IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v42y2023i2p148-163..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The development of large public infrastructure projects: integrating policy and project studies models

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre-André Hudon
  • Serghei Floricel

Abstract

Project management theory often reduces development to a simplistic and smooth process of consultation leading to a consensual set of requirements. However, in large public infrastructure projects, this is rarely the case as development is often subject to major power struggles. This article shows that public policy theory has an excellent potential to shed a fresh light on project development. An integrated model combining the theoretical insights from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and project development studies is presented and illustrated using the case of a major Canadian city streetcar network megaproject. The implications of the model for understanding “wicked problems” are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre-André Hudon & Serghei Floricel, 2023. "The development of large public infrastructure projects: integrating policy and project studies models," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(2), pages 148-163.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:2:p:148-163.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puad004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam M. Brewer, 2019. "A Bridge in Flux: Narratives and the Policy Process in the Pacific Northwest," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 36(4), pages 497-522, July.
    2. Giovanni Esposito & Andrea Terlizzi & Nathalie Crutzen, 2022. "Policy narratives and megaprojects: the case of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 55-79, January.
    3. Eva Boxenbaum & Candace Jones & Renate E. Meyer & Silviya Svejenova, 2018. "Towards an articulation of the material and visual turn in organization studies," Post-Print hal-01802981, HAL.
    4. Stéphanie Missonier & Sabrina Loufrani-Fedida, 2014. "Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects: from stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology," Post-Print halshs-01057834, HAL.
    5. Aaltonen, Kirsi & Kujala, Jaakko, 2010. "A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 381-397, December.
    6. Kelly Levin & Benjamin Cashore & Steven Bernstein & Graeme Auld, 2012. "Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(2), pages 123-152, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giovanni Esposito & Andrea Terlizzi, 2023. "Governing wickedness in megaprojects: discursive and institutional perspectives," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(2), pages 131-147.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanni Esposito & Andrea Terlizzi, 2023. "Governing wickedness in megaprojects: discursive and institutional perspectives," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(2), pages 131-147.
    2. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    3. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.
    4. Hannah Charlotte Joos, 2019. "Influences on managerial perceptions of stakeholder salience: two decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 3-37, February.
    5. Vincent Wretling & Berit Balfors, 2021. "Building Institutional Capacity to Plan for Climate Neutrality: The Role of Local Co-Operation and Inter-Municipal Networks at the Regional Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    6. Hamish van der Ven & Yixian Sun, 2021. "Varieties of Crises: Comparing the Politics of COVID-19 and Climate Change," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 13-22, Winter.
    7. Kolloch, Michael & Dellermann, Dominik, 2018. "Digital innovation in the energy industry: The impact of controversies on the evolution of innovation ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 254-264.
    8. Sandra Waddock, 2019. "Shaping the Shift: Shamanic Leadership, Memes, and Transformation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 931-939, April.
    9. Carol Hager & Nicole Hamagami, 2020. "Local Renewable Energy Initiatives in Germany and Japan in a Changing National Policy Environment," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 386-411, May.
    10. Jukka Majava & Ville Isoherranen & Pekka Kess, 2013. "Business Collaboration Concepts and Implications for Companies," International Journal of Synergy and Research, ToKnowPress, vol. 2(1), pages 23-40.
    11. Debra Javeline & Tracy Kijewski-Correa & Angela Chesler, 2019. "Does it matter if you “believe” in climate change? Not for coastal home vulnerability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 511-532, August.
    12. Mirjam Braßler & Martin Schultze, 2021. "Students’ Innovation in Education for Sustainable Development—A Longitudinal Study on Interdisciplinary vs. Monodisciplinary Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Yoon‐Hee Ha & John Byrne, 2019. "The rise and fall of green growth: Korea's energy sector experiment and its lessons for sustainable energy policy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(4), July.
    14. Frank Hanssen & Roel May & Jiska van Dijk & Jan Ketil Rød, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool Suite for Consensus-Based Siting of Renewable Energy Structures," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    15. John C. Boik, 2016. "Optimality of Social Choice Systems: Complexity, Wisdom, and Wellbeing Centrality," Working Paper 0005, Principled Societies Project, revised Mar 2017.
    16. Ana Luiza Fontenelle & Erik Nilsson & Ieda Geriberto Hidalgo & Cintia B. Uvo & Drielli Peyerl, 2022. "Temporal Understanding of the Water–Energy Nexus: A Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, April.
    17. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    18. Wim Lambrechts & Andrew Mitchell & Mark Lemon & Muhammad Usman Mazhar & Ward Ooms & Rikkert van Heerde, 2021. "The Transition of Dutch Social Housing Corporations to Sustainable Business Models for New Buildings and Retrofits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, January.
    19. Giovanni Esposito & Andrea Felicetti & Andrea Terlizzi, 2023. "Participatory governance in megaprojects: the Lyon–Turin high-speed railway among structure, agency, and democratic participation," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(2), pages 259-273.
    20. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:2:p:148-163.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.