different outcome than NIMBY protests. If residents are included in the decision-making process, they seem less inclined to protest the facility siting. This underpins my point of the importance of the processes in the development of NIMBY protests. One study in the US (Botetzagas & Karamichas, 2009: 940-941) found that citizens are more inclined to favor a landfill sitting if they are themselves, through a local committee, empowered to close the landfill if deemed unsafe. They feel they have a meaningful say over the development, assignment and management. Another example is shown by Cowan (2003). She shows how objections against a mental health facility were arguments construed as public concerns around lack of consultation. Lack of consultation has three consequences according to the objectors. First, it had deprived them from the right to know about the project in advance. Second, it denied the neighborhood of offering their support for the facility. And lastly, the lack of consultation had resulted in an inappropriate location, which with consultation would not have been selected. Furthermore, consultation could have led to less resistance, since this resistance was also motivated by the fear of the unknown. However, what this consultation would look like was difficult to define by the residents (Cowan, 2003: 382-383).

Moreover, Wolsink argues that opposition can take up different forms and even though opposition is often deemed as NIMBY, only one form is actually NIMBY (1994: 862). NIMBY responses have a positive attitude towards the type of facilities, but negative to have it in their own neighborhood. Another form is Not In Any Backyard (NIABY), where they do actually have negative attitude towards the type of facilities all together. This can also occur when they find out it will possibly be placed in their neighborhood because of the dynamics during the process. Resistance can also occur against the construction, not because of the type of facility, but of the construction plans itself. Residents can have problems with specific features of the construction, like fears of noise pollution. If these specific features are changed, they are not against facilities in their area (ibid.).

(14)

14

Tempalski, Friedman, Keem, Cooper, and Friedman propose expanding the NIMBY framework in another way by including broader national based policies and laws. In their article, they show how syringe exchange programs are often met with opposition, because of “a system of nationally-based institutionalized exclusion” (Tempalski et al., 2007: 13). According to them, there are certain national policies and laws that stigmatize drug users. This stigmatizing also occurs on a local level and causes opposition. Drug users are seen as criminals and junkies, because of for example the war on drugs and laws that restrict access to clean needles. In other words, there is a bigger issue at hand where the possible new residents on a facility are stigmatized and it therefore causes protest among the residents already living there. In this case, it could mean that opposition against asylum seekers centers could be influenced by stigma’s surrounding asylum seekers. Hubbard (2005) indeed tried to show how in Nottinghamshire opposition against an asylum seekers center was based on certain ideas about asylum seekers. Those opposing to the asylum seekers center depicted asylum seekers as culturally unsophisticated, sexually backward and impure.

In this section, we have seen protests do not just appear because of the plans for facility siting. It is more complex and potentially legitimate. According to Futrell, protests develop through a lack of information and not addressing concerns from citizens, which exacerbates resistance. Protests can also emerge from bigger issues like distrust of government officials or a lack of consultation. Protestors might even have objections to the type of facility anywhere. Stigmatization against some types of facilities can be a source for these objections.

Transformation of protest

In this section, I will argue that protests are not necessarily static. New situations may create new ideas and frames, for example there may link with other organizations, which elaborates, extends or transforms their claims. Futrell (2003) discussed a dispute over chemical weapons disposals. The United States army declared they wanted to incinerate obsolete chemical weapons at the sites they were stored, which was met with large protests. The army then offered transportations of the weapons as an alternative. However, the army later removed the possibility of their solution, which led some residents to become discouraged while others were forced to develop and elaborate solutions in another direction. In this case, the protest transformed from NIMBY framing and brought to a federal level by stating that these types of facilities should not be placed in populated areas and linking their protests with other activists from different areas.

(15)

15

A way to transform or extend NIMBY protest is through rhetoric. Activists try to extend their claims to more people, in order to address the issue on the level of non-local decision makers. They try to persuade people that they are also affected by their grievances, if not on a material basis, on idealistic grounds (Gordon & Jasper, 1996: 162). This alignment is a considerable challenge, because local grievances can have little appeal to non-locals. Gordon and Jasper (1996) draw up different forms of rhetoric. Local rhetoric opposes the facility, plan or proposal in the specific place, but not in other places. Global rhetoric opposes the proposal everywhere. In between is the semi-local rhetoric, which opposes the proposal in certain places, for example in rural areas or near schools. Moving towards a more global rhetoric should help moving past suspicions of self-interests motives and help recruit people. It is a way to bridge individual and shared interests. Lastly, they also state there is a procedural rhetoric, which is directed at the process of decision-making and not so much on the proposal itself. It is often based on claims of abuses of power or lack of accountability. This could also be used to pass self-interests motives and help persuade people (ibid. 163). An example of moving to a global rhetoric can be found in environmental justice. The environmental justice movement started in poor, rural and overwhelmingly black, Warren County in North Carolina. When the state government decided to store toxic PCBs in the County in 1982, residents blocked the trucks carrying the toxic PCBs by laying down on the roads. Six weeks of marches protests followed (Website NRDC). The county became the focus of national attention and the protest was picked up by the civil rights movement that saw the environment as another front in the struggle for justice. Even though the toxics were eventually deposited in that landfill, it did lead to awareness of a pattern. Pollution-producing facilities are often sited in poor communities of color. Taking up this rhetoric was the starting point of the development of environmental justice (ibid.).

Rhetoric however is not the only way to extend grievances and overcoming the NIMBY label. Extending is also dependent on social relations or on organizational allies. Gordon and Jasper (1996: 163-164) state that local protestors therefore might look for links with nonlocal organizations or other local allies. These organizations provide plausibility to the rhetoric, but also possible resources and political access. Simultaneously, linking to organizations without a clear ideology, but with a concern for the attainment of political power, may suppress local demands (ibid. 178). In the former example, residents from Warren County, linked themselves with the civil rights movement, together starting environmental justice movement.

(16)

16

One can make a difference between environmental or technological facilities and facilities for human groups. Human sources of NIMBY include public housing or prisons. Protests may involve racial prejudice, but also physical threat (Gordon & Jasper, 1996: 165-166; Jasper, 1997: 117). It is often very difficult to discuss human sources of threat in global terms or link to other organizations. Social sources of threat often pit one group against another and it is therefore unlikely to find a completely universal rhetoric (ibid.166, 174). Gordon and Jasper (1996) provide an example from a mostly white neighborhood in Brooklyn, where some residents acted against the integration of African-Americans in the neighborhood through public housing and education. When they tried to link their cause to the Jefferson Democratic Club, the club suppressed almost all of their demands, since they wanted to silence some types of speech, namely those concerning racial invective. This residents lost their fight, unable to link their cause to a broader issue or to an organization that could further their goal. Asylum seekers centers can be seen as human source for NIMBY, as they involve facilities for human groups. Linking their cause to a broader issue or organization could thus be a potential problem for the resistance.

NIMBY groups may also expand their goals, which can be geographical by mobilizing other communities with a similar problem. But, groups can also change the nature of their goals. Shemtov (1999) showed how groups can claim ownership, which empowers the groups to make claims of a diagnosis of a special problem and have expertise on this problem. They can become more proactive by initiating broader programs in the community. Groups can also become watchdog organizations, by protesting any future plans that can have consequences for the neighborhood. They feel the burden of responsibility to act in the future. NIMBY groups can then become social movements (Shemtov, 1999). Jasper (1997: 115) also states that NIMBY groups can form social movements as protestors are increasingly likely to organize when they are angry. National organizations and social movement professionals are available to advice and help them (ibid.: 116). He states that the same type of experiences can be found be found in the origins of NIMBY as in most of social movements (ibid. 125).

Protests are thus not static and can develop goals which are not limited to their own neighborhood. NIMBY protests can extend their goals to a global, semi-global or procedure rhetoric and link to organizations with similar claims, who’s resources and political access can further their goals. Moreover, they can establish ownership over a problem an expand their goals through designing broader programs and monitoring future plans. The example provided by Futrell shows how resistance changed due to interactions with public authority.

(17)

17

They moved from NIMBY framing to a federal level, linking themselves to other areas. Furthermore, Shemtov and Jasper both agree that NIMBY protests can transform into social movements. Therefore, social movement theory will be discussed next.

Social movements

In this section, I will focus on social movements, since NIMBY protests can transform into social movements. Jasper describes how participation in a social movement can start from a NIMBY protest as people have a moral shock to something that happened, which could lead them to take action. Furthermore, some aspects of social movements theory are useful when discussing the development of protest. Social movements theory can help us describe protests by looking at campaigns, repertoires and WUNC displays. Moreover, social movements theory has a focus on how social movements develop in certain political structures, through mobilization of members and resources.

There are popular images of protesters. However, many protesters do not fit these popular images. According to Jasper, they became protesters suddenly “when a network of large organizations […] did something that amounted to a ‘moral shock’ for many local residents” (1997: 106). They were minding their own business, going through their daily routines when something happened that might change or end that daily routine and their entire way of life, rooted in a certain place (ibid.). Moral shocks are often the first step in joining a social protest. The proposal of an asylum seekers center could be a possible moral shock that leads citizens to protest. Something unexpected leads one to be outraged and regardless of a network of personal contacts often mentioned in social movement theories one gets involved in political action. Another possible response to a moral shock is to resign oneself to unpleasant changes (ibid.).

Jasper also discusses the way collective action develops from this local level. The protestors translate their moral shocks into a moral judgement against a target, governments for example. According to Jasper (1997: 107) protestors have to channel multiple emotions towards concrete policies and decision-makers. On the one hand, the protestors have positive emotions towards their home and the neighborhood and on the other hand they have negative emotions towards the proposal which threatens these. It is often translated into a moral judgement, for example a disregard for humans by the government (ibid.).

(18)

18

Organizations can be held responsible for a solution even if they did not cause the problem. Governments are often blamed for all kinds of threat. They can be blamed for not preventing, predicting or fixing the problem. As Jasper states: “in many cases governments are implicated in the siting of new facilities, either directly, as in the case of public housing, or indirectly through the ability to regulate land use, and so are frequent targets of NIMBYs” (1997: 118-120). In this kind of situations, the government is often seen as a target of claims by non-state actors or a third party to these claims. Verhoeven and Broër (2015: 3) bring up that it is often overlooked that government players can also act as the initiators of those claims towards others. They might also seek to alter or readdress a problematic situation.

Many use the term social movement to describe all forms of struggle, however social movements are a specific form of contention with a limited range of claim-making performances (Tilly, 2008: 118). Tarrow defines social movements as “collective challenges by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities” (1994: 4). Social movements thus involve groups with a common goal who act together for a longer period of time in order to attain that goal. There appears to be some overlap with NIMBY responses, since they involve groups of people who act together with a common goal. This goal might entail not having an asylum seekers center, but it can also entail changes to that facility or a different way of organizing participation from citizens in decision-making processes. According to Tilly one needs to make a distinction between social movement bases and social movement as such. A social movement depends on a social movement base for connections among potential participants who share the claims they make. Those connections entail interpersonal networks, shared experiences, as well as formal organization (Tilly, 2008: 119).

Tilly also helps us identify social movements by looking at three elements, which could also be helpful to see if social movement theory is applicable to local resistance. The three elements of social movements entail campaigns, repertoires and WUNC displays (2008: 120). Campaigns include “sustained, coordinated series of episodes involving similar collective claims on similar or identical targets” (Tilly, 2008: 121). The main reason why people come together in movements is that they have common claims against opponents. They have common or overlapping interests (Tarrow, 1994: 4). Tilly also states that social movements are based on identity, standing and program. They thus involve claims for recognition of their existence as a group, claims for ratification of their standing as specific kinds of political actors and claims for the adoption or abolition of public programs (Tilly, 2008: 121).

(19)

19

It is interesting to see if people who resist against asylum seekers centers want to be recognized as a group and as a specific kind of political actor. A social movement is only created when there are feelings of identity and solidarity. A temporary riot can therefore not be seen as a movement. It is more an indication that a movement is in the process of forming. It is the sustaining of such collective action that makes social movements (Tarrow, 1994: 5-6). The emergence and sustainment of social movements is not a random process. “Repeated confrontations link particular social actors with antagonists through forms of collective action that become recurring routines” (Tarrow, 1994: 7). In order to increase our understanding of the development of the protests against asylum seekers centers, it thus vital to look at the confrontations between the municipality and the resistance.

Tilly also draws attention to what he calls the repertoire of social movements. This is not case specific in his analysis, but includes the usage of certain kinds of performances in order to make their claims (Tilly, 2008: 121). Contentious collective action lies behind every social movement, not because they are violent or extreme, but because it is often the only resource that people possess against powerful opponents. It creates social movements when people “concert their actions around claims in sustained sequences of interaction with opponents or authorities” (Tarrow, 1994: 2). There are many forms of collective action from voting to interest groups affiliation to bingo nights to football matches. These forms do not encompass the actions of social movements according to Tarrow. Movements mount challenges through disruptive direct action against elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes. Collective challenge is not the only kind of action that movements perform, they also for example provide incentives for members, lobby or negotiate (ibid. 4). The protests studied in this thesis include making leaflets, joining a demonstration and expressing opinions during a town meeting. These actions were all directed at the municipality. It is interesting to see how residents introduced collective action. According to Tilly participants improvise constantly, figuring out how to communicate their claims and trying to respond to other people’s reactions as they make their claims. They interact with other participants, bystanders, object of claims competitors and authorities. While improvising, they introduce minor changes into established actions. These innovations can disappear or stick. Radical innovations rarely occur (2006: 11-12). This would mean that protestors change their actions based on their expected successes. Looking at the choices residents made in performing can thus help us understand how the resistance developed.

(20)

20

Tilly also describes how social movements gain influence through their performances. This helps us to see if these performances are also seen in resistance against asylum seekers centers and if and how they contribute to their influence. In particular, Tilly suggests that their ability to demonstrate worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment, WUNC in his term, contribute to their influence (Tilly, 2008: 121). Worthiness entails being dignified and for example the presence of respected groups like clergy and elderly. Unity is expressed by signs of a common cause, like symbols, language or practices. Numbers entails the amount of people in the social movements and commitment is shown through participation and sacrifice. WUNC displays can be very flexible, because the features can be combined, they can compensate each other and if any other than the number feature falls under a certain level, the display loses its value all together. Therefore, the other features are more often under attack to undermine the social movement (ibid.: 120-122).

Social movements and revolutions have been very common since the 1960s in the political landscape, though not always welcome. Since then it has also been a common research topic in social sciences. These researches mainly focus on three aspects: the structures of political opportunities and constraints for a movement, the forms of organization for the movement and the collective processes of interpretation that mediate between opportunity and action (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald, 1996: 1-2).

Social movements theory helps us focus on the development of social movements. Political opportunities are seen as a necessary perquisite for the development of resistance (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald, 1996: 8-9; Jenkins & Klandermans, 1995: 4; Tarrow, 1994: 1). McAdam, McCarthy and Zald state that political movements and revolutions are set in motion by social changes that render the established political order more vulnerable or receptive to challenge. Changes in political structures can serve as such an opportunity, such as the relative openness or closure of the political system; the stability of elite alignments; the presence of elite allies or cleavages in the elite and the state’s capacity and willingness to repress resistance (1996: 10). When researching resistance against asylum seekers centers, it is thus of importance to identify how citizens experienced the political opportunities. Political structures can also continue to play a role in shaping the ongoing action of movements. The difference after the emergence of the movement is that the movement also has an impact on the structures. It has become a product of the interaction between the movement with its environment and not simply a reflection of something that is going on elsewhere (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald, 1996: 13; Jenkins & Klandermans, 1995: 4).

(21)

21

In other words, we also have to look at the second aspect: the organizational structure of the movement.

Social movements theory also urges us to look at the organization of a group. Organization is also seen as necessary is order to take action during these opportunities. Costs of organization were already mentioned earlier in this chapter. The larger and wider spread the group, the higher the costs of organization. The mobilization of resources is very important in this case. Research has also focused on various grassroots settings where people were already getting together and therefore it was easier to mobilize (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald: 1996: 3-4). According to McAdam, McCarthy and Zald, organization is not simply about the availability of mobilization structures (resources and networks) once collective action has occurred, but it is also about the creation of a more enduring organizational structure to sustain collective action. This usually entails the creation of formal social movement organizations (1996: 13).

This section, we have seen how social movements can emerge in a similar way as NIMBY protests and NIMBY protests can evolve into social movements. Important factors in the development of protest according to social movement theory is the experience of a moral shock. Other factors that can contribute is a change in the political structures, the idea that they can actually influence politics. Furthermore, the development of social movements depend on the organization of the group. Resources and networks are very important. Once there is an organization, they can also influence the political structures, for example through links with political actors.

Framing

A third aspect often discussed in social movement research and in the study of conflict is framing. According to McAdam, McCarthy and Zald shared frames are needed in order to bring together the moments of opportunity and the organization (1996: 8-9, 16-17). An opportunity needs to be defined as such by the organization in order for them to take action. Furthermore, framing processes can encourage the development of an organization by mobilizing others for a common goal. After the emergence of a social movements, framing processes can become much more shaped by conscious effort of the social movements as they try to determine to most compelling way to express their message to the public. Political opportunities, organizational structures and frames are thus interactive, rather than independent (ibid.).

(22)

22

Another reason for discussing framing is the fact the NIMBY can be seen as a type of frame. Van Gorp (2016) wrote on framing of protest by the government and the protestors. He describes a case in Aarsendonk. The government announced the opening of an asylum seekers center for 600 refugees. This announcement immediately provoked protest. He identifies several frames, one of which is NIMBY. He noticed how the government used the NIMBY frame to reduce local protest as just an expression of self-interest. Something that always happens when new facilities are built.

Framing helps us understand how residents perceive a situation and how their perception activates them to resist. According to Goffman, “frames enable individuals to locate, perceive, identify, and label occurrences within their life space and the world at large” (Goffman, 1974: 21). Frames thus help shape the understanding of a situation. Frames answer the question: “what is going on?”. Furthermore, as Hajer and Laws explain frames also affect which attributes and events will be noticed and which will not (Hajer & Laws, 2006: 254). People thus inevitably privilege some attributes of what is going on over others. This orders the process of cognition, explains new findings and helps make sense of the world. It also influences what is deemed as important (ibid.). In other words, once a frame is picked up and used, it exerts influence and becomes hard to change.

Movement actors play a central and active role in the production and maintenance of what is going on for constituents, antagonists, and bystanders or observers. They are engaged, together with the media, local governments and the state in so called ‘politics of signification’ (Benford & Snow, 2000: 613). Benford and Snow introduce collective action frames within social movements as “action-orientated sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization” (Benford & Snow, 2000: 614). Frames can signify situations as problematic or unjust and therefore allow actions that could solve these problematic situations. Benford and Snow describe three core tasks of framing. One core task of framing is to diagnose or to identify a problem and the sources of this problem. Another core task of framing is to set a prognosis. The prognosis is the design for the solution of the problem. The prognosis is often greatly influenced by the diagnosis. The diagnosis shapes the possibilities for prognosis by limiting which solutions can be initiated or even thought of. Another core task is motivational framing, the agency aspect. It provides a rational or motive for collective action (Benford & Snow, 2000: 615-617). According to Benford and Snow members of social movements often articulate a common frame by discussing the issues and happenings concerning their claims (2000: 623).

(23)

23

These are interesting aspects when studying the resistance against asylum seekers centers. In order to help us understand the development of protest, we should look at their diagnoses and how that points to a certain solution and actions that further that solution. In the study presented here, almost all residents framed the lack of consultation by the municipality as problematic and therefore the municipality decided on an unfit location. The residents mostly highlighted the government’s lack of consultation and not the process where they tried to involve citizens.

Benford and Snow also identify strategic processes (2000: 624). These strategic processes occur when the members of social movements develop frames that are deliberative and goal directed. They are developed and deployed to achieve a specific purpose like recruiting new members, mobilizing adherents or acquiring resources. These processes thus differ from the earlier discussed process of trying to figure out what is going on and how this is affecting us. With strategic processes, actors try to articulate frames that will have an influence. Benford and Snow identify several of these strategic processes (2000: 624-625). Frame bridging entails the linking of two or more ideologically compatible but until then unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem. Frame amplification is the idealization, embellishment, clarification, or invigoration of existing values or beliefs. Social movements can also extend what the frame entails by extending its interests and issues in order to include other interests and issues that are presumed to be important to potential members. Another possibility is the transformation of the frame, which entails a change of the old understandings and meanings or generating new ones (ibid.). These strategic processes help us see how frames are developed by protestors. It is interesting to see if these processes also occurred during protests against asylum seekers centers. Especially extending the protests interests and issues, since this was also mentioned in Gordon and Jaspers account on NIMBY groups extending their goals through rhetoric and linking with other organizations.

Movements are sometimes challenged in their particular way of framing. They cannot impose any vision of reality on their intended targets. Furthermore, activists often challenge a dominant frame. NIMBY is such a powerful frame, protestors often tried to challenge the NIMBY frame and offer an alternative. One challenge identified by Benford and Snow is framing by the movements’ opponents, bystanders or the media. These frames try to undermine or neutralize the group’s version of reality, which could lead to a framing contest (Benford & Snow, 2000: 625-627). Jasper (2015: 9-11) nicely describes this process.

(24)

24

He states that different players have different goals and interests and when players interact over a period of time, this difference can constrain what protestors can accomplish, besides political or economic structures. He also states that players can redefine themselves as a result of their interactions and conflicts (Jasper, 2015: 9-11). Other challenges described by Benford and Snow are dispute over frames within the movements or a frame can be challenged by events that contradict the version of reality made by the frame (2000: 625-627).

Framing helps us understand how residents perceive a situation and how their perception activates them to resist. They diagnose a problem and herewith a solution. These frames are difficult to change, as Hajer and Laws said it will privilege some attributes over others, and therefore frames get confirmed. Framing can also become a strategic tool for the activists, it can help them recruit members or acquire resources. These frames are often challenged by other groups. Protestors often challenge being framed as a NIMBY group.

Research question

This theoretical chapter has discussed a variety of sources of resistance and the patterns that develop this resistance. It has taken from NIMBY theory, social movement theory and framing. In this section, a summary of the theoretical chapter will be discussed, linking it to questions concerning the development of resistance against asylum seekers centers.

As discussed, NIMBY protests can be motivated by an unequal balance of costs and benefits and stimulated by low organizational costs. NIMBY can also be seen as selfish, underlined by a discrepancy between opinions in general and opinions concerning one’s neighborhood or as something that always comes up when a plan for a collective goods facility is presented. How do residents see the balance between costs and benefits? Is it a source for their resistance? Is there a discrepancy between their opinions concerning asylum seekers centers in general and on a local level? It is interesting to see if NIMBY features can be found in the resistance against asylum seekers centers.

(25)

25

According to Jasper (1997), people became protesters suddenly when they were shocked by something that could change their daily lives. This leads me to question how the local community first experienced the proposals for an asylum seekers center. Futrell (2003) focusses more on the social processes that lead up to resistance. Did protestors experience an information haze? Did residents experience a lack of trust for the municipality and did this develop during the decision-making process? Botetzagias and Karamichas (2009) stated that distrusting the government could underlay NIMBY protests. Hubbard (2005) tried to show how in Nottinghamshire opposition against an asylum seekers center was based on certain negative ideas about asylum seekers. Is this the case for protestors in the Netherlands as well? This leads me to question if there were longer-term problems in the municipality that underlie the protests and the plans of the asylum seekers center was merely a provocation. It could provide more insight into the importance of social processes leading up to the development of protest.

Gordon and Jasper (1996) provide a good account on how resistance tries to overcome their NIMBY label by taking a global rhetoric or linking themselves to other organizations. Shemtov (1999) discussed alteration of goals, by becoming more pro-active or looking out for other threats to the community. This leads me to question if the residents speak in global terms about asylum seekers centers. Did they link themselves to other organizations or other communities? What are the features that helped bridge to other communicates (or not)? Did they take ownership over the issue? It would be interesting to see if the resistance against asylum seekers centers is trying to overcome their NIMBY label.

This research might provide some insights on the potential overlapping of NIMBY and social movement characteristics. Social movements according to Tilly (2008) are made up out of campaigns, repertoire and WUNC displays. Are these elements also present in resistance asylum seekers centers? Could they be seen as a social movement? In what way was the legitimacy and force of local claims developed and performed? Social movement theory also identifies aspects of the development of social movements. In particular, political opportunities and organization are vital. Were there political opportunities for the resistance against asylum seekers centers? Did they identify these moments and act on them? How is the resistance organized? What are the features that held local resistance together? How do they recruit members and resources? This research therefore helps provide insights in usability of social movement theory on a local level.

(26)

26

The last section concerned framing, which helps us understand how residents perceive a situation and how their perception activates them to resist. They diagnose a problem and herewith a solution. How did they frame what was going on and what is the solution that sparked from their diagnosis? In what way was NIMBY invoked and in what way did local framing develop and challenge the framing of NIMBY? Moreover, Benford and Snow (2000) make a distinction between strategic and discursive processes of framing, where strategic processes are done more consciously than discursive processes. I wonder how much of the development of the resistance is done consciously. This research could provide insights.

This chapter has offered several sources for resistance and different ways of looking at the patterns of development of resistance. In order to get a better understanding of the resistance against asylum seekers centers in the Netherlands, I therefore ask the question:

What are the sources of resistance against asylum seeker centers in Ede and how did this resistance develop?

(27)

27

Chapter 3: Research design

In this chapter I summarize the research design for this thesis and comment on its execution. In order to answer the research question ‘What are the sources of resistance against asylum seeker centers in Ede and how did this resistance develop?’ I need a design which allows me to analyze how a set of factors interact in a complex pattern. A case study provides a way to do so as “the basic of a case study entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case” (Bryman, 2008: 52). Case studies are known for their idiographic approach: they are concerned with the unique features of the case, which allows for thick and rich data (ibid. 54). Thick and rich data allow me to go through the details of the development of resistance. I will look at how individuals and groups reason about their situation and act on the insights they achieve in the context of a single case. Therefore, I will focus on one municipality that has a plan to accommodate an asylum seekers center.

In order to address my research question resistance was a necessary perquisite for my case. As a case I chose the municipality of Ede, where two dead pigs were dropped near the presumed location De Goudsberg for an asylum seekers center (Volkskrant, 2016b). This can be seen as a sign of active resistance. Other resistance included a demonstration and the threatening of several alderman and a civil servant (ANP, 2016a; De Gelderlander, 2016p). The municipality has tried to involve citizens by asking them to provide possible locations, which is interesting considering the importance of consultation of residents as stated in the theoretical framework (Website Ede, 2016).

Interestingly, the municipality is planning on spreading the asylum seekers center over several locations. Multiple possible locations also allow me to compare different locations within the municipality, which gives this design a comparative element. This will allow me to see if there are different pathways to a similar outcome, which help with the construction of theory (Ragin, 1997).It would be interesting to see if there are similarities and differences in the resistance and its development and if they can confirm or reject developed theories. How do they experience the balance between costs and benefits? Is lack of consultation a problem in all locations? Are the residents from different locations linked? Do they have similar repertoires? Do they frame the problems in a similar way? These questions can help identify similarities and differences between the different locations. These locations are De Braamhorst and De Klinkenberg in Ede, De Lindenhof in Otterlo and De Goudsberg in Lunteren.

(28)

28

Methods

In this section I will describe the methods. These methods include a reconstruction of the sequence of events through the media. I also employed observations and interviews, which focus on the words people use and the way they express resistance. They give insights into what motivates the resistance and the way that they act on these motivations. The use of different kinds of sources of information allows me to fuller explore the complexity of participants’ arguments (Cowan, 2003: 381). Furthermore, it is not a distanced way of analyzing protest by deducting from theory, but there is room for empirical understanding of what is going on and doing justice to the reality of the participants (Duyvendak & Fillieule, 2015). This is important because I am interested in how people perceive and frame what is going on and how it shaped their resistance to asylum seekers centers. I will not conduct a formal frame analysis, in the sense that I identify different frames. I try to identify their common frame.

I started with a content analysis of national and local media outlets, in order to reconstruct the key events and to draw up a timeline of moment interactions. This helps to put the resistance into context and gives an overview of what happened. I adopted a time frame of two years as feasible and sufficient. The plans for refugee centers started coming up in Ede around November 2014 and have continued to the present. I did not focus only on episodes of protest, but also gave attention to moments when the local government made decisions about the proposed asylum seekers centers, for example. For the media analysis I used the Lexis Nexis database, which includes national as well as local newspapers. The terms I used were asylum seeker, refugee, AZC, emergency shelter, COA or crisis shelter1. When I looked for these words in the whole text of the article, there were 1556 hits, which made it non-manageable to analyze every article, also because there were a lot of articles that were not really about asylum seekers centers. I therefore chose to only look for these words in the headline and the lead, which led to a sample of 451 articles. There were 66 articles in the national newspapers, with the most articles in Reformatorisch Dagblad (17), Nederlands Dagblad (15) and Trouw (11). There were 310 articles in local newspapers with the most articles in De Gelderlander (159), Dé Weekkrant (86) and the several regional Algemeen Dagbladen.

(29)

29

It is also important to understand people’s perspectives or frames of what happened. Observation is another method I chose to pursue. It allows observing behavior directly, without research instruments where respondents can report inaccurately about their behavior, like surveys (Bryman, 2008: 254). I conducted what is called simple or contrived observation. The observer then has no influence over the situation observed. Gaining access for observation can be difficult, since people often do not want intrusion in their lives (ibid.: 407). However, there were three inspraakavonden or town meetings where inhabitants could discuss the possibility of an asylum seekers center in their neighborhood, which were recorded by the municipality. It allowed me access to observe their arguments in which they express their concerns and anger, which is vital when trying to understand the sources and development of the resistance. My observations were unstructured as the aim was to record as many details as possible about the behavior of participants with the aim of developing a narrative account (Bryman, 2008: 257). After collecting the data, I compiled similar concerns and arguments and tried to develop a narrative.

There were three different town meetings with a total of fifty-one participants. The first one was a town meeting on 18 November 2015 in Otterlo, a small village in the municipality. After the announcement that an asylum seekers center would be located in Otterlo many citizens resisted. Subsequently, the municipality organized a town meeting to discuss the concerns and objections of residents. Seven citizens of Otterlo had time to talk about their vision on the issue. A second meeting was organized on 7 December 2015 in Ede. After the decision to not have the asylum seekers center in Otterlo, the municipality designed a new plan. Subsequently a town meeting was organized, where six respondents express their opinions about an asylum seekers center in the municipality. The respondents are mostly from Otterlo. The last meeting was organized on the 6th of April in Ede. The meeting was held because of the proposal for three locations for asylum seekers centers. Thirty-nine citizens were invited to express their objections, anxieties or ideas. It was also announced that the decision would be made by the Council on the 16th_{of April.}

The observations were supplemented with interviews that were conducted with individuals involved in the resistance. In these interviews I took a narrative approach to elicit the kind of detailed statements about personal experiences and underlying perspectives of the events (Forrester, 2006). I looked at how individuals reasoned about their situation and acted on their insights. The results are a thick description of particular experiences as defined by the participants themselves that are needed to analyze patterns of resistance.

(30)

30

In selecting respondents I began with the town meetings. I approached individuals who participated and asked if they were open for an interview. This is called convenience sampling, which “is one that is simply available to the researcher by virtue of its accessibility” (Bryman, 2008: 183). I cannot be certain if they represent all residents of Ede who were against the asylum seekers centers, but I can be certain that they can speak about what motivated them. Moreover, it did provide me with a great opportunity to come into contact with people from the resistance. I used the initial interviews as a starting point and asked the respondents if they knew other people I could talk to, also known as snowball sampling (ibid. 184). In total I collected ten interviews between the 12th of April and the 13th of May. Six interviewees live in Lunteren near De Goudsberg and four live in Ede near De Braamhorst. One interview was done with another student and one she collected herself, which helped me make sure that I was not simply affirming my own thoughts about their involvement in the resistance. The interviews lasted 45 minutes to two hours. Due to time constrictions of a few respondents, one was done by telephone and two were done by e-mail, which made it more difficult to probe and have follow-up questions.

Based on the literature as described in the theoretical chapter I designed several topics/questions2 to structure the interviews, even though I did not want to prime the interviewees and give them an opportunity to tell their stories. The questions were designed to focus attention on the details of experience and to elicit a concrete story. For example, an opening question that worked was: When and how did you hear of the possibility of an asylum seekers center in your neighborhood for the first time? Another question that helped steer the respondents to the kind of concrete details I wanted was: When and why did you decide to take action against the possibility of an asylum seekers center in your neighborhood?

2_{Translated from Dutch:}

Wanneer en hoe hoorde u voor het eerst over de mogelijke komst van een AZC?

Wanneer en waarom heeft u voor het eerst actie ondernomen tegen de komst van een AZC? Heeft u ook contact met andere tegenstanders?

Hoe kijkt u terug op het besluitvormingsproces?

Zijn er nog andere dingen die niet in bod zijn gekomen die wel belangrijk zijn om uw perspectief te begrijpen?

Branding a protest : NIMBY or noble? : a detailed study of the sources and development of resistance against an asylum seekers center in Ede