Daring decisions and representative municipal democracy: an exploration within the new river management in the Netherlands

Public sector innovation is often driven by informal groups of visionary key actors (‘transition arenas’). The WaalWeelde project in the Netherlands, where new river management strategies are designed with new groups of stakeholders, is one example. In this article the role of political leadership in these processes of innovation is further explored. In order to mediate between the transition arena, with its long term perspective and experimental character and the conditions of the political domain in which short term results and public support are dominant, it is assumed that a certain element of ‘daring’ within the democratic context is required. In the exploration of daring decision-making, the article focuses on the role of the individual municipal administrator as a mediator between a transition arena and the municipal context in processes of public sector innovation. The most important finding is the importance that the administrators ascribe to individual actors in decision-making processes. Their will to effect change, their skills, resources and strategies are seen as vital in exercising their role as ‘policy entrepreneur’. Linkages with theoretical literature are briefly explored. Key-words: Public sector innovation, political leadership, transition arena, daring decision-making, municipalities, grounded theory The Innovation Journal: The Public Innovation Journal, Volume 14(1), 2009, article 5. 2 Daring decisions and representative municipal democracy: an exploration within the new river management in the Netherlands River management in the Netherlands has always been focused on strengthening and raising dykes to protect the low-lying polder areas against flooding. This is now generally regarded as insufficient. Climate change will induce higher discharge volumes, and confining the rivers between ever-higher dykes will only augment risks. The river management paradigm has therefore shifted towards ‘room for rivers’, i.e. to give the rivers more space to drain the excess waters (Van Stokkom et al., 2005; Wiering en Arts, 2006). The great question now is whether the idea of creating more room for rivers should be interpreted in a strictly technical and sectoral sense or whether it should also offer opportunities to additional societal aims such as nature development, recreational objectives, cultural revival and economic development. In the sectoral approach, the river management authority searches for sets of measures that are implementable within its institutional domain, e.g. lowering of groynes or removing obstacles in floodplains (see PKB, 2006). In the alternative approach, a much wider set of options is considered, including those that may act as economic drivers to alleviate government budget constraints, such as (flood-adapted) housing along (possibly relocated) dykes. ‘Landscape quality’ is the usual catchword for this broader, integrated vision. The landscape quality approach constitutes a case of public sector innovation, because it requires a wholly new spirit and practice of collaboration of public and private parties, including the river authority, sand and clay excavation corporations, knowledge brokers, real estate developers, nature conservation agencies and last but not least the riparian municipalities, who will not only have to passively adapt their zoning plans to national demands but to involve themselves in the creative search for new ‘win-win’ opportunities. Various authors have described innovations in terms of change, resulting in different terminologies. Examples are; societal innovation (Termeer, 2006), transformation (Kotter, 1995) and transition management (Rotmans, 2003). Public sector innovation is often driven by informal groups of visionary key actors (transition-arenas), and the case study that this paper will present is no exception. One day or another, however, the cross-over has to be made from the visionary phase to include the municipalities in the process. It is on this involvement that the present paper will focus. It is argued that a certain element of ‘daring’ in the decision-making process is needed in order to mediate between the innovative spirit of a transition arena and the municipal political climate. The objective of this paper is to explore the concept of daring decision-making, including its limitations and potentials for river management in the municipal administrative context. The concept is explored from a decision-maker’s point of view. First, this paper will give a short overview of the project WaalWeelde, being a typical case of public sector innovation and providing the rationale for this conceptual exploration. Then it will briefly position the concept of daring decision-making in the academic discussion on deliberative and representative concepts of democracy. The efforts to create a conceptual framework for daring decision making, using inductive methods provided by grounded theory procedures and techniques (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) are described. Within this framework, the conditions for daring decision making are further explained. Furthermore, efforts are undertaken to relate the conceptual model, based on empirical findings, to existing theories. Finally, some reflection concerning public sector innovation and specific aspects within this field of inquiry is given. The Innovation Journal: The Public Innovation Journal, Volume 14(1), 2009, article 5. 3 1. The WaalWeelde project The new river management paradigm ‘room for the river’ has become the basis for the latest government proposals on river management policies in the Netherlands. Despite the efforts to use a landscape quality approach, so far, possible solutions are found only within the institutional domain of the water management authority. In case of the river Waal these measures boil down to an integral lowering of the existing groynes. This strictly technical approach is effective in creating room for the river, but without any added value for landscape quality, which was also one of the main issues of the new river policy. The project ‘WaalWeelde’, initiated in the fall of 2006 by a small visionary group of academics and policy-makers, uses an approach which considers a much wider set of options in a search for a combination of safety measures, enhancement of landscape quality and economic activity. The project creates a transition arena (practically organized in so-called ‘clusters’ of four municipalities each) in which leaders of neighboring riparian municipalities are working together with a wide range of different stakeholders and interest groups, ranging from nature conservationists to real estate developers. The focus is on public-private cooperation in finding innovative solutions for water management. These clusters are practically supported by a team of facilitators and receive scientific support, for instance in the form of calculations on the effects of plans on the water flow or information on strategies of participation processes with the public. The WaalWeelde approach is innovative in many aspects. First of all because of its focus on inter-municipal cooperation in creating innovative plans for river management. Clusters of neighboring municipalities that have a history of ignoring or even competing with each other are now working together, creating linkages both alongside and across the river. A strong focus is on economic drivers that can alleviate budget constraints for sustainable solutions, such as adaptive building in floodplains, sand and clay excavation and recreational functions. In these projects the linkages between safety, landscape quality and economic activity can be combined. In a search for innovative ideas, WaalWeelde aims to work with a bottom up approach. Various stakeholders are invited to join in the process. Apart form this ‘selective deliberation’, WaalWeelde tries to involve the public directly in the process. A special focus here is on an experiment of ‘non-selective deliberation’ with an interactive internet forum that is used as a channel through which information about new ideas and possible projects is spread and a public debate about the pros and cons on these projects can be held. In combinations with various public meetings, the internet experiment aims to be an extension of the transition-arena in order to involve the electorate and council of the different municipalities in the process. Furthermore, WaalWeelde is trying to facilitate municipal leaders in the pivotal moment of conveying the ideas and proposals of the transition arena into the municipality. The difficult task of providing information to other parties and discussions with opponents in the municipal council as well as in society is necessary to create possibilities for the development of innovative ideas and the gaining of both public and political support. One of the strategies here is the so-called council conference in which the councils of different municipalities are being invited to share in the ideas and processes of the WaalWeelde project. The main question that arose from the first experiences in the project concerned the role of municipal leadership in the pivotal moment of connecting the transition arena with the The Innovation Journal: The Public Innovation Journal, Volume 14(1), 2009, article 5. 4 municipal context in the decision-making processes concerning public sector innovation. This formed the main motivation for the exploration of the concept of ‘daring decision-making’. 2. Relating daring decision-making to current concepts of democracy The theoretical discussion on western democracy centers on ‘deliberative ’ and ‘representative’ interpretations of democracy. Simply put, the representative theory is based on the idea that political elites compete for votes of the public similarly to how shopkeepers compete for customers. The public decides who is allowed to govern, but further political decisions are made within professional, or elite, circles. These elite are then supposed to find a balance between short term and particularistic interests versus the long-term and collective goods. These decisions must then be explained to the elected councils and the public. Deliberative democracy theorists argue that the representative interpretation lacks a basic principle of democracy, inspired by the normative claim that citizens should be able to codetermine the specific political decisions that affect their lives (Renn, Webler & Wiedermann, 1995 p.21). In the Netherlands, this deliberative interpretation of democracy has been gaining popularity throughout the 1990’s. In general, two basic forms of deliberative democracy can be identified. The first is a non-selective deliberation which involves a public participation with possibly all members of society. The second form can be described as a selective deliberation, in which specific stakeholders are invited to participate in the decision-making process. In terms of governance, this form is also referred to as the interactive or network approach, in contrast to the more hierarchic approaches of governance that are traditionally identified with representative interpretations of democracy. In the current practice of governance, both the interactive and the hierarchic approaches can be problematic when dealing with change and innovation. Several authors have indicated the tendency in hierarchic approaches of governance to be focused on status quo and creating policies that are fixed on keeping things under control (see for instance: Weber, 1968; Frissen, 2003; Termeer en Kessener, 2006). In the other extreme, interactive approaches that are solely focused on generating consensus eventually create nothing more than colourless compromises that completely lack innovative elements ( see also: van Stokkom, 2006; van Dongen et al, 1996). In this light Bobbio( 1987, p.31) pointed out, from a more politico-philosophical point of view, that nothing kills of democracy more than an excess of democracy. Recently, it is also highlighted that a combination of both approaches of governance is often being used in decision-making processes and it has been argued that the specific use of a mixture of both forms of governance can actually be very functional in processes concerning radical innovations of the public sector (Koffijberg, 2005 p.329). The present paper, focusing as it does on the cross-over from the deliberative transition arena to the representative municipal structure, engages this idea of ‘mixed democracy’. However, it adds the attention to the leadership factor that may be the essential ingredient to in fact do the mixing effectively. A risk in all forms and styles of democratic decision-making, especially on the municipal level, could be the tendency to solely focus on short term aspects. In an attempt to secure their position, elites might be fixed on keeping the vote of the public and therefore focus their policies on highly visible short term interests. Stakeholders that are invited in the decision-making process might use this phenomenon in order to set the agenda according to their own short-term needs. The Innovation Journal: The Public Innovation Journal, Volume 14(1), 2009, article 5. 5 But even if policies are focused on long term public good, these majority interests may be effectively blocked by persistent minority groups that vigorously promote and defend their own short term interests. This phenomenon, though obviously useful as part of the checks and balances in a democracy, may well develop into an obstacle fo r innovative decision-making. As in the whole of the Dutch public sector, the municipal structure is largely composed of a representative structure with deliberative add-ons, in which short-term interests tend to dominate. In the representative structures the administrator is confronted by a municipal electorate and a municipal council that may often be manipulated to some extent but hardly ever emanates an invitation to visionary, long-term decisions. In the deliberative encounters confrontations occur with citizens or local interest groups for which basically the same applies. In the case of WaalWeelde, municipal administrators that take part in the project have a key role in the pivotal moment of connecting the visionary transition-arena with the political culture and structure of the municipality. In order to mediate between the transition-arena, with it’s long term perspective and experimental character, and the conditions of the political domain in which short term results and public support are dominant, it is assumed that a certain element of ‘daring’ within the democratic context is needed. The question explored in the paper therefore is: how do municipal administrators manage to bring an element of ‘daring democracy’ into this representative and deliberative municipal context? The concept of daring democracy refers to daring planning and decision-making within the bounds of the foundational principles and rules of democracy.