IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa05p178.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The use and value of hierarchical governance and modeling in infrastructure network planning

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Immers

    ()

  • Mike Duijn

    ()

Abstract

This paper discusses the seemingly inespacable tension between two dominant approaches to governance that are implemented with regard to the planning, design and development of infrastructure networks, such as roads and railways. Roughly, these approaches can be framed in two styles of governance, the hierarchical and the consensual style (Smits, 1995). In today’s (western) societies, hierarchical approaches to governance seem to become more and more obsolete. This is especially the case with regard to ´problematic situations´ that have a large spatial and environmental impact. For example, the planning, design and development of infrastructure networks have such a widespread, trans-sectoral impact, that a top down approach is considered to be no longer viable. The impact of large scale projects (such as the Betuwelijn, the development of the Tweede Maasvlakte or the High Speed Train Network) spreads into spatial, environmental, financial, legal, economic (with regard to exploitation and maintenance) and social aspects of everyday life. As a consequence, it is more and more to be considered as ´a normal procedure´ to at least consult the stakeholders concerned. The almost inevitable involvement of large groups of stakeholders with different characteristics cannot be achieved with hierarchical approaches to governance. Top down is assumed to be inappropriate and thus, un-called for in these types of policy processes. Following this widely accepted assumption, consensual approaches are designed and implemented, under various appealing banners, such as co-production, open planning processes and participatory policy making. These appealing names lead to innovative forms of interaction and participation of stakeholders. Stakeholders are enticed to participate in design workshops, brainstorms, coffee table talks, internet based discussions and surveys and market consultations. Stakeholders are invited to information centres and travelling exhibitions. All these efforts are undertaken based on the assumption that (this time) ´government will really listen and make effective use of all ideas, concerns and energy´. The question arises how effective and efficient these participatory efforts have been thus far. Is a consensual style of governance a solution for the ever increasing complexity of the impact of large scale infrastructural projects? Or has the hierarchical style still have some value for this type of policy processes? And if so, what kind value is this? And in addition, can hierarchical and consensual styles of governance simultaneously be helpful in planning, design and development of infrastructural networks, and if so, how and to what extend? Or must they be considered to be ´natural enemies´ with regard to designing and implementing policy processes? In this paper these questions will be addressed by assessing a (virtual) case study, the further advancement of the road infrastructure network around the city of Rotterdam (also known as the Rotterdamse Ruit). Subsequently we will discuss the two dominant styles of governance, the hierarchical and consensual style. Second, we will describe the role and value of hierarchical (top down) and consensual (bottom up) approaches in planning, designing and development of (road) infrastructural networks and projects. Third, we will make an attempt to combine both approaches, into a hybrid, cross over like, approach that incorporates both hierarchical and consensual approaches in governance. And fourth, we will apply (test) our hybrid, cross over approach to our (virtual) case study, thus proposing an approach for future governance to support the further advancement of the (road) infrastructure network in and around Rotterdam.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Immers & Mike Duijn, 2005. "The use and value of hierarchical governance and modeling in infrastructure network planning," ERSA conference papers ersa05p178, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa05/papers/178.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. B. Curtis Eaton & Richard G. Lipsey, 1975. "The Principle of Minimum Differentiation Reconsidered: Some New Developments in the Theory of Spatial Competition," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 27-49.
    2. Alex Anas & Richard Arnott & Kenneth A. Small, 1998. "Urban Spatial Structure," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, pages 1426-1464.
    3. Raouf Boucekkine & David De La Croix & Omar Licandro, 2004. "MODELLING VINTAGE STRUCTURES WITH DDEs: PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATIONS," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 151-179.
    4. Masahisa Fujita & Paul Krugman & Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561476, January.
    5. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 297-308.
    6. Tjalling C. Koopmans & Martin J. Beckmann, 1955. "Assignment Problems and the Location of Economic Activities," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 4, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    7. Capozza, Dennis R & Van Order, Robert, 1978. "A Generalized Model of Spatial Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 896-908.
    8. Nicholas Economides & Jamie Howell & Sergio Meza, 2002. "Does it Pay to be First? Sequential Locational Choice and Foreclosure," Working Papers 02-19, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    9. d'Aspremont, C & Gabszewicz, Jean Jaskold & Thisse, J-F, 1979. "On Hotelling's "Stability in Competition"," Econometrica, Econometric Society, pages 1145-1150.
    10. Raouf Boucekkine & David De La Croix & Omar Licandro, 2004. "MODELLING VINTAGE STRUCTURES WITH DDEs: PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATIONS," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 151-179.
    11. Winfried Koeniger & Omar Licandro, "undated". "Substitutability and Competition in the Dixit-Stiglitz Model," Working Papers 2004-06, FEDEA.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gunther Maier). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.