IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v20y2001i3p391-414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recasting Intractable Policy Issues: The Wider Implications of The Netherlands Civil Aviation Controversy

Author

Listed:
  • Michel J.G. van Eeten

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The explosive growth of civil aviation is among the most difficult issues in transportation policy, and nowhere are the fundamental economic and environmental challenges it poses more apparent than in airport expansion. Conventional policy analyses have ineffectively handled these problems, characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and polarization. Increasingly, policy analysts and public managers depend on stakeholder involvement to recast intractable issues into a more tractable format. This article describes a method that supports this recasting process through analysis of stakeholders' policy arguments; and in so doing contributes to the increasing literature on recasting intractable policy issues and to the recent discussion of Q-methodology in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management . The method is applied in a policy analysis of the controversy over the expansion of Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport. The analysis, which was under-taken on behalf of the Dutch government and which has wider implications, leads to a new agenda for transportation policy by uncovering and addressing a fuller range of alternatives that move beyond the current polarization and allow the problem to be redefined more tractably. © 2001 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Suggested Citation

  • Michel J.G. van Eeten, 2001. "Recasting Intractable Policy Issues: The Wider Implications of The Netherlands Civil Aviation Controversy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 391-414.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:20:y:2001:i:3:p:391-414
    DOI: 10.1002/pam.1000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/pam.1000
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pam.1000?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. Dan Durning, 1999. "The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 389-410.
    2. Dan Durning, 1993. "Participatory policy analysis in a social service agency: A case study," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 297-322.
    3. Dryzek, John S. & Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1993. "Reconstructive Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 48-60, March.
    4. William N. Dunn, 1988. "Methods Of The Second Type: Coping With The Wilderness Of Conventional Policy Analysis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 720-737, 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. Hermans, Leon M. & Thissen, Wil A.H., 2009. "Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(2), pages 808-818, July.
    2. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.

    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. Astari, Annisa Joviani & Lovett, Jon C., 2019. "Does the rise of transnational governance ‘hollow-out’ the state? Discourse analysis of the mandatory Indonesian sustainable palm oil policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-12.
    2. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    3. Maarten Wolsink, 2004. "Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(13), pages 2669-2690, December.
    4. Geurts, Jac. L. A. & Joldersma, Cisca, 2001. "Methodology for participatory policy analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 300-310, January.
    5. Ya Li, 2015. "Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(1), pages 25-50, March.
    6. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    7. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Matthew Auer, 2006. "Contexts, multiple methods, and values in the study of common-pool resources," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(1), pages 215-227.
    9. Dan Durning, 1993. "Participatory policy analysis in a social service agency: A case study," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 297-322.
    10. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    11. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    12. Gilbert Silvius & Aydan Ismayilova & Vicente Sales-Vivó & Micol Costi, 2021. "Exploring Barriers for Circularity in the EU Furniture Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-25, October.
    13. Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
    14. Peter Deleon & Toddi A. Steelman, 2001. "Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the policy sciences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 163-171.
    15. Priya Kurian & Debashish Munshi & Lyn Kathlene & Jeanette Wright, 2016. "Sustainable citizenship as a methodology for engagement: navigating environmental, economic, and technological rationalities," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(3), pages 617-630, September.
    16. Carol L. McWilliam, 1997. "Using a Participatory Research Process to Make a Difference in Policy on Aging," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 23(s1), pages 70-89, Spring.
    17. Susan Owens & Tim Rayner & Olivia Bina, 2004. "New Agendas for Appraisal: Reflections on Theory, Practice, and Research," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(11), pages 1943-1959, November.
    18. Armatas, Christopher A. & Borrie, William T., 2025. "A pragmatist ecological economics - Normative foundations and a framework for actionable knowledge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    19. Joldersma, Cisca & Roelofs, Ellie, 2004. "The impact of soft OR-methods on problem structuring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 696-708, February.
    20. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:20:y:2001:i:3:p:391-414. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.