the whole of the theoretical approaches mentioned, but only this ‘common ground’
is incorporated in the cognitions box of the contextual interaction theory. Part of
these frames is related to ‘boundary judgments’, ideas about what does and what
does not belong to a subject at hand (Bressers and Lulofs 2010). These different
cognitions can refer to subjects or aspects of the project or the problems it wants to
solve, or about the time frames that are relevant like short term results versus
contributing to a long term vision, or about the relevant levels and scales: just local,
or also embedded in a higher level or bigger scale of problem-solving. Differences
in these boundary judgments between the various actors in the process can have
significant impacts on their interactions in the process.
Resources—While resources as an actor characteristic are important to provide
capacity to act, in the relational setting of an interaction process they are also
relevant as a source of power. Resources are here meant to be any asset that public
and private actors can use to support their actions. This implies that the relevance of
resources is dependent on the actions an actor wants to perform. Having resources
that other actors need access to for their preferred actions provides a basis of power.
While in the previous figures the actor characteristics are purely linked to separate
actors in Fig. 3.3 they are related to the actions and interactions in the process.
Therefore this box is labelled “capacity and power” in Fig. 3.3. The relationship
between power and resources is not always direct. Power in first instance largely
results of attribution to an actor by others. However when this attribution is not
backed by real resources it is fragile as soon as it is challenged. The resources that
are the root of these powers encompass much more than formal rules, though legal
rights and other institutional rules can be an important part of it, aside from
resources such as money, skilled people, time and consensus (Klok 1995; Knoepfel
et al. 2011).
Not only the resources of the actors themselves, but moreover the dependency of
an actor on the resources of another actor shapes the balance of power. A classic
example is the dependency of authorities on the jobs created by industry, which
industry can use as a source of negotiation power. The example also shows that in
Contextual Interaction Theory not just formal powers count, but that power can be
based on all kinds of resources. Resources not only shape power relations, but are
also a prerequisite for action as such, determining the capacity to act of any actor.
The resource base for action can be greatly enlarged by engaging in dependencies
with other actors with relevant resources, at the expense of loss of autonomy and
thus—in some cases—power. Whether a specific resource contributes to capacity
and power depends on the action that is intended. Resources that seem irrelevant to
get certain things done might be essential to get other things done.
There are mutual relations between the three key actor characteristics. Every
change in one of the three has influences on the other two. While we typically start
with mentioning motivation, many would like to start with the way reality is
understood and problems and chances perceived, or whether some useful information is available (on relevant technology, economics, social, geographical or
environmental conditions), as a prerequisite for motivation. It must be borne in
mind that the influence is mutual: without certain interests and values, available
50
H. Bressers et al.
is incorporated in the cognitions box of the contextual interaction theory. Part of
these frames is related to ‘boundary judgments’, ideas about what does and what
does not belong to a subject at hand (Bressers and Lulofs 2010). These different
cognitions can refer to subjects or aspects of the project or the problems it wants to
solve, or about the time frames that are relevant like short term results versus
contributing to a long term vision, or about the relevant levels and scales: just local,
or also embedded in a higher level or bigger scale of problem-solving. Differences
in these boundary judgments between the various actors in the process can have
significant impacts on their interactions in the process.
Resources—While resources as an actor characteristic are important to provide
capacity to act, in the relational setting of an interaction process they are also
relevant as a source of power. Resources are here meant to be any asset that public
and private actors can use to support their actions. This implies that the relevance of
resources is dependent on the actions an actor wants to perform. Having resources
that other actors need access to for their preferred actions provides a basis of power.
While in the previous figures the actor characteristics are purely linked to separate
actors in Fig. 3.3 they are related to the actions and interactions in the process.
Therefore this box is labelled “capacity and power” in Fig. 3.3. The relationship
between power and resources is not always direct. Power in first instance largely
results of attribution to an actor by others. However when this attribution is not
backed by real resources it is fragile as soon as it is challenged. The resources that
are the root of these powers encompass much more than formal rules, though legal
rights and other institutional rules can be an important part of it, aside from
resources such as money, skilled people, time and consensus (Klok 1995; Knoepfel
et al. 2011).
Not only the resources of the actors themselves, but moreover the dependency of
an actor on the resources of another actor shapes the balance of power. A classic
example is the dependency of authorities on the jobs created by industry, which
industry can use as a source of negotiation power. The example also shows that in
Contextual Interaction Theory not just formal powers count, but that power can be
based on all kinds of resources. Resources not only shape power relations, but are
also a prerequisite for action as such, determining the capacity to act of any actor.
The resource base for action can be greatly enlarged by engaging in dependencies
with other actors with relevant resources, at the expense of loss of autonomy and
thus—in some cases—power. Whether a specific resource contributes to capacity
and power depends on the action that is intended. Resources that seem irrelevant to
get certain things done might be essential to get other things done.
There are mutual relations between the three key actor characteristics. Every
change in one of the three has influences on the other two. While we typically start
with mentioning motivation, many would like to start with the way reality is
understood and problems and chances perceived, or whether some useful information is available (on relevant technology, economics, social, geographical or
environmental conditions), as a prerequisite for motivation. It must be borne in
mind that the influence is mutual: without certain interests and values, available
50
H. Bressers et al.