Territorial changes and changing identities: how spatial identities are used in the up-scaling of local government in the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

This article analyses the use of local identities by local communities in two Dutch municipalities. This research was commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of the Interior to better understand the role of local identities in municipal amalgamations. This article develops a conceptual framework based on the distinction between a primary identity based on the widely recognised dominant characteristics of the local community, and a secondary identity based on how communities within a municipality have learned over time to deal with these different primary local identities. During an amalgamation, this secondary identity disappears with the old municipality. The disappearance of the protective shield of a secondary identity exposes the underlying primary local identities, and can bring local identities into the centre of the local political debate. They can become more ***inward-oriented and focus more on their historical roots and their differences with others; they ‘thicken’ into resistance identities. In other cases, the secondary identity of a municipality is too weak and indistinct to support the primary local identities. Municipal amalgamation can then help to promote a new more attractive secondary, ‘thin’ regional identity based on a selection of characteristics of established primary local identities.

Introduction

Local identities are commonly conceptualised as fixed objects and remnants from the past which hinder future-oriented policies. However, local identities are constantly being shaped and reshaped by different actors, which use local identity discourses not only to hinder, but also to promote local policies. This article analyses the backgrounds of this differential use of local identities and develops some conceptual tools to typify the diverse use of local identities in discourses. Both political and academic supporters and opponents of municipal amalgamation tend to have a very static and historical conceptualisation of local identity. Supporters regard amalgamation as only affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative structures, which leaves the old traditional cultural local identities untouched. Opponents frequently use the feared loss of local identity to resist amalgamation. They focus on the incompatibility of the different authentic local identities, which they fear will disappear in an anonymous amalgamated municipality. But local identities are not fixed facts. They are neither cultural relics outside political structures, nor form the essence of local communities. This article argues that local identities are formed in discourses and linked to political goals. The case studies of the role of local identity in two Dutch municipalities during the amalgamation process show that those who feel threatened by amalgamation tend to develop resistance identity discourses focussing on the differences with their neighbours. But in other situations, these neighbours are conceptualised as allies with similar identities. Identity discourses can thus focus on cooperation and the similarities between neighbours allied to protect different, but similar local identities, and can be used promote their shared interests to the outside world to stimulate local economic development. This dynamic view on the use of local identities contrasts with the recent political debate on municipal amalgamation in the Netherlands and the arguments for and against amalgamation in the academic literature. These are discussed in more detail below.

In the Netherlands, the rolling back of the welfare state induces small municipalities to amalgamate. The Dutch government formulated in 2012 far reaching plans to transfer many welfare arrangements from the central to the municipal level. Municipalities will become responsible for a complex set of welfare arrangements for the youth, chronically ill, elderly and unemployed, which will almost double the size of their budgets. The central government argues that most of the Dutch municipalities are too small to deal with these new tasks. To speed up the amalgamation process, they stated that municipalities would need at least 100,000 inhabitants to function properly, but that the municipalities were more or less free to choose with whom they would merge (BZK 2013).

This traditional top-down approach of imposed amalgamations met with stiff local resistance. Local administrators and politicians successfully persuaded most of the national political parties to oppose these plans. The Dutch central government was thus forced to focus on ‘voluntary’ amalgamations (BZK 2013; Beeckman and van der Bie 2005). Municipalities are not obliged to merge, but have to demonstrate that their organisation has the manpower and competencies that the Dutch central government regards as necessary to perform their new tasks. Initially this can be achieved through ‘voluntarily’ cooperation with other municipalities. Municipal cooperation is however seen as a transitory phase by the Dutch government. It expects that when municipalities know each other better and experience the benefits of a larger organisation, they will voluntarily merge.

The arguments used in the current Dutch political debate are very similar to the arguments for or against amalgamation discussed in the academic literature. The academic and political debates on the desirability of municipal amalgamation have traditionally focussed on the expected economies of scale. Most academics now agree that it is very difficult to realise these efficiency gains. The diseconomies of scale and the costs of the amalgamation process frequently outweigh the economies scale, especially when the amalgamation is forced upon the local administration and population (Drew, Kortt, and Dollery 2014). Administrative effectiveness has succeed economic efficiency to legitimate municipal amalgamations. The diminishing role of the central state in policies fields like welfare increases the workload for small municipalities. Larger municipalities have more, and more specialised personnel to effectively administer these growing and increasingly complex tasks. They generate economies of scope while they increase their strategic capacity. They can deliver more complex services and can easier face future challenges (Aulich, Sansom, and McKinlay 2014). Amalgamation can strengthen the municipal organisation and its external position towards other administrative levels, but can also weaken its internal position towards its own population. Many studies mention the growing distance between the administration and the population which results in a decline in political participation as for instance indicated by voter turnout. The incorporation of different local communities in an amalgamated municipality increases the diversity of interests and preferences. This destabilises the local political system, it undermines consensus formation and stimulates a form of municipal politics based on confrontations (Kjaer and Klemmensen 2015; De Ceuninck et al. 2010; Aulich, Sansom, and McKinlay 2014; Hanes 2015). The growing administrative effectiveness is thus at least partly offset by a decline in popular support and participation. This alienation of the local population is frequently linked to the importance of local identities. Many studies mention the feared loss of local identities as an obstacle hindering amalgamation (Baldersheim and Rose 2010; Mecking 2012; van Assche 2005; De Peuter, Pattyn, and Wayenberg 2011; Boudreau and Keil 2001; Tomàs 2012; Spicer 2012; Fortin and Bédard 2003; Lightbody 1999; Keil 2000, 2002; Hulst and van Montfort 2007; Alexander 2013; Rausch 2012; Hanes 2015; Aulich, Sansom, and McKinlay 2014). These studies primarily discuss this as the feared loss of local traditions and culture. However, the character of these local identities and how these are used during and after amalgamation is not studied. This article aims to fill this void.

Local identity

Much research on local identity focusses on the extent to which individuals identify themselves with the local level. This is mostly done by comparing local identification with the identification with other spatial levels (Kato 2011; Casey 2010; Jones and Desforges 2003; Antonsich 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Soguel & Siberstein 2015; Brown and Deem 2014; Moreno 2007). Through this focus on individual identity, they neglect studying the characteristics of local identities and their importance for local communities. This is the focus of this article. Identities are also measured in a different way. While identities are not part and parcel of everyday life, they are often created during an interview. Answers are often more determined by the questions, than by the identity of the interviewee (Fern 2001, 145). Local identities are however not constructed by isolated individuals, but are part of collective discourses. Local and other spatial identities are not spatial facts, but are social constructs. They are created and reproduced through discourses by stakeholders. They materialise in for example planning documents, newspaper reports or websites (Paasi 1991, 2002, 2010, 2012). ‘Collective identity is not “out there”, waiting to be discovered. What is “out there” is identity discourse on the part of political leaders, intellectuals and countless others, who engage in the process of constructing, negotiating, manipulating or affirming a response to the demand (…) for a collective image’ (McSweeny 1999, 77–78). Local identity is not tangible and fixed, but formed in identity discourses which are disputed, reinterpreted and transformed. As Paasi (2012, 3) puts it for regional identity: ‘Rather than as an empirical entity defined in terms of its inherent qualities or as the product of the identification of its inhabitants, regional identity is understood (…) as a social construct that is produced and reproduced in discourse. The discourses of regional identity are plural and contextual. They are generated through social practices and power relations both within regions and through the relationship between regions and the wider constituencies of which they are part’. Local identity discourses are always related to other competing or complementary discourses. Local identities are not fixed facts, but emerge out of the interaction with other identity discourses.

The way in which different collective identities are treated during mergers is important for the success of all mergers between organisations. Uncertainty and the feared loss of the identity of one’s old organisation can generate resistance to the merger, resulting in a lack of identification and involvement with the merged organisation (Burchhardt 2015; van Knippenberg et al. 2002). Uncertainty about the future of the new organisation can even strengthen the identification with the pre-merger organisation (Giessner 2011). Clear procedures can reduce these uncertainties (Gleibs, Mummendey, and Noack 2008). Having accepted procedures to deal with differences are important for the creation of legitimacy. Locally developed procedures can thus create an ‘open’ identity which is not based on differences, but on the specific way they deal with these differences (Luhmann 1983, 42).

The formulation of a transitional identity built on the legacy of the old organisational identities, but linked to the goals of the new organisation, can also give a sense of continuity and thus reduce uncertainties during the merger process. This can be the basis for the formation of a new identity for the new organisation (Drori, Wrzesniewski, and Ellis 2013; van Knippenberg et al. 2002; Roundy 2010). Drori et al. (2013) analyses this identity formation in merged organisations from the perspective of boundary negotiations. Boundaries are based on the different values and norms on which the operation of an organisation is based. These differences are conceptualised as boundaries between organisations which can hinder mergers. Uncertainty and perceived threats can strengthen the focus on these old boundaries. On the other hand, the creation of an identity for the new organisation can also blur these old boundaries and create a new organisational boundary (Drori, Wrzesniewski, and Ellis 2013).

Amalgamation is frequently seen as an external threat to well-established local identities. This can lead to the development of a resistance identity discourse bonding local inhabitants by focussing on the old municipal territory, its historic roots and its difference from others (Castells 2010; Zimmerbauer, Suutari, and Saartenoja 2012; Zimmerbauer and Paasi 2013). The focus in such local identity discourses shifts from the outside to the inside and from the future to the past. The character of local identity discourses thus ‘thickens’. Identity discourses are constructed by combining elements of traditional ‘thick’ and more novel ‘thin’ spatial identities. This distinction between thin and thick spatial identities is an ideal typical distinction. Identity discourses will always mix thin and thick identity elements into a more or less coherent identity discourse. Thick spatial identities are more backward looking and value the spatial community as a political goal in itself (Table 1). Thin spatial identities are more forward looking and focus more on elements related to economic growth. Thick identity elements are more based on static territories with a fixed meaning, while thin identity elements focus more on fluid networks and dialogue (Terlouw 2009; Delanty and Rumford 2005, 68–86; Bauman 2004, 13–46; Antonsich 2011; Sack 1997; Jones and MacLeod 2004).

Table 1. Aspects of spatial identity discourses.

ASPECT	Ranging from thick:	to thin:
Spatial form	Closed	Open
	Territorial	Network
Organisation	Institutionalised	Project
Participants	General population	Administrators and specific stakeholders
Purpose	Broad and many	Single
	Culture	Economy
Time	Defensive	Offensive
	Historical-oriented	Future-oriented
	Stable	Change
	Old	New
Scale focus	Local and National	Global

Source: Terlouw (2009).

To understand the changing use of local identities in the municipalities before and after amalgamation, we found it also useful to distinguish between what we labelled primary and secondary identities. First of all, there are the distinct and established local identities. These are the primary local identities which are relatively stable and well known by the local population. Second, there are different ways in which communities deal with these primary identities. Over time communities learn and institutionalise ways to deal with different local identities. Based on the different thicker local identities, they develop a thinner overarching secondary identity discourse. They develop informal procedures to – on the one hand – focus on the common goals linked to the shared elements in their different local identities, and – on other hand – to avoid confrontations linked to the most sensitive and important elements of the different local identities. Their specific way of dealing with different local identities becomes a kind of secondary local identity in a municipality. Local identity discourses focus not only on the primary local identities, but also on the secondary identity of how to deal with these primary identities in daily life and in municipal politics. While primary identities are more based on distinctiveness and differences, secondary identities are based on bridging these differences.

Methods

We studied in two Dutch municipalities the role and use of local identities during the up-scaling of local administrations (Figure 1). They are roughly of the same size, both experienced an amalgamation in the last decade, but they are currently not involved in an amalgamation process. The first municipality is more rural and the second is more urbanised. Goeree-Overflakkee is a rural island with 14 villages some 30 kilometres to the south of Rotterdam. After several failed attempts of the municipalities to cooperate on the island, the central government forced the municipalities on Goeree-Overflakkee to merge in 2013. This was met with strong opposition within the municipality of Goedereede based on the fear that their local identity would be threatened by an amalgamation. Katwijk, the other case study, is much more urbanised. It used to be part of a very strong regional cooperation which has weakened over the last decade. Katwijk was amalgamated in 2006 after a voluntary merger of three municipalities. The preservation of the different local identities was an important topic in this amalgamation process. These two municipalities were chosen in consultation with the Dutch Ministry of the Interior which commissioned this explorative research.

Figure 1. The studied municipalities in the Netherlands.

This research started by reconstructing the existing dominant identity discourses based on an analysis of policy documents, party manifesto’s, reports in local media and books about local history and daily life. This was done at different scale levels, ranging from the villages, the old pre-merger municipalities (which sometimes coincide), the amalgamated municipality, to the new regions in which they participate. The different identity discourses we thus identified were first tested and refined in open interviews with five key actors in each municipality. These were local politicians and leaders of local organisations which we had identified in the study of the local sources on identity. The different local identity discourses formed the basis of a topic list we used in the subsequent semi-structured interviews. In our introduction, we always mentioned that we selected these municipalities while they were recently formed and that the role of local identities was discussed during the amalgamation process. We gave our interviewees ample freedom to discuss the role of identity and other arguments for and against amalgamation during the semi-structured interviews, which on an average took more than an hour (see for the complete topic list: Terlouw and Hogenstijn 2015, 165–168).

Based on the analysis of the local sources and the interviews with local key actors, we identified and approached active members within the local communities. We interviewed 58 persons in the last months of 2014. The interviewer stayed during that period one week in both municipalities and conducted in addition 22 street interviews. We stopped contacting new informants when the information the interviews generated converged and no new themes or opinions were raised. The principal researcher was present during a quarter of the interviews and listened to all recorded interviews. These were transcribed in 587 pages. In a first analysis of the transcripts, we identified 189 relevant topics. These were further systemised and condensed into 29 topics (Terlouw and Hogenstijn 2015). The subsequent sections are based on the 6 topics which were related to the role of identity in the amalgamation process.

Katwijk

Katwijk took the lead in the common struggle of more than twenty years against urbanisation, which is the main threat hovering over the region. That threatened its identity, its small scale character, its identifiability. The flower and bulb growing industry, the commerce, the whole card house would collapse. There is here so much individuality and pride and so on, for which they started to fight more than twenty years ago (Interview with regional administrator).

The fear for urbanisation has dominated local politics in this region over the last decades. After decades of incremental urbanisation from the nearby booming Amsterdam airport region and the city of Leiden, the Dutch government planned in the 1990s a large new town of over 100,000 inhabitants in this area (Duineveld and van Assche 2011; Kloosterman 2001; De Vries and Evers 2008; VROM 2007). The local communities in this rural region vehemently opposed this planned large new town in their back yard. They were supported by their municipalities who already cooperated in a new region to achieve economies of scale and scope in the provision of some public services. The resistance to these plans created a regional coalition of different stakeholders, which resulted in 1996 in the Pact van Teylingen. This coalition successfully resisted the building of this large new town. Their success was partly based on a regional identity discourse which linked elements of their traditional rural regional identity with national policy discourses on landscape and heritage. This not only stressed the uniqueness of the landscape of the bulb fields in this region, but also emphasised the strong international competitive position of the flower and bulb growing agribusiness industry and its regional roots of hard work, clever innovations and cooperation (Beenakker 2008; Duineveld 2004; Kamphuis and Volkers 1995).

This use of a regional identity discourse which combined elements of an established thick rural identity with elements of a competitive thinner economic identity, cemented a strong coalition which successfully blocked the building of a large new town in this region. After this urbanisation threat was averted, the regional cooperation and the regional identity discourse transformed. In 2004 the cooperation network of the municipalities merged with the neighbouring HollandRijnland cooperation network which has a more diffuse identity discourse than the Bollenstreek. The municipalities of the Bollenstreek also cooperate in the Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek which now communicates a narrower thinner identity discourse, which is based more on their expanding agribusiness network and its links to the Dutch economy, than on the characteristics of the territory of the Bollenstreek (Terlouw and Van Gorp 2014; www.duinenbollenstreek.net; www.greenportduinenbollenstreek.nl; www.hollandrijnland.net).

After the plans on the construction of the large new town were shelved, a new urbanisation threat emerged which was smaller and more localised. The military airfield in the rural municipality of Valkenburg was to close in 2006 and the central government decided that it was to be redeveloped with a new housing estate for about 10,000 inhabitants. The neighbouring city of Leiden (122,000 inhabitants) wanted to annex Valkenburg to develop it as its new suburb. The inhabitants and administration of the rural municipality of Valkenburg (3,900 inhabitants) feared losing their local identity. Or as a local politician formulates it: ‘The threat came in those days from Leiden. Valkenburg feared losing control to Leiden. We must safeguard that Leiden does not builds its houses on the airfield. Than they will swallow us as well. That did not happen and I think they were haunted by the fear to become part of Leiden. That threat is naturally averted’. Valkenburg linked up with the old municipality of Katwijk (43,000 inhabitants) which also feared the urban expansion of Leiden. Through the amalgamation with Valkenburg and Rijnsburg (15,000 inhabitants) in 2006, they wanted to control this housing development.

The amalgamation into the new municipality of Katwijk (63,000 inhabitants) makes it big enough to resist further amalgamations. The vision document on the future of the new municipality of Katwijk reads like a declaration of independence from the different new regions in which it participates. They openly state that: ‘The amalgamation of Katwijk, Rijnsburg and Valkenburg into the unitary municipality Katwijk is a step towards independence’ (Gemeente Katwijk 2007, 13). Amalgamation made the new municipality of Katwijk a stronger player on a more level regional playing field. The administrators of Katwijk quite openly pursue a regional geopolitical strategy based on cooperating on different topics with different partners. They are afraid to cooperate too frequently with the same partners. They fear that this will result either in the formation of a strong regional organisation, which will threaten the independence of Katwijk and the identity of its local communities, or even lead to a further amalgamation. The administration and local politicians of Katwijk are not against regional cooperation, but only when it is directly beneficial to Katwijk and it should not be a goal in itself. ‘Katwijk is like a lone wolf in the greater whole. They of course participate out of necessity, but there is no identification or natural feeling of solidarity’ (Interview with inhabitant). None of our interviewees identified with their region or the new municipality. ‘Here in Katwijk you don’t identify with a region. No, you identify locally’ (Interview with inhabitant).

‘Own village first’

Our interviewees agree that the new municipality of Katwijk has no distinct identity.

If you talk with a Rijnsburger he will tell you that the village of Katwijk is the last place on earth he wants to live. That is the old rivalry between the communities of Katwijk and Rijnsburg. Valkenburg is still a village on its own, really a close knit village community.

All these communities have a distinct local identity. For instance, entrepreneurs operating in the municipality of Katwijk contrast the characteristics of the cautious, inwardly oriented inhabitants of the old fishing village Katwijk aan Zee, with the inland village of Rijnsburg:

That is because they trade originally with Germany, but now of course with the entire world. That is why they are very outwardly oriented. And impertinent. Very direct. It is not like: “Sir, could you arrange this or that?”, but: “Darn it! What the heck is going on!” That’s how these folks talk!

This lack of a shared identity in the amalgamated municipality Katwijk is also the result of an explicit and widely accepted municipal policy to preserve existing local identities. The traditional differences in local identities are institutionalised through neighbourhood councils, which were explicitly established to protect the different local identities in the amalgamated municipality. In the opinion of a group of neighbourhood workers in Katwijk the members of the neighbourhood councils in the old municipalities Valkenburg and Rijnsburg are motivated by dissatisfaction over the perceived unequal distribution of investment and services in the new municipality.

They started out as action groups, as protest movements. In the beginning they were very activist. They were more action committees than neighbourhood councils advising the municipal administration. They wanted to show Katwijk that they cannot annex Valkenburg or Rijnsburg just like that. That is reflected by the swiftness in which they attracted council members, and still they attract new member easily in contrast to other neighbourhood councils.

When asked about recent changes they replied: ‘When you look at individual neighbourhood council members, in my opinion, many of them become member out of a general sense of discord or some specific dispute. We try to transform that hostility into positive energy’. Another community worker comments that: ‘Every neighbourhood council wages its own battles with the municipality’.

These neighbourhood councils are the most explicit and visible expression of the divisive municipal politics based on the equal distribution of municipal services and investments over the different local communities. This type of politics, which is characterised by an inhabitant as rooted in an ‘own village first’ mentality, permeates the new municipality. While the neighbourhood councils are active and articulate local interests to the municipality, there are many other institutions which strengthen the competition between local communities. There are very many active associations in Katwijk. All local communities have a very active social life compared to the rest of the Netherlands. This is mentioned by all our interviewees in Katwijk. But they also stress that although almost everybody participates in local associations, they are almost exclusively members of associations in their own village. For instance, the most active orange associations supporting the Dutch royal family are found in the municipality of Katwijk. But each local community has its own orange association organising huge local popular festivals at different dates and places. Each local community has also its own highly competitive amateur football club. Choral societies are also widespread, but are very locally organised and are also very competitive. The dominance of local identities and the concern for the equal distribution of public services and investments in the municipal politics is further entrenched by the functioning of the local political parties. Local communities do not have their own political party, but every political party is very aware of the importance of selecting candidates for the municipal council from each local community.

That is taken into account by the putting together of the list of candidates for the municipal elections. Certainly. We did not have until late an inhabitant of Valkenburg on the list. We searched high and low, looked in the smallest corners until we found one. That was an important consideration. The election result, you can verify it, in the voting districts, I think 90 to 95 % of the votes went to members of that local community (Interview with local politician).

Before the amalgamation, individual citizens could relatively easy articulate their interests and concerns directly to the municipal administrations. This was especially the case in the smaller municipalities, where inhabitants, local politicians and municipal officers were very familiar with each other and their specific interests. Local interests of citizens are now articulated in a more indirect and confrontational manner. For instance through their local representatives in the municipal council or through their neighbourhood council, aggrieved citizens can mobilise support from within their local community to force the municipality to address their interests. This strengthens the importance of local identities. Instead of informal individual contacts and cooperation, local politics is now more based on the confrontation between local communities which strengthens and thickens their distinct local identities. In the old municipalities, local identity helped to integrate local communities. In the new municipality, local identities are used in the confrontation between local communities. The perceived increased distance between the population and their administration after amalgamation is a phenomenon observed in many different countries (Hansen 2013; Mecking 2012; Ruggiero, Monfardini, and Mussari 2012; Baldersheim and Rose 2010). The development of a more antagonistic local municipal politics which focusses on the fair distribution of investments and services in the amalgamated municipality, appears to go hand in hand with the growing discontent of citizens. A local entrepreneur observes:

The distance between the municipal administration and the citizen increases. Especially in Valkenburg. There you could, so to speak, without an appointment, walk into the office of the alderman and mayor. It was very informal there. In Rijnsburg it was largely the same. That distance is now much bigger. Everything is now decided in the far away buildings of the amalgamated municipality and we have to endure it. Look, politics represents all places. Local interests are adequately represented in the municipal council. But less and less municipal officials are linked to the local communities. These have in a way no longer feelings for local issues and identities.

In Katwijk, the protection of local identities against external urban and regional threats dominated local politics before and after amalgamation. Only during a short period around the turn of the century, a new region, with an identity discourse using both traditional thick and forward-looking economic thin identity elements, was important for the protection of local identities and interests. Later, the amalgamation into a new municipality lessened the role of the more outward-looking overarching regional identity. Instead, the local identities were strengthened and became part of an envy based inward-looking municipal politics. In Goeree-Overflakkee, our other case study, the role of local and regional identity was very different.

Goeree-Overflakkee

After several unsuccessful attempts to strengthen the cooperation between the four municipalities on the island of Goeree-Overflakkee, the Dutch central government decided that an amalgamation was necessary to create an effective local administration. This met with stiff resistance of the administration and population in the municipality of Goedereede. In May 2009, 89% of those polled were opposed to amalgamation. But despite the hostility of the local population, the municipal council and the local administration, the Dutch government pressed ahead with the amalgamation and created on 1 January 2013 the new municipality of Goeree-Overflakkee. A few months after the amalgamation, the vast majority of the population still opposed it. Especially the elderly were against it. The supporters of amalgamation were predominantly younger and not born in the municipality Goedereede. An analysis of the reasons why people opposed amalgamation clearly showed that the feared loss of local identity was the dominant motive (Jeekel et al. 2013, 30–56).

Before the amalgamation in 2013 the opponents of amalgamation developed an identity discourse based on the perceived necessity to protect the local identities against new developments outside the control of the local communities of Ouddorp and Goedereede. This discourse reinterpreted and ‘thickened’ the character of the local identity into a resistance identity. It became more inward-oriented, focussed more on historical roots and the differences with the other local identities on the island. This resistance identity discourse focussing on the uniqueness of Goeree was clearly present in the documents we studied before our interviews.

We therefore confronted our interviewees with a picture of one of the placards used by the opponents of amalgamation. This promoted the re-flooding of a polder in order to re-establish the old historical situation before 1751 when Goedereede was a separate island. Almost all our interviewees reacted with embarrassment to this protest placard. ‘I think this is just very emotional, against their better judgement. And really when I now look at it I am ashamed of such emotional utterances’ (Interview with resident of Ouddorp). This passionate and public opposition is now regarded as inappropriate and at odds with the local identity, which values dealing respectfully with each other’s opinions and beliefs.

The resistance here was very strong. But there is also an attitude of going for it. Now we are one and we must bury the hatchet and forget it … it is how things are, yes we are now one. And yes, that has something to do with identity. When the amalgamation was there, everyone wanted a share in the spoils and tries to make the best of it. I appreciate that, and it makes us special. (Interview with manager in tourist sector)

Even the leading opponents of the amalgamation we interviewed were now more or less ashamed of the emotional resistance they had organised. Contrary to the documents they produced only a few years ago to oppose amalgamation, they now tend to deny or at least play down the role that local identity played in the protests. A local politician and former opponent of amalgamation from Ouddorp told us:

People here were against amalgamation. In a poll at the time 90% was against, but now the amalgamation is completed, they are also law abiding. That typifies the local identity. People loyally contribute to the formation of the new municipality. It is no use to look backwards, like it was. We never get that back. Then better make the best of it and exploit the new possibilities.

This and other organisers of the resistance against the amalgamation are now remarkably active in political bodies within the new municipality and in initiatives supporting the development of the island as a whole. After the disappearance of their municipality Goedereede, they use now instead the new municipality of Goeree-Overflakkee to promote their local interests. They don’t like to look back in anger, but want to look forward in the expectation that the new municipality will be instrumental in the promotion of a new attractive island identity, which will also support their local interests and identity. The formation of the new municipality created a new positive and forward-looking dynamic, which is incompatible with the negative emotions expressed before the amalgamation. They now seem embarrassed by the old resistance identity discourse of their threatened local identity. The focus in their identity discourse has reversed. Their thick backward-looking local identity discourse resisting amalgamation has more or less disappeared with their old municipality. Now they promote a thinner forward-looking regional identity discourse, which is rooted in their local identity and links up with other similar local identities on the island, in order to present a more attractive island identity to the outside world. Their dominant strategy to protect and promote local identities and interests has shifted from the preservation of their old municipality to the development of their island.

Local entrepreneurs and the formulation of an island identity

The fading of the local resistance identity discourse in the communities on the western end of the island gave more room for a development-oriented forward-looking regional identity discourse. This discourse on island identity emerged years before the amalgamation in 2013. In 2006 the three local branches of the cooperative Rabobank on the island merged. This bank dominates the financing of local entrepreneurs. The Rabobank actively promoted municipal amalgamation and produced in 2006 a vision document on the islands economic problems and possible solutions. They stressed the importance of promoting the island as a whole to attract investments, tourists and commuters from the Rotterdam area. Other local entrepreneurs located especially at the western part of the island which were mainly involved with agriculture, fishing, foods and tourism, were also developing ideas for island promotion. The proponents of municipal amalgamation were at that time also looking for a new identity to justify amalgamation and mobilise support. They therefore joined forces with these entrepreneurs in the development of a regional identity discourse. This has now largely been accepted by the municipal organisation and local politicians and is being communicated to the population and the outside world. One active local entrepreneur comments on the leading role of the local entrepreneurs:

It slowly trickles down. When you lead the way you sometimes look back and in the rear people are unaware of who leads the way. Figuratively speaking that is. But if you communicate plentifully in many different ways, the local media, organise meetings, municipal bulletins, then it reappears. (…) A kind of brainwash is necessary. But we are only at the beginning of the Gaussian curve to adjust the identity. This is evolution not revolution. That does not suit Goeree-Overflakkee. You have to do that slowly, in small steps.

These initiatives to promote an attractive regional identity to the outside world have to deal with existing local identity discourses. On the one hand they are rooted in existing local identities. As corroborated by our interviewees, elements like close family ties, work ethic, resilience, self-reliance, inventiveness, solidarity and sense of community are important in all the different local identity discourses on the island. These elements of traditional thick local identities are combined with regional identity elements like the attractive open landscape and the beaches of the island, and are also linked to elements of new national policies promoting sustainable development. All these old and new elements are streamlined into a new thinner regional identity discourse which is used to promote the island to the outside world and mobilise support for the new municipality in the local communities on the island.

Conclusion

This study of the role of local identities in two Dutch municipalities showed that local and regional identities play important, but very different roles in the up-scaling of local administrations. In Katwijk the protection of local identities against external threats dominated local politics before and after amalgamation. Decades ago, this was the background behind the development of a regional identity discourse using both traditional thick and forward-looking thin identity elements. This helped averting the building of a large new town in the early 2000s. Later, a more localised urbanisation threat was neutralised by the amalgamation of three municipalities into the new municipality of Katwijk. This lessened the role of an outward-looking overarching regional identity discourse. The local identities were strengthened instead and became entrenched in an envy-based inward-looking municipal politics in Katwijk. On Goeree-Overflakkee, the initial resistance to amalgamation in one municipality created an identity discourse communicating a thickening resistance identity. The dominance of this local identity discourse is now succeeded by a thinner regional identity discourse promoting the qualities of the whole island to the outside world.

The distinction between primary and secondary local identities help to explain the different use of local and regional identities in Katwijk and on Goeree-Overflakkee. Primary identities are based on the widely recognised dominant characteristics of the local community. Secondary identities are based on how communities have over time learned to deal with these different primary identities within a municipality. Within a municipality communities have learned from each other their different characters, sensibilities, fears and hopes which are embedded in their different primary local identity discourses. Within a municipality communities tend to develop over time their own informal way to accommodate these differences. Their specific way of dealing with these different local identities becomes a kind of secondary identity. Identity discourses in a municipality not only focus on primary local identities, but also on the secondary identity of how to deal with these differences. Thus while primary identities are more based on distinctiveness and difference, secondary identities focus more on dealing with these differences.

During an amalgamation this secondary identity disappears with the old municipality. This vanishing of the shield of the secondary identity makes the protection of primary local identities frequently an important topic in local politics during amalgamation. Perceived external threats frequently changes the character of these primary local identities. They can become more inward-oriented, focus more on their historical roots and their differences with others; they ‘thicken’ into resistance identities as in Goedereede. In other cases, municipalities fail to effectively support the primary local identities against external threats. Municipal amalgamation can then help to develop secondary, ‘thin’ regional identity discourses based on a selection of characteristics of established primary local identities which are more attractive to the outside world. On the island of Goeree-Overflakkee, we saw that especially local entrepreneurs were instrumental in the formulation of a new, thinner regional identity discourse. This focussed not on local differences, but on the collective marketing of the island to the outside world. They want thus to collectively promote and protect the local identities and interests on the island. In Katwijk the formulation of such an overlaying identity is seen as a threat to the local identities. In Katwijk there emerged in the decade after amalgamation another kind of secondary identity discourse based on the protection of local identities and the equal distribution of municipal products and services over the different local communities. The perceived neglect of their local community by the amalgamated municipality has become an important element in all the local identity discourses in the municipality.

It is difficult to conclude from this more explorative research on the relative importance of local identities compared to other arguments used for and against amalgamation. Issues related to local identities appear to be part of the wider discussion on the effectiveness of amalgamations which has replaced efficiency as the primary legitimation of amalgamation. In our two cases, amalgamation clearly strengthened the position of the municipality in its administrative context. This was linked to a different use of identity. On Goeree-Overflakkee, the development of a regional identity strengthened the position of this peripheral island towards the Rotterdam region and the province of Zuid-Holland. In Katwijk, the weakening of its identification and administrative links with its region is used to give more room for the protection of the local identities within the municipality of Katwijk. This resulted in a local political system which focusses more on confrontation than on consensus and limits the possibilities of the municipal administration to develop new policies.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Maarten Hogenstijn, who conducted the interviews, the contacts at the Dutch Ministry of the Interior, Ruud Smeets, Rick Brouwer, Merel de Groot and Tobias Kwakkelstein, all the persons interviewed in Katwijk and Goeree-Overflakkee, Sonja Walti, Martin Boisen, the participants in the research colloquium of the RELATE Centre of Excellence at the University of Oulu and three anonymous referees.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kees Terlouw

Kees Terlouw is an assistant professor in the Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning at the Utrecht University in the Netherlands. His research focuses on the political geography of the construction of new forms of spatial identities. He particularly studies how linkages between different types of spatial identities can create legitimacy for specific policies. http://home.kpn.nl/C.Terlouw5/