IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v42y2023i2p212-225..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bridging the “consent gap”: mechanisms of legitimization in a cross-border megaproject

Author

Listed:
  • Silvia Lucciarini
  • Rossana Galdini

Abstract

In the recent debate on megaprojects (MPs), greater attention is devoted to the functioning of the interorganizational and multiactor networks that are one of the most innovative features in recent years. The complexity of these structures brings out governability issues for an MP’s management. Mutual recognition and consent become elements capable of inaugurating more collaborative processes and practices to reduce organizational and management criticalities in MPs. This paper focuses on a neglected relational dimension, namely legitimacy. We argue that legitimacy is instead the central dimension that attributes effectiveness and capacity for action to the organizations involved. Legitimacy regulates the relationship between various organizations—and especially—between organizations and the public sphere. Institutionalist theory assigns a central role to legitimacy in the construction of social processes, defining it as a generalized form of social acceptance toward an actor, an idea, or a project. In this paper, we hypothesize that the legitimacy attributed and “held” by the stakeholders is a crucial element in countering three critical aspects of MPs, namely the uncertainty, complexity, and conflict acting on the construction of public consensus and the quality of relationships between the participating stakeholders. We verify our hypothesis by analyzing a cross-border MP, the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link between Germany and Denmark. The paper concentrates on the mechanisms with which stakeholders can acquire legitimacy using the Eriksen discursive legitimation scheme. These mechanisms are different (evidence-based, public participation, and legislators’ command) and produce different outcomes in terms of increasing or containing these three criticalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Silvia Lucciarini & Rossana Galdini, 2023. "Bridging the “consent gap”: mechanisms of legitimization in a cross-border megaproject," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(2), pages 212-225.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:2:p:212-225.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puad007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maarten Hajer & Måns Nilsson & Kate Raworth & Peter Bakker & Frans Berkhout & Yvo De Boer & Johan Rockström & Kathrin Ludwig & Marcel Kok, 2015. "Beyond Cockpit-ism: Four Insights to Enhance the Transformative Potential of the Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Daniel Galland & Carsten Hansen, 2012. "The Roles of Planning in Waterfront Redevelopment: From Plan-led and Market-driven Styles to Hybrid Planning?," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 203-225.
    3. Domènec Melé & Jaume Armengou, 2016. "Moral Legitimacy in Controversial Projects and Its Relationship with Social License to Operate: A Case Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(4), pages 729-742, July.
    4. Giovanni Esposito & Andrea Terlizzi & Nathalie Crutzen, 2022. "Policy narratives and megaprojects: the case of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 55-79, January.
    5. Michael Lounsbury & Mary Ann Glynn, 2001. "Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 545-564, June.
    6. Flyvbjerg,Bent & Bruzelius,Nils & Rothengatter,Werner, 2003. "Megaprojects and Risk," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521009461, January.
    7. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    8. Brookes, Naomi J. & Locatelli, Giorgio, 2015. "Power plants as megaprojects: Using empirics to shape policy, planning, and construction management," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 57-66.
    9. Johan Ninan & Ashwin Mahalingam & Stewart Clegg & Shankar Sankaran, 2020. "ICT for external stakeholder management: sociomateriality from a power perspective," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(9), pages 840-855, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johan Ninan & Stewart Clegg & Steve Burdon & John Clay, 2023. "Reimagining Infrastructure Megaproject Delivery: An Australia—New Zealand Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Natalya Sergeeva & Johan Ninan, 2023. "Comparisons as a discursive tool: shaping megaproject narratives in the United Kingdom," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(2), pages 197-211.
    3. Ulrik Kohl & John Andersen, 2022. "Copenhagen’s Struggle to Become the World’s First Carbon Neutral Capital: How Corporatist Power Beats Sustainability," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 230-241.
    4. Giorgio Locatelli, 2018. "Why are Megaprojects, Including Nuclear Power Plants, Delivered Overbudget and Late? Reasons and Remedies," Papers 1802.07312, arXiv.org.
    5. Hugh Breakey, 2021. "Harnessing Multidimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 359-373, May.
    6. Fabrizio Coticchia & Marco Di Giulio, 2023. "Nonuse and hypocritical use of strategic narratives in Megaprojects: the case of the Florence high-speed railway," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(2), pages 164-183.
    7. Gregory, Julian, 2020. "Governance, scale, scope: A review of six South African electricity generation infrastructure megaprojects," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    8. Ahsan Nawaz & Xing Su & Qaiser Mohi Ud Din & Muhammad Irslan Khalid & Muhammad Bilal & Syyed Adnan Raheel Shah, 2020. "Identification of the H&S (Health and Safety Factors) Involved in Infrastructure Projects in Developing Countries-A Sequential Mixed Method Approach of OLMT-Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-18, January.
    9. R. Sandra Schillo & Ajax Persaud & Meng Jin, 2016. "Entrepreneurial readiness in the context of national systems of entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 619-637, April.
    10. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    11. Cantarelli, C.C. & Flyvbjerg, B. & Buhl, S.L., 2012. "Geographical variation in project cost performance: the Netherlands versus worldwide," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 324-331.
    12. David G. Sirmon & Michael A. Hitt, 2003. "Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 27(4), pages 339-358, October.
    13. Isuru Koswatte & Chandrika Fernando, 2022. "Policy Development for Crisis Management in the Context of Sri Lanka," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 20(3 (Fall)), pages 295-327.
    14. John R. Moodie & Viktor Salenius & Michael Kull, 2022. "From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1113-1132, October.
    15. Zhao, Na, 2019. "Managing interactive collaborative mega project supply chains under infectious risks," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 275-286.
    16. Svana Helen Björnsdóttir & Pall Jensson & Saemundur E. Thorsteinsson & Ioannis M. Dokas & Helgi Thor Ingason, 2023. "Aligning Stakeholders and Actors: A New Safety and Security-Based Design Approach for Major National Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-41, December.
    17. Tomas Karlsson & Caroline Wigren, 2012. "Start-ups among university employees: the influence of legitimacy, human capital and social capital," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 297-312, June.
    18. Zelong Wei & Hao Shen & Kevin Zheng Zhou & Julie Juan Li, 2017. "How Does Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Matter in a Dysfunctional Institutional Environment? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 209-223, January.
    19. Leheis, Stéphanie, 2012. "High-speed train planning in France: Lessons from the Mediterranean TGV-line," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 37-44.
    20. Morgenroth, Edgar & FitzGerald, John & FitzGerald, John, 2006. "Summary and Conclusions," Book Chapters, in: Morgenroth, Edgar (ed.),Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Investment Priorities for the National Development Plan 2007-2013, chapter 24, pages 317-333, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
      • Baker, Terence J. & FitzGerald, John & Honohan, Patrick & FitzGerald, John & Honohan, Patrick, 1996. "Summary and Conclusions," Book Chapters, in: Baker, Terence J. (ed.),Economic Implications for Ireland of EMU, chapter 12, pages 339-352, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:2:p:212-225.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.