Building legitimacy for risky policies: The cost of avoiding conflict in Stockholm
AbstractThe controversial nature of urban congestion charging policies makes them politically risky. Urban planners, policy makers and politicians are forced to consider how they can legitimately introduce a policy that the public may not want. Implementation in London, and failure in Edinburgh, raise questions about whether they should seek full citizen support, or work strategically towards implementation in the face of public opposition. This paper reports on an investigation of the Stockholm congestion charging trial (SCCT). It analyses the strategy developed by the city authorities to create legitimacy for the implementation of the SCCT. The SCCT is examined in two steps, firstly how the 'trialÂ +Â referendum' approach was successful in securing public acceptance, and secondly how key aspects of the design of the trial and the subsequent referendum were adjusted in response to emerging risks, demonstrating the pragmatic approach of the city leaders managing the policy process. The study suggests that the city leaders chose a clearly pragmatic approach, grounded in compromise, yet subtly designed to avoid openly confronting the status quo. The strategy was continuously adapted and adjusted, in the face of emerging risks, and clearly served to create consensus while avoiding difficult questions of urban mobility.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
Volume (Year): 43 (2009)
Issue (Month): 3 (March)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ingemar Ahlstrand, 2001. "The Politics and Economics of Transport Investment and Pricing in Stockholm," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 35(3), pages 473-489, September.
- McQuaid, Ronald & Grieco, Margaret, 2005. "Edinburgh and the politics of congestion charging: Negotiating road user charging with affected publics," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 475-476, September.
- Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges – five years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Working papers in Transport Economics 2012:3, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
- Sørensen, Claus Hedegaard & Isaksson, Karolina & Macmillen, James & Åkerman, Jonas & Kressler, Florian, 2014. "Strategies to manage barriers in policy formation and implementation of road pricing packages," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 40-52.
- Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
- Marsden, G. & Frick, K.T. & May, A.D. & Deakin, E., 2011. "How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in Northern Europe and North America," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 501-512, May.
- Eliasson, Jonas & Jonsson, Lina, 2011. "The unexpected "yes": Explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 636-647, August.
- Kallbekken, Steffen & Aasen, Marianne, 2010. "The demand for earmarking: Results from a focus group study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2183-2190, September.
- Cools, Mario & Brijs, Kris & Tormans, Hans & Moons, Elke & Janssens, Davy & Wets, Geert, 2011. "The socio-cognitive links between road pricing acceptability and changes in travel-behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 779-788, October.
- Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
- Hrelja, Robert & Isaksson, Karolina & Richardson, Tim, 2013. "Choosing conflict on the road to sustainable mobility: A risky strategy for breaking path dependency in urban policy making," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 195-205.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.