IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v36y2018i2p340-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Time to move on’ or ‘taking more time’? How disregarding multiple perspectives on time can increase policy-making conflict

Author

Listed:
  • EEA Wolf
  • Wouter Van Dooren

Abstract

This article argues that when different perspectives on time remain disregarded in a public policy debate, policy-making conflict can increase. We present an in-depth qualitative analysis of media articles from 2005, 2009, and 2014 in the debate surrounding the contested ‘Oosterweel connection,’ a multibillion-euro infrastructure project in Antwerp (Belgium). Although concerns of time management motivated arguments to speed up the policy-process, the insensitivity of policy-makers to multiple perspectives on time increased conflict. Firstly, while administrative actors reasoned mainly from a procedural time perspective and saw time as scarce, citizens reasoned mostly from an impact-based time perspective and saw time as abundant. A binary debate on policy-making tempo (high versus low) ensued. Secondly, political actors often reasoned from political perspectives on time. Their actions, which were intended to appease, did not end the binary debate and sometimes reinforced it. As the debate on the Oosterweel connection persisted, parties increasingly believed that not only were their infrastructure goals incompatible, but so too were their goals for time management. This increased conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • EEA Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2018. "‘Time to move on’ or ‘taking more time’? How disregarding multiple perspectives on time can increase policy-making conflict," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(2), pages 340-356, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:36:y:2018:i:2:p:340-356
    DOI: 10.1177/2399654417712243
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654417712243
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399654417712243?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    4. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    5. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    6. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2009. "Optimism and Misrepresentation in Early Project Development," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Terry M. Williams & Knut Samset & Kjell J. Sunnevåg (ed.), Making Essential Choices with Scant Information, chapter 8, pages 147-168, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Chantal C Cantarelli & Bent Flyvbjerg & Bert van Wee & Eric J E Molin, 2010. "Lock-in and its Influence on the Project Performance of Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Investigating the Way in Which Lock-in Can Emerge and Affect Cost Overruns," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(5), pages 792-807, October.
    8. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    9. Arkes, Hal R. & Blumer, Catherine, 1985. "The psychology of sunk cost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 124-140, February.
    10. Nanny Bressers & Mark Twist & Ernst Heuvelhof, 2013. "Exploring the temporal dimension in policy evaluation studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 23-37, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2013. "International Handbook on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14791.
    2. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "Mega-projects’ cost performance and lock-in: problems and solutions," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 15, pages 333-355, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Brünner, Tobias & Reiner, Jochen & Natter, Martin & Skiera, Bernd, 2019. "Prospect theory in a dynamic game: Theory and evidence from online pay-per-bid auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 215-234.
    4. Roberts, Cameron & Geels, Frank W., 2019. "Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 221-240.
    5. Flyvbjerg, Bent & Ansar, Atif & Budzier, Alexander & Buhl, Søren & Cantarelli, Chantal & Garbuio, Massimo & Glenting, Carsten & Holm, Mette Skamris & Lovallo, Dan & Lunn, Daniel & Molin, Eric & Rønnes, 2018. "Five things you should know about cost overrun," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 174-190.
    6. Steffi Heinecke, 2016. "The Gradual Transformation of the Polish Public Science System," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Lahtinen, Tuomas J., 2016. "Path dependence in Operational Research—How the modeling process can influence the results," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 14-20.
    8. Min, Shi & Wang, Xiaobing & Liu, Min & Huang, Jikun, 2018. "The asymmetric response of farmers to an expected change in the price of rubber: The roles of sunk costs and path dependency," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 585-594.
    9. Appel, F. & Balmann, A., 2018. "Predator or prey? - Effects of fast-growing farms on their neighborhood," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277358, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Jörg Freiling, 2015. "Getting off the Track to Found – The Influence of Path Dependence on the Entrepreneurial Process (Zbaczajac z drogi ku zalozeniu przedsiebiorstwa – wplyw zaleznosci od szlaku na proces przedsiebiorczy," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 13(56), pages 13-37.
    11. McMullen, Jeffery S. & Kier, Alexander S., 2016. "Trapped by the entrepreneurial mindset: Opportunity seeking and escalation of commitment in the Mount Everest disaster," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 663-686.
    12. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    13. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    14. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    15. Andrea Morone & Simone Nuzzo & Rocco Caferra, 2019. "The Dollar Auction Game: A Laboratory Comparison Between Individuals and Groups," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 79-98, February.
    16. T. K. Das & Bing-Sheng Teng, 1998. "Time and Entrepreneurial Risk Behavior," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 22(2), pages 69-88, January.
    17. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Claude Montmarquette, 1996. "Cognition In Seemingly Riskless Choices And Judgments," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(2), pages 167-185, May.
    18. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    19. Alexander Budzier & Bent Flyvbjerg & Andi Garavaglia & Andreas Leed, 2019. "Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis of Nuclear Waste Storage," Papers 1901.11123, arXiv.org.
    20. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.

    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:sae:envirc:v:36:y:2018:i:2:p:340-356. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.