The Power to Frame the Scale? Analysing Scalar Politics over, in and of a Deliberative Governance Process

Abstract

Scale framing is a powerful mechanism in shaping the meaning of policy issues, with far-reaching consequences for governance processes in terms of responsibilities and inclusion or exclusion of actors and ideas. However scale framing has not received much attention in public administration and policy sciences. In this paper, we study scale framing in governance processes. We question how some actors ensure that their scale frames prevail, whereas other scale frames disappear. We analyse the interplay between scale framing and power dynamics in a debate about the future of Dutch intensive agriculture. We distinguish between the power dynamics: in the interaction, of the interaction and over the interaction. Our study shows that at first sight, the ‘power-over’ in this process appeared very strong and dominated the ‘power-in’ and the ‘power-of’, but in the end, surprisingly, the power-of appeared even stronger. Furthermore, we show that scale frames are powerful discursive devices in the different episodes (power-in), but the analysis of the process shows that the variety in (scale) frames largely disappears. Thus, although there are many good arguments in favour of organizing policy processes deliberatively, the process design in this case strengthened central government's power-over, rather than the other actors’ power-of.

Key Words:

• frame analysis
• power dynamics
• politics of scale
• governance
• policy process

Acknowledgements

This paper was written in the context of the IP/OP Scaling and Governance Research Programme, spearheaded by Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) as part of its mission to contribute to solutions for the most pressing global environmental problems. We would like to thank Margit van Wessel for collecting the data on the Stakeholder Dialogue. Two earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 7th and 8th Interpretive Policy Analysis Conference.

Notes

1 We are aware of the debates about the conceptualization of scale in human geography. Conceptualizations in this field vary from scale as level, scale as size, scale as nested hierarchy (Howitt, 2003), to scale as ‘the “vertical ordering” of social systems and relations within a hierarchical scaffolding of intertwined territorial units stretching from the global/worldwide, the supranational/triadic and the national downwards to the regional, metropolitan, the urban, local and the body' (Brenner, 2001, p. 547). Marston, Jones, and Woodward (2005, p. 416) have even suggested to ‘eliminate scale as a concept in human geography', since ‘there is no agreement on what is meant by the term or how it should be operationalized' and while ‘scholarly positions are divergent in the extreme'. However, we do think scale is an interesting concept to analyse complex policy issues. For the purpose of this paper, we need a very concrete conceptualization of scale. Therefore, we use Gibson et al.’s (2000) definition, which we adapted to the scales found in an earlier analysis of the same case (see Van Lieshout et al., 2011).

2 In relation to geographical context (place, space, time) more generally, scholars as Massey (1993) and Allen (2008) have discussed the relation between concepts as place, space, time and power. Massey for example explains a ‘power geometry’ (Massey, 1993, p. 61) exists in which different social groups or individuals have more power to move around and some groups/individuals are in the position to control the moving of others but also of for example the flow of communication. As Allen (2008, p. 1618) states this power is both entangled in the social construction of the geographical context and is spatially ambiguous in its outcomes. We take this latter statement as one of the starting points for our conceptualisation of power.

3 We recognise that there is a body of empirical work on the social construction of scale and the politics of scale in many different contexts (e.g. Allen and Cochrane, 2007; Cox, 1997; Deckla, 2003; Harrison, 2006; Herod, 1997; Kaiser & Nikiforova, 2008; Kurtz, 2003; Kythreotis & Jonas, 2012; Lebel et al., 2005; Leitner, 2004; McCann, 2003; McCarthy, 2005; Miller, 1997), but these studies remain implicit about the power dynamics in the interactions and the larger governance processes.

4 Since all working visits were organized for the same day, the first author was able to attend only one panel. As we wanted to make a detailed analysis of the whole process, we decided to focus on this panel.

5 We translated the quotes as literally as possible. Changes made by the authors for anonymity or clarifying reasons are between square brackets: […]. [ is the symbol used for people talking simultaneously.

6 In 2009, 4500 sows and 20,000 pigs/hogs.

7 In 2011, approximately 120,000 chicks.

8 Mega-stables consist of one very large building; mega-companies consist of several smaller animal housing units not necessarily at the same location.

9 Till 2012 NGE existed as norm for determining the economic dimensions of agricultural activities (www.lei.wur.nl/NL/statistieken/BSS+en+NGE/SO+en+NSO-typering/ accessed 6-8-2012).