The making of contested policy: Constructing the 'other' and the 'common good' through encounters between policy contenders

Various authors have highlighted how public policy constructs target populations. This paper focuses on the dynamics of such social construction, in particular the dynamics resulting from encounters between various policy contenders. My analysis is based on 34 in-depth narrative interviews with stakeholder who are involved in the policy conflict over the “Oosterweel connection” in Antwerp. The “Oosterweel connection” is a planned highway road, which would close the Antwerp ring road by traversing the river the Schelde. The first plans were made in 1995. Around 2005, action groups started to oppose the government plans. Today, the revised project, estimated to cost 3 billion euros, is still in a policy planning phase and remains highly contested. I have interviewed stakeholders from the political, administrative, as well as civic domain. The main argument this paper presents is that the construction of the target population in contentious spatial planning processes, goes hand in hand with the construction of policy contenders. While all actors involved in the Oosterweel planning conflict are taking part in what is an inherently political process, they blame their policy contenders for acting politically, which is equated with acting strategically. Strategic behavior is labelled as “bad” behavior, serving special interests rather than the common interest of the ordinary citizen. Policy contenders thus discursively distance themselves from each other and, by claiming to act themselves in the “common good” while the others do not, each construct images of the target population of spatial planning. The alleged gap between the “common good” and the special interests of other policy contenders increases over time as a result of the disillusionment experienced during encounters between various policy contenders. As this gap widens, antagonism between policy contenders is fueled, which in term impacts the making of policy. The paper ends with a plea for a more dynamic approach to the process of construction, so that we can better understand how policies become the object of contestation and how policies can change over time.