Demonstrate how power relationships influence consensus making

7/31/2019 Demonstrate how power relationships influence consensus making

1/10

1

Case Study: Cardiff Bay

Demonstrate how power relationships influence

consensus-making

BENVGPLB Pillars of Planning B

Dr. HaeRan Shin Urban Politics

Word count:

This Student is registered with UCL Student Disability

Services.

Please refer to marking guidelines at

www.ucl.ac.uk/disability/resources
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability/resourceshttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability/resourceshttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability/resources


2/10

2

1. Introduction

Power is omnipresent in society and uneven power relationships among

stakeholders can often threaten the ability to achieve democracy and consensus in

decision making (Kathleen et al, 1992; Foucault, 1980; Lukes, 1974;Dahl, 1957).

Max Weber (1922, p.53) exemplifies this in his widely accepted definition of power

which states, Power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will

be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance.

Forging consensus is increasingly at the forefront of planning because it seeks to

address complex political issues with multiple stakeholders and to balance theiradverse power hierarchies (Schieffer, 2007). It is a conflict management process

which aims to resolve objections through participation and reciprocation, intending to

give an equal voice to all stakeholders (Innes, 1994).

The regeneration of Cardiff Bay has been specifically chosen as a case study to

demonstrate how power relationships can influence consensus-making. The pivotal

element of the regeneration, and focus of this essay, was the construction of the

Cardiff Bay Barrage, which was fraught with great tensions and conflicts (Hidding et

al, 2000; Raco, 2000). The barrage was seen by politicians as the key to making

Cardiff a major maritime city but environmentalist and other stakeholders voiced

their opposition (Punter, 2007).

Firstly this essay will give a case study background to Cardiffs regeneration and the

policy context at the time. Secondly research techniques will be highlighted. Thirdly,

the analysis will present the different stakeholders, their arguments, sources of

power and relative power relationships. Fourthly, the discussion section will state

the outcome of the decision making process and seek to unravel the process of

negotiation and how power relationships influenced the decision outcomes. Finally a

conclusion will be made that consensus was not achieved but positional bargaining

due to the adversarial power relationships. Additionally suggests will be made

towards the skills of negotiation and their relevance in planning practise.


3/10

3

2. Background

This section seeks to give a background to the case study of Cardiff Bay detailing its

history, proposal and policy context of the time.

Case Study

Cardiff was once dubbed the coal metropolis (Thomas and Imrie, 1989); however

after the Second World War most of the coal industry had closed down and the city

was left tainted with a legacy of derelict and unsightly docklands (as seen in figure 1

below) (Pacione, 1990; Cardiff Council, 2005). However, in the 1990s, an intensive

scheme of regeneration sought to inject new life into the area. One of the key

elements proposed by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (CBDC) was to barrage

the bay (RSPB, 2004). The aim of the Barrage was to revitalise the docklands and

enable the derelict tidal mudflats to be replaced by an inland freshwater lake (as

seen in figure 2 below). It was considered essential to establish Cardiff

internationally as a superlative maritime city (CBDC, 1988, p. 2) and to regenerate

the area that had suffered from economic and environmental deprivation (Thomas

and Imrie, 1999).

Figure 1- Before

Cardiff Bay Pre-Barrage

Source: Cardiff Harbour Authority

Figure 2 After

Mermaid Quay following impoundment

Source: Cardiff Harbour Authority


4/10

4

Policy context

In urban planning there has been an increasing drive for consensus and one

example of this was the creation of Urban Development Corporations in the 1980s

(UDCs). The purpose of the UDCs was to regenerate particularly deprived and run-

down areas of British inner cities (Post, 2011). UDCs aimed to engage in building

local partnerships with interested stakeholders to aid the development of a

collaborative economic strategy (CBDC, 2000).

Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (CBDC), one of 13 UDCs set up by

government between 1987 and 2000, was created to stimulate the regeneration of

Cardiff and creation of Cardiff Bay (Cardiff Council, 2005). The partnerships formed

under CBDC and other UDCs might have been expected to moderate the influence

of power relationships on planning decisions.However, the form and effectiveness of

community participation in such partnerships has become an area of ambiguity

(Colen and Cutten, 1994).

The powerful government-led nature of the UDC driven by the aspiration for Cardiff

to become an internationally competitive maritime city might have compromised the

effective participation of all stakeholders in the consensus building process. For

example, Colen and Cutten (1994:239) have expressed that although community

representatives are formally recognised in partnerships they often lack the power to

operate on equal footing with other partners (Raco, 2000).

3. Research techniques

A diligent and systematic inquiry, of both primary and secondary sources, has aimed

to understand the decision making process of the proposal of Cardiff Bay Barrage.

An interview with a professional mediator has been undertaken as a primary source

of information. Secondary sources have been used to validate this research

including internet sources, council documents, planning journals, books and previous

stakeholder interviews.


5/10

5

Most influential or powerful

In favour of

Barrage

Opposed to

Barrage

Least influential or powerful

4. Analysis

This section will identify the multiple stakeholders, their arguments, sources of power

and relative power relationships.

Stakeholders

A stakeholder is an individual or group with a stake or interest in the outcome of a

decision or action (Freeman et al, 1983). In Cardiff there were multiple stakeholders

with varying abilities and powers to influence the decision making process. Figure 3

below maps out the power relationships between these stakeholders. Fundamentally

power is only relative (French and Raven, 1956) and not measurable in absolute

terms therefore Figure 3 is purely an estimate of the relative power relationships

between stakeholders. The approach used to assess relative power relationships

has been based on indicators such as distribution of material resources which reflect

the possible power of stakeholders (Schieffer, 2007).

Figure 3- Power map

Council

National Government

Local Businesses

Youth Unemployed

Property and Real Estate Developers

Private Sector

E.g. Alan Cox Executive of

Allied Steel and Wire

Experts and Academics

Local Businesses

Local Residents

e.g. Bute Town

Friends of the Earth

Environmental Agency

Current Industry

Experts and Academics

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Local MP

Environmentalists

New residents

European Commission


6/10

6

The Arguments

There are two central arguments which prevailed in the decision making process,

which are detailed below.

1) Environmentalists objected to the development on the basis that

impoundment would submerge the intertidal mudflats that were feeding

grounds to populations of wintering and passage birds. In particular, they

were concerned that it would destroy the Taff/Ely Estuary Special Site of

Significant Interest and adversely affect the Severn Estuary.

Figure 4-Interview

Raoul Bhambral, from Friends of the Earth has

expressed concern for the loss of feeding grounds

saying: Its very likely that the displaced birds will

starve and die and this whole site of special scientific

interest will be destroyed with full government

backing. (Goldblatt, 2008)

2) National Government had fully supported the proposal for the Cardiff Bay

barrage and argued that that regeneration could not be effectively achieved at

the same level and quality without this key intervention. In their opinion, the

predicted economic regeneration benefits outweighed the conservation

arguments for protecting the mudflats (Imrie, Thomas and Marshall, 1995).

Figure 5-Interview

Michael Boyce, from Cardiff Bay Development

Corporation (CBDA) has justified the importance of

the Barrage as part of a Cardiffs wider

regeneration saying: We made a judgement that

deprivation, poverty and unemployment were

considerably more important than the feeding

grounds of a fairly common bird.

(Goldblatt, 2008)


7/10

7

Sources of power

Stakeholders can take advantage of multiple sources of power (Hunt and Nevin,

1974). Jane Gunn (2012) a professional mediator and conflict expert has been

interviewed in order to define and discuss the possible sources of power of the two

stakeholders, environmentalist and government, represented in table 1 and 2 below.

Table 1- Environmentalists

Source of Power Explanation

Moral power Humans have a moral duty and stewardship to preserve the

environment

Legislative power Docklands mudflats were protected under national

conservation legislation as a Site of Specific Scientific Interest

(SSSI) for the wetland birds they supported

People power Pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and the Royal

Society for the Protection of Birds, waged a ten year campaign

against the Barrage which went as far as the EU

Table 2- Government

Source of Power Explanation

Moral power Regeneration would address issues such as deprivation,

poverty and unemployment to increase the quality of life of

local residents

Political power Barrage needed its own act of parliament

Financial power Access to financial resources to implement its ideas as well as

to fight campaigns of opposition


8/10

8

Power relationships

Figure 6- Illustrate the relative power of stakeholders

The figure 4 illustrates that although the environmentalists did have considerable

power, ultimately it was not as strong as the governments power. The simplest

argument of how this power relationship played out is that even with the objection of

the environmentalists, development still went ahead.

5. Discussion

This section states the final outcome and discusses how the decision making

process and power relationships unravelled through negotiations.

Outcome

The construction of Cardiff Bay Barrage started in 1994 and was completed in 1999.

However, this was following enormous struggle by the government to overcome the

objections of the environmentalists. For example, there were five unsuccessful

attempts to pass the Cardiff Bay Barrage bill through parliament between 1987 and

1991 (CBDC, 2000). The final bill was passed in 1993 and many concessions had tobe agreed to the bill. There has been a core power struggle over the negotiations of

National Government Environmentalist


9/10

9

environmental compensation for example site designation based upon scientific

criteria and measure of the value for habitat loss (Waterton, 2002). Ultimately over

9 million was allocated for the location of a new wetland nature reserve. The time

and effort taken to agree these compensating measures indicates how powerful the

environmentalists were in this decision making process (Cowell, 2000).

Consensus

Consensus building is based on a practice of participation between stakeholders with

different and opposing views who work together interactively towards agreement

over a sensible way forward(Innes, 2004). Using this definition, evidence suggests

that an adequate process of consensus building was not achieved in Cardiff. Firstly,

the positional nature of the negotiations to pass the Barrage Bill suggests that there

was not an adequate process of participation between the stakeholders to address

objections and concerns. Secondly, negotiations were adversarial not consensual

because they were formed on the respective power bases of the stakeholders and

not on equality of voice. In particular, the financial and political power of the

government was consistently greater than the power of the environmentalists. For

example, the politicians were accused ofbringing the democratic process into

disrepute (Best, 2005)

Positional bargaining

Positional bargaining is a negotiation strategy that involves holding on to a fixed

idea, or position, of what a party wants and arguing for it and it alone, regardless of

any underlying interests (Spangler, 2003). Instead of facilitating a consensus building

process to address their respective interests and concerns, the government relied

upon an adversarial process of negotiation based upon positional bargaining. The

eventual compromise was agreed upon because of the relative power of the

government and environmentalists, not as a result of a meeting of minds through

consensus.


10/10

10

6. Conclusion

In conclusion this research has illustrated the complex and political nature of

decision making that can be driven by adversarial power relationships. Power has

proved to be an instrument of coercion. In Cardiff the uneven power relationships

between the government and environmentalists has proved to disrupt a democratic

decision making process and hampered the ability for consensus to occur. It has

been identified that power is everywhere and there are multiple source so in order to

balance this power relationships it is important to use affective planning process and

decision making skills.

Mediation and negotiation skills are increasingly becoming more important within

planning. However the right type of bargaining needs to be used, in this case study

Cardiff bay fought a long and hard10 year battle to gain planning permission and the

adequate compensation agreements. a strategy of positional bargaining was used

and as a consequence the outcome was a compromise. Whereas if Integrative or

Interest-Based Bargaining is used the planning process would be more efficient and

more successful in its outcome. Integrative Bargaining is a negotiation strategywhich seeks to produce a win-win outcome, based on developing mutually beneficial

agreements. Integrative bargaining should be used in planning because it usually

produces more satisfactory outcomes for the parties involved than does positional

bargaining (Spangler, 2003).

Demonstrate how power relationships influence consensus making

Documents

Transcript of Demonstrate how power relationships influence consensus making