Furthermore, we show that scale frames are powerful discursive devices in the different episodes (power-in), but the analysis of the
5.5 Conclusion and Discussion
We started this paper by stating that 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. We analysed the interplay between scale framing and different power dynamics to find out why some scale frames prevail, whereas others disappear. In this section, we answer our research questions and provide explanations for our most notable findings.
What is the Interplay between Scale Framing and Power Dynamics?
This paper shows that our analytical framework on scale framing and power dynamics provides a nuanced perspective on the subtle but firm power play in this governance process around Dutch intensive agriculture.
At first sight, the power-over in this process appeared very strong and dominated the power-in and the power-of. The power-over the process by the organiser/Minister of State determined the process by deciding on the procedures, the agenda, concluding and reporting from the different episodes. This also determined what happened to the variety of scale frames:
which scale frames were included, taken to the next episodes and taken up in the conclusions, and thus which problems and actors were included and which were not (see also Swyngedouw, 2005, and Table 5.2). For example,
as a result of working with panel supervisors, writing accounts following specific questions and topics from the organisers, the discussion about the development of mega-companies in the citizen panel that we analysed has disappeared from the debate. This can be explained by what Fulbright (1966) has defined as the ‘arrogance of power’. As Fulbright (1966, p. 3) explains: ‘Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence’.
Table 5.2 shows what happened to the variety of scale frames in the citizen panel. The table is based on the selection of scale frames as presented in this paper. It shows that, from the different scale frames pro and contra mega-stables, only pro scale frames on two levels are mentioned in the report From mega to better.
If the different interactions are examined more closely, analysis of power-in shows a much more nuanced perspective on the variety of scale frames than would be identified if only the outcomes of the different episodes were taken into account. The different actors in the various episodes used different (scale) framing strategies to adjust or rebut other actors’ (scale) frames in line with their own interests (power-in).
Analysis also shows the differences in the power-of different participants.
The members of parliament who acted as spokespersons in the Select Committee had power-of: their reframings of the problems in the intensive agricultural sector were taken into account, and as a result the Minister of State organised the societal dialogue. Also, the continuation of the process shows the spokespersons’ power-of: in response to a motion proposed by some spokespersons, the Minister of State was pushed to make restrictions on farms sizes, which he announced in a letter to parliament of 5 June 2012.
The stakeholders in the dialogue also had some power-of as their scale frames were represented rather completely in the journalistic report and they had the opportunity to discuss the earlier version. The members of the citizen panel did not have much power-of: their contribution – the different scale framings and reframings put forward in the discussions – were not documented in the report and disappeared in the panels’ general conclusions.
However, as the continuation of the process (e.g. the motion) shows, it remains a power play with different equilibriums in which different actors at different junctures are in the position to have a prevailing scale frame.
Relatedly, it differs which selection of the on-going process is made to study the power dynamics. We can explain this dynamic between the power-over and power-of by the difference between the more classical government episodes and the more deliberative governance episodes. In the former,
| The power to frame the scale?
| Framing scales and scaling frames | Chapter 5
158 159 Table 5.2 | The variety of scale frames pro and con in the citizen panel, supervisor’s account and report
Citizen panel Supervisor’s account of the citizen panel Report ‘From mega to better’ Section about this citizen panel
Pro Contra Pro Contra Pro Contra
Global
We can also grow soybeans in the Netherlands. But we get them from Brazil, where the forests are burnt down, just because over there the price is much more attractive.
EU
• Without subsidies and the like that market can’t sur-vive. Since you retain a free European market.
• Because I don’t believe in the Netherlands on its own, thus I find European [...]
National
Just let go of the European market, just make sure you provide the internal market well, with an excellent quality product and you aren’t purely aimed at production.
Preventing scale increase will mean a rise in the cost price. Retail expects a safe product for a keen price from its suppliers. If the Dutch farmers don’t suc-ceed in realizing this, pur-chasers will move abroad.
Abandon large-scale livestock farming and focus on our own internal production.
Preventing scale increase will mean a rise in the cost price. It’s questionable whether animal welfare [...]
are guaranteed abroad and thus whether problems aren’t exported.
Regional
It’ll be clear that small-scale farms serving regional niche markets have my preference [...]
The importance of the inten-sive agricultural sector for the North-Limburg region is mentioned in the account.
Farm
The development of companies rather than mega-stables offers prospects for developments in the agricul-tural sector.
Extra demands, combined with producing cheaply, force scale increase.
Extra demands, combined with producing cheaply, force scale increase.
Present
We should maintain what we have now, those amounts, we have enough. The stables are big enough.
Future
We have started that trend and I think we just have to continue.
| The power to frame the scale?
| Framing scales and scaling frames | Chapter 5
160
the Minister of State has to account for his plans and decisions in answer to the members of parliament, whereas, in the latter, public and private actors are involved, and governing mechanisms do not rest on ‘recourse to the authority and sanctions of government’ (Stoker, 1998, p. 17). In the governance episodes, the process is less formal, procedures are determined in the process and responsibilities are blurred: the ‘institutional void’ (Hajer, 2003). Consequently, (deliberative) governance processes are less transparent than conventional processes and therefore, paradoxically, may allow for a more powerful central government rather than more shared power (see also Stoker, 1998; Swyngedouw, 2005; Turnhout, Van Bommel, & Aarts, 2010;
Eeten, 2001; Vink, Dewulf, & Termeer, 2012). Thus, although there are many good arguments in favour of organising policy processes in the form of a deliberative dialogue, the process design in this case strengthened central government’s power-over, rather than the other actors’ power-of – namely, by providing information, selecting farms, determining the topics, listing instead of concluding, providing only limited possibilities for participants to control documented outcomes.
Thus our analysis shows that scale frames are powerful discursive devices in the different episodes (power-in), but the analysis of the process as a whole shows a different picture. This shows that both proponents and opponents in the different episodes construct various scale frames, emphasising different scales and levels, but most of these scale frames are not taken into account. In the process, the differences in scale frames are largely neglected, and the fundamental issues that these scale frames raise (e.g. global food security, cutting down the rainforest) are not discussed (see Table 5.2). This shows that it is also of importance for the analysis which scale level is used: the interaction or the process (cf. Easterling & Polsky, 2008;
Turnhout & Boonman-Berson, 2011). However, the fact that certain scale frames are filtered from the process does not necessarily mean that they are unimportant; on the contrary, this can equally mean they are very important but do not fit the ideas of some decisive actors.
Finally, we studied a ‘heated’ governance process and concluded that in this process scale frames other than those fitting the solutions of the Minister of State did not play a large role. Regarding future research it might be interesting to see whether, in less heated policy processes, scale frames, rather than power dynamics, do determine how the policy process evolves.
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.
| Framing scales and scaling frames | Chapter 5