Fatal remedies. How dealing with policy conflict can backfire in a context of trust‐erosion

Eva Elizabeth Anne Wolf,Wouter Van Dooren

doi:10.1111/gove.12630

Abstract

AbstractThis article investigates the relationship between policy conflict and trust‐erosion. It concludes that in a context of trust‐erosion, practices to deal with conflict may backfire and lead to further conflict escalation. The article draws on an in‐depth analysis of 32 interviews with key actors in the conflict over a contested multibillion‐euro highway project in Antwerp (Belgium). It concludes that while all actors draw on the policy repertoire of “managing public support” to explain the conflict, their perspectives of what it means for a policy to have public support differ. Practices to “manage public support” that made sense from one perspective, contributed to the erosion of trust from those holding a different perspective, thus further escalating the conflict. Practices intended to end conflict proved to be fatal remedies.

Highlights

The analysis of our empirical results indicates that all actors draw on the policy repertoire of “managing public support” to explain the Oosterweel conflict, but that their perspectives of what it means for a policy to have public support differ
Because we examine the development of the conflict over a relatively long period, the case lends itself well for studying how policymakers dealt with policy conflict and how those efforts impacted trust dynamics
Since a wide variety of practices seemed to be linked in documents to “public support,” we wondered how respondents made sense of that term and the practices belonging to the “managing” of public support

Summary

Introduction

The opposition of views on policy and society is essential in a polis. To organize conflict and to allot power, representative democracies hold elections. The signals that voters give in the polling booth are notoriously hard to interpret. Democracy is not limited to the electoral process. Rich democracies allow for policy conflicts on concrete policy programs and projects (Hajer, 2003; Keane, 2009; Mouffe, 2009). Policymakers draw on policy repertoires (Jabko, 2019). A policy repertoire contains ideas and practices that policymakers are familiar with, but due to contextual variation

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion