Four ministries, four spatial planning perspectives? Dutch evidence on the persistent problem of horizontal coordination

Abstract

The formulation of spatial policy at the national level is fraught with coordination problems, mainly owing to competition among ministries. This paper considers ways to improve horizontal coordination. It is based on a review of current Dutch policy documents and the political debate they have spawned in the Netherlands. To set the stage, the paper discusses the spatial policy now in force, which derives from the Fourth Report on Spatial Planning Extra (VINEX). After presenting the views espoused by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, the paper highlights key spatial concepts proposed by three other ministries. The inherent contradictions come into play when allocating strategic spatial investments, which are drawn from the Economic Structure Enhancing Fund. The defensive position that government bodies take regarding their own spatial concepts may be understood in terms of the competition for billions of Euros in public money. In our opinion, the recipe for success is a blend of ingredients from each of the sectoral approaches, combined in an integrated spatial policy. We are pleased to say that since the time of writing, this approach has actually been adopted in the Netherlands. In January 1999, the government published what it calls a Starting Memorandum on Spatial Planning. That document seeks to realign national spatial policy by combining diverse sectoral views and introducing new spatial concepts such as ‘corridor’ and ‘network city’. The ideals of ‘spatial vision’ and ‘spatial quality’ are combined with criteria like ‘sustainability’ as well as with the flexibility and responsiveness that is needed in a market setting, whereby households and firms operate increasingly in a European context. The associated style of governance would be to alternate a loose rein—a strategy of divergence and competition—with a tight rein—the implementation of policy that is both horizontally coordinated and integrated. This approach is bound to fan the flames of public debate on national spatial planning. In this sense, other countries might do well to keep an eye on it.