LIST OF PANELS

Policy processes for the building of railway stations, airports, power plants, railway routes and other large projects often run into violent struggles. Some projects with similar conflict constellations have been decided on a low level of conflict, though. The respective level of escalation of policy processes for large infrastructure and building projects can be related to manifold explanations. Comparative politics stresses the patterns of the political systems (Lijphart 2012) and differences of policies and arenas (Lowi 1972, 2009). Case studies of policy processes and differences of policies and arenas (Lowi 1972, 2009). Case studies of policy processes may shed light on constellations of advocacy coalitions, devil shift of conflicting parties, the role of policy brokers, and policy-oriented learning (Sabatier/Jenkins-Smith 1993; Sabatier/Weible 2007; Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014, Biegelbauer 2013). Political psychology is interested in the role of individual actors by applying the “big five” personality dimensions or similar lenses (Bandelow/Thies 2014). Papers should address at least one of the following questions: 1.  How can the concept of “escalation“ be defined theoretically and translated into empirical research? Which factors cause escalation (and/or de-escalation) theoretically? 2.    How do institutional settings of political systems influence the likelihood of escalation and de-escalation? 3.    How do policies, especially different types of large projects, different levels of scientific and political consensus about costs and benefits and different distributions of costs and benefits influence the process of escalation and de-escalation? Which conditions enable de-escalation by elements of direct democracy and public participation within the decision-making process?

A primary goal of political systems is to provide legal, legitimized and violence-free policy processes (Weber 2002). This goal cannot be always achieved, especially in the course of large building and infrastructure projects: Policy processes for the building of railway stations, airports, power plants, railway routes and other large projects often run into violent struggles. Recent examples are found in countries with diverging political systems such as Germany, Great Britain or Turkey. The expansion of Frankfurt airport and the reconstruction of Stuttgart central station received particular attention in the German media and influenced the political discourse (Bandelow/Thies 2014). In both cases politically legitimized decisions were challenged by citizen protest and escalated to violent conflict. Political and economic actors were forced to rethink the process of decision-making and find new ways of participation. Other projects with similar conflict constellations have been decided on a low level of conflict, though. In these cases decisions could be reached within the established, mostly representative political processes through the participation of interest groups, political parties, parliaments, cabinets and courts. A prominent example is the recently opened Vienna railway station. A higher level of escalation occurs if the political system is confronted with unconventional protest and has to find new ways of participation to avoid further escalation. The latter has been successfully accomplished in the course of the latest expansions of the Frankfurt and Vienna airports (Bandelow/Thies 2014). The highest level of escalation is reached if conflicts endanger the legitimacy of the political system as a whole as could be observed during the conflict concerning the development plan for the Gezi Park in Istanbul. Explanations for the different levels of escalation are manifold. Firstly, the patterns of the political system contribute to the likeliness of escalation (Lijphart 2013). Secondly, policies shape the policy arena (Lowi 1972). The distribution of benefits and of costs, especially the question how far costs and benefits are related to small groups or the whole society is equally important for the development of a conflict (Olson 1965). Often costs and benefits are unclear or disputed, or they change over time (Flyvbjerg 2005, 2009, Flyvbjerg et al. 2002). The analysis of political strategies and singularities of policy processes can further the understanding of different levels of escalation. How, in which way and at which stage of the policy process have stakeholders and other involved actors been included in the decision making process? How did the mass media inform and frame the process (Brettschneider 2011, Flyvbjerg 2012)? The panel will bring together theoretical perspectives and empirical studies concerning the escalation of policy processes related to large projects. Empirical studies can include single cases, longitudinal and cross-country comparisons and statistical analyses. Bandelow, N. C., Thies, B. (2014): Gerechtigkeitsempfindungen bei Großprojekten als Ursache von Konflikteskalationen? Vertrauen und Legitimität als moderierende Faktoren illustriert am Beispiel der Konflikte um die Erweiterung des Frankfurter Flughafens. In: Politische Psychologie, Vol. 4 (1) pp. 24-37. Biegelbauer, P. (2013): Wie lernt die Politik? Wiesbaden. Brettschneider, F. (2011): Kommunikation und Meinungsbildung bei Großprojekten. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, No. 61, pp. 40-7. Flyvbjerg, B. (2005): Policy and Planning for Large Infrastructure Projects: Problems, Causes, Cures. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3781 1-32. Flyvbjerg, B. (2009): Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built - and what we can do about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3), 344-367. Flyvbjerg, B. (2012): Why Mass Media Matter to Planning Research: The Case of Megaprojects. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol 32 (2), 169-181. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. & Rothengatter, W. (2002). Megaprojects and risk. Making decisions in an uncertain world. Cambridge. Jenkins-Smith, H. C. et al. (2014): The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Ongoing Research. In: Sabatier, P. A., Weible, C. M. (eds.): Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd ed. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press/Kindle-E-Book, Position 4408–4874. Lijphart, A. (2012): Patterns of Democracy, 2nd edition. London, New Haven. Lowi, T. J. (1972): Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice. Public Administration Review, Vol. 32 (4), pp. 298-310. Lowi, T. J. (2009): Arenas of Power. Boulder, CO. Olson, M. (1965): The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, M. A. Sabatier, Paul A./Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., (eds.) (1993): Policy Change and Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, Colo. Sabatier, P. A. & Weible, C. M. (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In: Sabatier, P. A. (ed.), Theories of policy process. Boulder, pp. 189-217. Sabatier, P., Hunter, S., McLaughlin, S. (1987): The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents. In: Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 40 (3) pp. 449-76 Thaa, W. (2013). „Stuttgart 21“ - Krise oder Repolitisierung der repräsentativen Demokratie? Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 54 (1), pp. 1-20. Weber, M. (2002): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen. Weible, Christopher M. et al., (2011): A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Introduction to the Special Issue. In: Policy Studies Journal, 39 (3), 349–360.