Unpleasant surprises in large-scale infrastructure projects — such as construction of the Betuwe rail line and expansion of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol — often arise from of a lack of useful knowledge. This is one conclusion of Odette van de Riet’s PhD dissertation, which she has defended on 17 March 2003 at the Delft University of Technology. To provide the missing information, Van de Riet developed a model to integrate the interests and perspectives of multiple stakeholders. The overarching vision behind the model is to provide information to help bring positive closure to protracted political debates. Besides her research at the Delft University of Technology, Van de Riet is a research leader at RAND Europe, the European office of the American policy analysis institute RAND. How can an important political decision, like construction of the Betuwe rail line, subsequently be plagued by so many unpleasant surprises? Why the delays round decisions on the future of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol? One reason, according to policy analyst Van de Riet, is a lack of ‘useful knowledge’, which itself is due to the separation of process and content in multi-actor settings. “The separation of interests and knowledge has had unfortunate consequences, as we’ve seen in decisions on some large infrastructure projects,” she said. To channel such decision processes to positive closure, Van de Riet developed a set of guidelines for multi-actor policy analysis. It is a model to integrate multiple actors’ interests and perspectives. “Aristotle’s three rules for good argumentation, trust, empathy and logic, are central in the model,” said Van de Riet. In the first place, all the parties involved must have faith in the quality of the analysis (trust). Then, the analysis must bridge the various interests (empathy). Finally, the problem, and all its possible solutions, must be studied from every perspective, including an analysis of the gains and losses across the stakeholders (logic). “Integrating all the viewpoints makes it possible to engage in a fundamental discussion, without continuously falling back on other (new) arguments,” said Van de Riet. “So with the model, unpleasant surprises and endless discussions can be avoided.” Van de Riet tested her model on three policy-analysis studies done in the field of infrastructure: expansion of the sea-sluice complex at IJmuiden, strengthening of dikes along Dutch rivers and the planning of a transport corridor between Utrecht and Amsterdam. (Author/publisher)
Abstract