IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v8y2019i7p110-d246819.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legitimacy Dilemmas in Direct Government Intervention: The Case of Public Land Development, an Example from the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Woestenburg

    (Department of Spatial Planning, Institute of Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Erwin van der Krabben

    (Department of Spatial Planning, Institute of Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Tejo Spit

    (Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The current paper examines the legitimacy dilemmas that rise from local governments’ direct policy instruments and market interventions. It takes the case of public land management strategies. The paper argues that current societal challenges—such as energy transition, climate change and inclusive urban innovation—require planning practices to be more effective. Direct government instruments such as direct market interventions have proven to significantly reduce the implementation gap of planning practice. Looking at significant urban challenges, municipalities worldwide could be urged to apply such direct government instruments on a larger scale in the future. However, although direct government intervention in markets can be very effective, it is also controversial in terms of legitimacy. It explicitly and inevitably introduces financial incentives to the organization of government. Balancing these incentives against spatial planning interests unavoidably causes dilemmas. Based on eight Dutch case studies, this paper develops a framework to systematically spell out the legitimacy dilemmas that stem from public market intervention. It facilitates an explicit discussion on varying instrumental rationalities and improving the legitimacy of public action.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Woestenburg & Erwin van der Krabben & Tejo Spit, 2019. "Legitimacy Dilemmas in Direct Government Intervention: The Case of Public Land Development, an Example from the Netherlands," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:7:p:110-:d:246819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/7/110/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/7/110/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Kornai & E. Maskin & G. Roland, 2004. "Understanding the Soft Budget Constraint," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 11.
    2. Sabatier, Paul A., 1986. "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 21-48, January.
    3. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    4. Heather Campbell & John Henneberry, 2005. "Planning obligations, the market orientation of planning and planning professionalism," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 37-59, September.
    5. Vitnarae Kang & Willem K. Korthals Altes, 2015. "Flexibility and Public Accountability in Public Land Development Projects in Progress," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(8), pages 1609-1626, August.
    6. Vincent-Jones, Peter, 2006. "The New Public Contracting: Regulation, Responsiveness, Relationality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199291274.
    7. Paul Cheshire & Stephen Sheppard, 2005. "The Introduction of Price Signals into Land Use Planning Decision-making: A Proposal," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(4), pages 647-663, April.
    8. Jochen Monstadt, 2007. "Urban Governance and the Transition of Energy Systems: Institutional Change and Shifting Energy and Climate Policies in Berlin," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 326-343, June.
    9. David Adams & Alan Disberry & Norman Hutchison & Thomas Munjoma, 2001. "Ownership Constraints to Brownfield Redevelopment," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(3), pages 453-477, March.
    10. Paul Cheshire & Stephen Sheppard, 2005. "Introducing Price Signals into Land Use Planning Decision-making - a Proposal," ERSA conference papers ersa05p42, European Regional Science Association.
    11. Andre Sorensen, 2015. "Taking path dependence seriously: an historical institutionalist research agenda in planning history," Planning Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 17-38, January.
    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. Dunning, Richard J. & Moore, Tom & Watkins, Craig, 2021. "The use of public land for house building in England: Understanding the challenges and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    2. Křištofová, Kristýna & Lehnert, Michal & Martinát, Stanislav & Tokar, Vladimír & Opravil, Zdeněk, 2022. "Adaptation to climate change in the eastern regions of the Czech Republic: An analysis of the measures proposed by local governments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Singhapathirana, Priyanwada Indeewaree & Hui, Eddie Chi Man & Jayantha, Wadu Mesthrige, 2022. "Critical factors affecting the public land development: A systematic review and thematic synthesis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. Li, Dalei & Gao, Jianzhong, 2021. "Impact of Large-Scale Land Operation on the Development of Regional Public Brands of Agricultural Products," 2021 ASAE 10th International Conference (Virtual), January 11-13, Beijing, China 329397, Asian Society of Agricultural Economists (ASAE).
    5. Keren Chen, 2022. "Industrial Policy’s Effect on Cross-Border Mergers’ Decisions—Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-25, October.

    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. O’Brien, Philip & Lord, Alex & Dembski, Sebastian, 2020. "How do planners manage risk in alternative land development models? An institutional analysis of land development in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. Paul C. Cheshire & Gerard H. Dericks, 2020. "‘Trophy Architects’ and Design as Rent‐seeking: Quantifying Deadweight Losses in a Tightly Regulated Office Market," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 87(348), pages 1078-1104, October.
    3. Nicholas Crafts, 2013. "Returning to Growth: Policy Lessons from History," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 34(2), pages 255-282, June.
    4. Cai, Hongbin & Wang, Zhi & Zhang, Qinghua, 2017. "To build above the limit? Implementation of land use regulations in urban China," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 223-233.
    5. Cheshire, Paul, 2009. "Urban containment, housing affordability and price stability - irreconcilable goals," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59240, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Jean-David Gerber & Stéphane Nahrath & Thomas Hartmann, 2017. "The strategic use of time-limited property rights in land-use planning: Evidence from Switzerland," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(7), pages 1684-1703, July.
    7. Crafts, Nicholas, 2012. "Creating Competitive Advantage: Policy Lessons from History," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 91, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    8. M.G. Lloyd, 2008. "Towards a ‘Pooled Sovereignty‘ in Community Planning in Scotland?," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 23(1), pages 58-68, February.
    9. Paul C. Cheshire & Christian A. L. Hilber, 2008. "Office Space Supply Restrictions in Britain: The Political Economy of Market Revenge," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(529), pages 185-221, June.
    10. Ehrlich, Maximilian V. & Hilber, Christian A.L. & Schöni, Olivier, 2018. "Institutional settings and urban sprawl: Evidence from Europe," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 4-18.
    11. Gu, Yiquan & Lord, Alexander & Eika, Anders & Dethier, Perrine & Samsura, D. Ary A. & Nordahl, Berit Irene & Sommervoll, Dag Einar & van der Krabben, Erwin & Halleux, Jean-Marie, 2021. "Fair shares? Advancing land economics through cooperative game theory," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    12. ., 2014. "Planning for a housing crisis: or the alchemy by which we turn houses into gold," Chapters, in: Urban Economics and Urban Policy, chapter 4, pages 79-103, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Cheshire, Paul, 2009. "Urban land markets and policy failures," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 30837, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Geoffrey Meen, 2016. "Spatial housing economics: A survey," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(10), pages 1987-2003, August.
    15. Michael Ball & Phil Allmendinger & Cathy Hughes, 2008. "Housing Supply and Planning Delay in the South of England," Real Estate & Planning Working Papers rep-wp2008-04, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    16. Cheshire, Paul & Dericks, Gerard, 2014. "'Iconic design' as deadweight loss: rent acquisition by design in the constrained London office market," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58457, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Wu, Yuzhe & Shan, Jiaming & Choguill, Charles L., 2021. "Combining behavioral interventions with market forces in the implementation of land use planning in China: A theoretical framework embedded with nudge," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    18. J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2010. "Assessing the Relative Merits of Development Charges and Transferable Development Rights in an Uncertain World," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(4), pages 891-911, April.
    19. Li, L. & Bao, Helen X.H. & Robinson, Guy M., 2020. "The return of state control and its impact on land market efficiency in urban China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Paul Metzemakers & Erik Louw, 2005. "Land as production factor," ERSA conference papers ersa05p220, European Regional Science Association.

    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:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:7:p:110-:d:246819. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.