A Europe of multiple flows: Contested discursive integration in trans-European transport infrastructure policy-making

Introduction

In early December 2015 the Swedish government announced the preparation of a proposal – eventually dropped – to make it possible temporarily to halt road traffic over the Øresund bridge linking Sweden and Denmark, given Sweden’s struggles to respond adequately to the number of refugees coming from mainland Europe (Reuters, 2015). Although not the only instance of the re-establishment of nation-state borders within the Schengen zone as a result of the recent refugee crisis, this case is significant because of the symbolic role of the Øresund link in materializing European spatial integration, through its facilitation both of unimpeded transport across borders (Jensen and Richardson, 2004: 221–222) and of cross-border region building in the EU (Hospers, 2006; Löfgren, 2008).

The spatial integration of European space through transnational transport infrastructure is not a unique feature of the formal integration processes started in the aftermath of World War II (Badenoch and Fickers, 2010; Van der Vleuten and Kaijser, 2006); however, it was during this period and, in particular, over the last three decades that the EU-level of policy-making gained prominence. The EU Single Market, which was launched in 1993, entails the promotion of the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, for which obstacle-free transport across nation-state borders is fundamental. Against this backdrop, since the 1980s significant transport infrastructure policy developments at EU level have taken place, particularly the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T), a policy that seeks to support the development of trans-European networks of roads, rail, inland waterways and ports, seaports, airports and a combined transport network. Further to the introduction of a series of regulations in the mid-1990s, the current revised guidelines for their development and rules for granting EU financial aid were approved in 2013 (EP and Council, 2013a, 2013b).

The remarkable momentum of TEN-T policy has led some authors to argue that trans-European infrastructure development has been driven by a hegemonic discourse that promotes the production of a single, uniform European space, a ‘Europe of Flows’ or ‘monotopia’ underpinned by a vision of unimpeded mobility through inter-city networks (Hajer, 2000; Jensen and Richardson, 2004). However, the effectiveness of such a discourse seems to be compromised by the challenges European integration faces, recently made evident through the economic, financial and refugee crises (Bulmer and Joseph, 2016; Tosun et al., 2014) and the rise of Euroscepticism and nationalism exemplified by the outcome of the ‘Brexit’ referendum (Grevi, 2016). ¹ In spite of the significant economic and political integration of the European Union over the last three decades, the member state is still central to the functioning of the EU (Bickerton, 2012) and the difficulties in constructing a European identity persist (Stavrakakis, 2005). Thus questions remain regarding the extent to which the arguments posed by the aforementioned actors represent an accurate description of major transport infrastructure development in Europe. Is it simply a vision on an integrated and seamless European space that is driving this process? Are there other imaginaries shaping it? What insights into the nature of European integration does this provide?

This paper seeks to shed light on the existence of such a hegemonic discourse – or, stated differently, on the extent to which discursive integration has taken place – by examining in-depth a particular case of trans-European transport infrastructure development. Specifically, it presents a discourse analysis of the policy process for a high-speed rail line project of clear relevance to the EU.

First, the contributions to the literature that have explored this issue, with a particular focus on the hegemonic discourse mentioned above, are critically reviewed. Next, the discourse analytical approach and the research strategy employed are then introduced. This is followed by a brief introduction to the case, and then the analysis of the case. The paper concludes with a reflection on the findings and their wider relevance for the literature on trans-European transport infrastructure development.

Discourse analysis and trans-European networks

Research on trans-European transport infrastructure policy and planning has tended to reflect the positivist, apparently value-free orientation of traditional transport geography (Hanson, 2000). Existing scholarship has generally been limited to explaining and evaluating the development of this type of infrastructure, by developing an understanding of policy processes (Holliday et al., 1991; Stephenson, 2003; Stevens, 2004), assessing the difficulties which the development of this type of infrastructure faces (Johnson and Turner, 1997; Nijkamp and Vleugel, 1995; Ross, 1995), and evaluating the capacity of TEN-T networks to fulfil the expectations placed on them (Ross, 1994; Spiekermann and Wegener, 2006; Vickerman, 1997).

However, some authors, small in number, have engaged in a more fundamental critique of TEN-T policy by focusing on its socially constructed nature. They have analyzed the existence and main characteristics of a hegemonic policy discourse (Hajer, 2000; Jensen and Richardson, 2004), its internal contradictions (Peters, 2003), the production of knowledge that legitimizes it (Richardson, 2006) and the limitations for environmental policy integration (Richardson, 1997). Through the unpacking of the discursive constructions that structure the dominant way of viewing transport infrastructure, these authors have endeavoured to reveal their assumptions and weaknesses, the knowledge that legitimizes them – and which in turn discredits other forms of knowledge – and the practices through which they are produced and reproduced.

This line of inquiry has been explored in particular by Jensen and Richardson through their work on the policy discourses articulated in the development of a European spatial planning agenda and on the relationship between power and knowledge (e.g. Jensen and Richardson, 2004; Richardson, 1999; Richardson and Jensen, 2000). They have argued that a policy discourse has emerged which seeks to produce a certain European space associated with a certain rationality, a space they named ‘monotopia’: ‘an organised, ordered and totalised space of zero-friction and seamless logistic flows’ (Jensen and Richardson, 2004: 3). This discourse has the concept of ‘frictionless (that is, unimpeded) mobility’ at its centre, but it also encompasses other aspects of spatial development: the polycentric development of its urban nodes; the subsidiary role of the environment; and the re-thinking of territorial identity issues that a monotopic Europe involves. Arguably, however, their spatial planning approach prevents them from considering in sufficient depth the differences between – and importance of – EU sectoral policies, which casts doubt on the feasibility of developing a coherent spatial project for the EU.

A more transport-focused account has been provided by Hajer (2000), who, in a brief article, has proposed the existence of a transnational policy discourse, which he termed ‘Europe of Flows’, that influences spatial development policy in Europe and is shared by policy-makers at different levels of government. Among other features, he noted that this discourse is committed to market integration and considers global competition as a strategic challenge for Europe; conceives the objectives of the EU as both enhancing competitiveness whilst promoting cohesion; perceives infrastructure as key to achieving these goals; and is committed to ecological modernization. According to Hajer, the Trans-European Networks should be understood as ‘a set of particular discursive practices within which a particular policy discourse is reproduced and transformed’ (Hajer, 2000: 138).

The emphasis in Hajer’s approach lies in the power of such a policy discourse and on the fact that its influence is not limited to EU-level actors. In order to explain the production and reproduction of the discourse, he employed the concept of the storyline (see below) to propose the narrative ‘from patchwork to network’, where ‘network’ can be interpreted as a metaphor of European integration (Hajer, 2000). As he correctly observed, the network metaphor masks the discrepancies between elements included in it – for instance, the tensions between the objectives of cohesion and market integration. Despite the potential of this approach for understanding discourse production in trans-European infrastructure policy-making, the scope of Hajer’s article is limited. Its focus is restricted to the content of discourse and does not include the institutional practices through which the discourse is created, reproduced and transformed; it does not address the temporal dimension; and, fundamentally, the analysis is tentative and open to being refined by further research.

In fact, among the actors that may share such a transnational policy discourse, tensions are likely to appear that could potentially undermine the discourse’s influence. A first set of tensions may be located at the EU policy-making level. Peters’ (2003) discourse analysis of EU transport infrastructure policy has indeed identified contradictions between the rationales underlying it and has further shown how cohesion and sustainable development goals have been persistently set aside in favour of those of growth and competitiveness.

However, tensions may also appear between levels, beyond the EU level of policy-making. The nation-state is likely to be significant, particularly in sectors such as rail transport where it has had a prominent role in development and management, especially in the second half of the last (20th) century (Ross, 1998). Indeed, according to Stevens (2004) and Ross (1994, 1998) the protection of state-owned national rail systems has been a major factor in preventing a European approach to rail infrastructure development. Due to the different geographical, historical and cultural factors that have contributed to shape nation-state transport policies in Europe (Stevens, 2004: 32–34), it might be expected that the nation-state political arena would show its own dynamics. Cross-border links are liable to pose particular challenges, not only because of the presumably low priority of nationally peripheral lines but also due to the potential difficulties encountered in attempting to achieve consensus among the nation-states involved (Dörry and Decoville, 2016; Ross, 1995). Beyond the nation-state, actors associated with urban areas may regard trans-European infrastructure development as an opportunity to advance the competitive advantage of cities within supranational scales of capital circulation, as part of what Brenner (2004) has termed ‘urban locational policies’, to foster urban regeneration, as the oft-cited case of Lille shows (Newman and Thornley, 1995), and to link a poorly-integrated cross-border region, as Linnros and Hallin (2001) have demonstrated in their discourse analysis of the case of the Øresund link.

In summary, the contributions on the existence of a hegemonic discourse on the development of European space seem to underestimate the relevance of non-EU policy-making levels. Although they have endeavoured to reveal the assumptions and weaknesses of this discourse, the knowledge that legitimizes it and the practices through which it is produced and reproduced, Jensen and Richardson (2004) have not considered these other levels in sufficient detail or depth; and Hajer (2000) merely assumed that the discourse is shared across them. Given the foreseeable variety of rationales concerned, it is argued there that there is a need to clarify the extent to which a single hegemonic discourse underpins major transport infrastructure development in the EU and steers it towards the creation of a ‘Europe of Flows’.

The remainder of this paper seeks to shed light on this issue by providing an in-depth empirical investigation that transcends an exclusive focus on EU policy-making.

Introduction to the case and methodology

The Vitoria–Irun high-speed rail line

The development of a new rail line in the Basque Country has its origins in the mid-1980s, when the Spanish Government, responsible for the majority of the rail infrastructure in the country, started to plan the upgrading of the substandard Spanish network. The Basque Country, one of the two natural land connections between the Iberian peninsula and the European continent, had a rail network that linked poorly its three main cities with each other and with the Spanish and French networks; in addition it has, as does the rest of the Spanish network, a different track gauge from the standard gauge used in most of Europe. The Spanish 1987 Railway Transport Plan (Ministerio de Transportes, Turismo y Comunicaciones (MTTC), 1987) proposed a new link designed for speeds of 160 km/h between Bilbao and Vitoria which removed an existing bottleneck, but its lack of consideration regarding its integration with the European network through San Sebastian and Irun prompted Basque actors, in particular the government and the Chamber of Commerce of Bilbao, to lobby for a new cross-border link. A Basque Rail Plan proposed the development of a new Y-shaped line designed for maximum speeds of 200 km/h which used the Bilbao–Vitoria connection to improve the link between these two cities and the French border (Departamento de Política Territorial y Transportes (DPTT) and SENER, 1987). The Spanish infrastructure manager, RENFE, agreed to study this proposal with the Basque Government, but the development of such a study was to be affected by the Spanish Council of Ministers’ landmark 1988 decision to build new high-speed rail lines in standard track gauge (Ministerio de Transportes, Turismo y Comunicaciones (MTTC), 1988). The resulting report, the Estudio de Alternativas Ferroviarias en el País Vasco, defined the final basic characteristics of the line, maintaining the Y-shaped route of the previous proposal but adopting the design criteria for high-speed lines and mixed traffic (with maximum speeds of 250 km/h) and the standard gauge (Departamento de Política Territorial y Transportes (DPTT) and INECO, 1989). Figure 1 illustrates this gradual definition of the line’s route.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The Vitoria–-Irun HSR line route evolution (1987–1989) (source: author).

During the process of the new HSR line between Vitoria and Irun being defined, high-speed rail as a policy issue gained prominence in both Spain and the EU. On the one hand, the 1988 decision of the Council of Ministers launched the significant development of high-speed rail lines in Spain, with the first being opened in 1992 between Madrid and Seville. On the other hand, and promoted by European state and business actors, in the early 1990s EU actors took determined steps to advance the development of a trans-European HSR network. By the end of 1990, a High Level Group on a trans-European HSR network, established by the Commission and comprising representatives of, among other institutions, the member states, had produced a first outline plan of a trans-European network, in which the Vitoria–Irun line was part of one of the 15 ‘key links’ that were deemed necessary for the satisfactory operation of the network (CEC, 1991). The inclusion of this line in the network was formalized in 1996, when the guidelines for the development of Trans-European Networks included it as part of one of the 14 projects to be given priority (EP and Council, 1996). Notwithstanding these wider developments, however, progress on the Vitoria–Irun line was slow and limited to the development of technical studies, essentially under the initiative of the Basque Government.

The timeline of the project was in fact determined by the Spanish Government, whose priority was instead the Seville–Madrid–Barcelona–French-border HSR corridor. Only once it approved its 1994 infrastructure plan (Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente (MOPTMA), 1994), which incorporated the – until then fragmentary – HSR developments, did the Vitoria–-Irun line gradually gain momentum. Five months after its approval, the Spanish Government launched the production of the legally required estudio informativo for the new line, in effect a study defining its general characteristics. Although the production of this document did not involve significant changes in the project for the purposes of this paper, it prompted the participation and mobilization of Basque political actors. Significantly, this was at a time when an active and heterogeneous protest movement crystallized which notably included a number of Basque trade unions, environmental groups, left-wing political parties and an assembly-led organization with a strong anti-developmental stance. After a lengthy process, which included an extended period of public consultation, the estudio was finally approved in November 2000.

This approval marked the beginning of the implementation period, which in its first years was characterized by significant tensions between the Spanish and Basque Governments. Disagreements over the implementation timeline led to a conflict of competencies in which the Basque Government tried to tender the construction projects for the eastern branch of the line, between its central node and the French border. Nevertheless, by 2004 the project gained a new momentum when the Spanish Council of Ministers launched the tendering process for the project and construction of eight – out of the 15 – sections of the line (El País, 2004a). Although the change in the Spanish Government resulting from that year’s general election resulted in a temporary setback, the improved relations between both governments was to provide the final impetus for the start of the construction work. In 2005, negotiations on the 2006 General State Budget in the Spanish legislature provided an opportunity to consolidate the willingness to cooperate on the line’s implementation. An agreement was finally signed, by the two governments and the Spanish infrastructure manager, in April 2006, which established that the Basque Government would secure and advance the funding, to be recovered in the future, for the eastern branch of the line (El País, 2006). Construction of the line started in September 2006 and, according to the current Spanish minister, the line is presently (July 2016) planned to become operational in 2019 (El País, 2015).

A developmental discourse: different storylines within a hegemonic discourse

Although the account above illustrates how the differences in interests and agendas of the different actors involved influenced the development of the Vitoria–Irun line, these same actors have shared a general understanding of the line’s necessity and benefits. The discourse analysis points at the existence of an overarching discourse that emerged in the second half of the 1980s and which considered the provision of transport infrastructure as essential to economic development within an economically integrating Europe. This developmental discourse shares many of its defining characteristics with Hajer’s (2000) ‘Europe of Flows’ policy discourse.

Since the late 1980s not only has this discourse structured the understanding of the policy problem across the policy-making environment, but also it has been institutionalized through its translation into particular institutional arrangements and policies. This is certainly the case not only of the TEN-T policy initiative and the bodies set up alongside it, but also of other Spanish and Basque initiatives, as it is shown below. Indeed, this institutionalization determined the change from the initial Bilbao–Vitoria project to the Vitoria–-Irun HSR line. From a first, moderate proposal based essentially on transport considerations (i.e. the removal of a bottleneck), the necessity of a new HSR line came to be seen as crucial for promoting balanced economic development and a sustainable transport system.

Nevertheless, the developmental discourse has been neither uniform nor devoid of internal tensions. Closer inspection results in the identification of different discourse coalitions which, while sharing a similar understanding of the transport infrastructure problem, steered the project in different directions.

Conclusion

The Vitoria–Irun HSR line provides an illustration of the variety of rationales present in major transport infrastructure development in the EU and how they shaped both the characteristics and the timeline of the project.

On the one hand, the different storylines were sufficiently compatible to prevent major disagreements arising over the line. The Atlantic corridor emphasis of Basque concerns was consonant with the views proposing the establishment of an integrated trans-European network. Moreover, the design proposed by the Basque Government addressed two of the Spanish Government’s concerns in one go: it improved both the integration of Bilbao in the Spanish network and the deficient link between the latter and the French border. The emergence of the ‘sustainable spatial structuring’ storyline further helped consolidate a consensus over the design of the line through an emphasis on sustainable transport and multi-scalar benefits.

On the other hand, the different understandings of the policy problem caused tensions among those who practised the hegemonic discourse and resulted in struggles to achieve influence in the policy process. The diverging senses of urgency of the Spanish and Basque governments led to a significant conflict of competencies between both in the first half of the 2000s; and the lack of priority in particular regarding the cross-border section, coupled with the limited powers of EU institutions, prevented the proponents of the European storyline to satisfy their concern of establishing promptly the TEN-T ‘key link’. On the whole, the Vitoria–Irun line may be seen as a compromise between the different storylines through which the hegemonic discourse was articulated, reflecting in turn the influence that the different actors involved were able to exert in policy-making.

The discourse analysis on the Vitoria–Irun line therefore permits qualification of the assertion of the existence of a single discourse ‘shared by policy makers at different levels of government’ (Hajer, 2000: 135) that pushes ‘towards a new European space of uniform flow’ (Jensen and Richardson, 2004: 3). Although the existence of an overarching hegemonic discourse seems evident, this has in turn been articulated through a series of storylines, generally – although not always to the same extent – related to particular scales. Hajer’s (2000) discourse on a ‘Europe of Flows’ is therefore conceptualized better as a specific storyline within a wider developmental discourse that emphasizes the economic development dimension of transport infrastructure and the role of high-speed rail in it. Jensen and Richardson (2004: 4) acknowledged the importance of cities as nodes in the global flows of capital and information, but the analysis presented here suggests a more nuanced understanding of this space of flows. The discourse coalitions that were formed around the Vitoria–-Irun line had different understandings of the reach and qualities that the spatial relations facilitated by the line should have; some favoured freight transport along the Atlantic corridor, while others advocated medium- or short-distance inter-urban passenger transport. In line with Harrison and Growe’s (2014) argument that territorial forms of state organization are not incompatible with the construction of relational spaces, this case further shows how multiple scalar frames may involve different, and at times competing, relational spaces. The articulation of the space of flows is therefore an essentially contested, and certainly not predetermined, process.

Whilst the study of a single case, particularly an unusual one, does not permit generalizing its findings to a wider set of cases, the Vitoria–Irun policy process does question the existence of a monolithic discourse that unequivocally leads to a seamless European space. Examples with a focus on the evident conflict between the long-distance spatial relations promoted by high-speed rail and the spaces it bypasses, such as the new Turin–Lyon HSR line through the Italian Val di Susa (Della Porta and Piazza, 2008), might in fact suggest that such a discourse on a ‘Europe of Flows’ exists, and studies of particular urban regions may demonstrate how such a discourse might in turn be articulated according to subnational concerns (e.g. Linnros and Hallin, 2001). By providing a wider, multi-scalar illustration of cross-border transport infrastructure policy-making, the study of the Vitoria–Irun case goes one step further, to show the complex discursive landscape that may characterize trans-European transport infrastructure policy-making. Although there are signs that EU action on Trans-European Networks has increased over the last decade (Marshall, 2014), this complexity is likely to exist at present, not least in the light of the recent setback to European integration, albeit the study of other cases of trans-European transport infrastructure would shed light on its importance and characteristics. However, to conclude, this study reveals a worrying implication for critical perspectives on this topic. While the hegemonic discourse is complex and characterized by internal tensions, it permeates and is embedded in multiple scalar trajectories and arenas. Attempts to develop alternative discursive constructions should therefore not simply engage with a supposedly European hegemonic project, but rather with the multiplicity of broadly compatible projects that drive transport infrastructure development in the EU.