HAN_F_03 Cohesion via Participation? Infrastructure Planning in Germany

Aims/Research Questions

The project starts from the assumption that political participation and decision-making can be sources of social cohesion. Following Putnam (2000), we argue that there is a close interplay between political participation and social cohesion. Obert et al. (2019) demonstrates, for example, that the economic crisis in the last decade had substantially negative consequences for social capital in concerned states and societies. This effect was, however, much less detrimental if states had well-functioning democratic institutions. For the strengthening of social cohesion, democratic institutions are therefore pivotal. Against this backdrop, political institutions as sources of social cohesion are the main focus of the project. Democratic institutions will, in particular, gain empirical legitimacy and strengthen social cohesion if they ensure, on the one hand, that the citizens’ positions are mirrored in political-administrative decisions and, on the other hand, solve conflicts in a way that can be acknowledged by them (Scharpf 2006). Infrastructure decisions are a case in point in the current academic and political debate as their empirical legitimacy is often problematic (Schweizer / Renn 2013; Fink / Ruffing 2015). This problem is caused, on the one hand, by the high level of conflict infrastructures that typically come with and, on the other hand, by typical problem constellations with often clear-cut beneficiaries (who profit from proper highways, secure electricity grids, and safe nuclear ultimate storage zones) and sufferers (who have to live close to this highways, storage zones, grid pylons, etc.).

The project is conducted in close cooperation with FRA_F_04, which focuses on the comparison of procedures for the settlement of infrastructure conflicts – also in an experiment-based way. The two projects will specifically cooperate in the development of a typology of (infrastructure) conflicts and the question of where electricity grid planning is located within this typology. The longitudinal in-depth analysis of electricity grid planning will also shed light on the usefulness of this typology. This is, in particular, fruitful as we assume that actors learn over time how to “use” decision-making procedures, build up trust by iterated interactions, and so on. This effect cannot be elucidated in purely cross-sectional case studies. The two projects will organize several workshops together to ensure close cooperation. The case studies are, in addition, conducted in close cooperation with HAN_F_04.

Thematic Reference to Social Cohesion

The public participation procedure in German electricity grid planning has explicitly been introduced to mitigate the problems discussed above (Fink / Ruffing 2015). The project examines to what extent public participation is an effective means for the (re-)establishing of social cohesion. The public participation in German electricity grid planning is empirically unique: it allows for a much broader participation of citizens than the participation procedures of other European Union member states in this domain (Schneider / Sander 2013; Fink / Ruffing 2017) and is the only existing broad participation procedure on the federal level in Germany (Fink / Ruffing 2015). It therefore has the potential to strengthen (or not) social cohesion above local and regional levels. Of particular interest in this regard are questions of spatial interactions – between regions as well as within the regions concerned. These questions relate to broader considerations in the RISC research programme by taking into account that social cohesion within one region could potentially harden conflicts or create new cleavages between groups or spatial entities. 

Fink, Simon; Ruffing, Eva 2015: Legitimation durch Verwaltungsverfahren? Was sich die Politik von Konsultationen beim Stromnetzausbau verspricht, in: dms – der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management 8:2, 253-272.

Fink, Simon; Ruffing, Eva 2017: The Differentiated Implementation of European Participation Rules in Energy Infrastructure Planning. Why Does the German Participation Regime Exceed European Requirements?, in: European Policy Analysis 3:2, 274-294.

Obert, Peter; Theocharis, Yannis; van Deth, Jan W. 2019: Threats, chances and opportunities: social capital in Europe in times of social and economic hardship, in: Policy Studies 40:1, 21-39.

Putnam, Robert D. 2000: Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York.

Scharpf, Fritz W. 2006: Problem Solving Effectiveness and Democratic Accountability in the EU, Wien.

Schneider, Theresa; Sander, Antina 2013: European Grid Report. Beyond Public Opposition. Lessons Learned Across Europe, Berlin.

Schweizer, Pia-Johanna; Renn, Ortwin 2013: Partizipation in Technikkontroversen: Panakeia für die Energiewende?, in: Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 22:2, 42-47.