Mega Projects

Question 1

Normative criteria for decision making

Answer 1

Effectiveness = achieve original objectives
Efficiency = cost-benefit, value for money
Justice = distributional and procedural
Legitimacy = acceptability of outcome and process

Question 2

OMEGA Centre key indicators of success (?)

Answer 2

2012
Within budget
On time
According to specification

Question 3

Cost/benefit forecasting of mega projects and how to improve (?;?)

Answer 3

Flyvberg 2013
Generally inaccurate because:
uncertainty, poor quality info, technical issues e.g. bad desing and planning
Planning fallacy = optimism bias - underestimate time/cost/risk, overestimate benefits
Political - strategic misrepresentation
Improvements:
- switch inside view to outside view = use experience from completed projects
- due diligence = use outside view to create benchmark against which performance can be measured

Question 4

OMEGA Centre - how to improve mega project decision making (?)

Answer 4

2012
Focus on adaptability over time
Broader criteria of success and failure - include emergent objectives
Transparency - collect and share info on experiences at global scale
Stakeholder involvement in all stages = multiple problem/solution definitions; increased legitimacy and trust

Question 5

Participatory decision making - rationale and negatives (?;?)

Answer 5

Chilvers 2009
Rationale = 
normative = right thing to do
Instrumental = better way to reach ends
substantive = better ends
Negatives:
- Not representative
- focus on consensus at expense of difference and antagonism
- Naive re. power - seen as something one has and can reallocate, not a technology of government = won't recognise tokenism

Question 6

Ladder of citizen participation (?;?)

Answer 6

Arnstein 1969
Non participation
Degrees of tokenism e.g. consultation / informing
Degrees of citizen power e.g. citizen control / partnership

Question 7

Effectiveness of environmental impact assessments (?;?)

Answer 7

Rozema and Bond 2015
re. HS2 and A4DS motorway Netherlands
EIA effectiveness = ability to accommodate civil society discourses
Justification - flawed economically and bad CBA –> not accommodated - didn’t consider no-action alternative
Party politics - vehicle for electoral gain –> not accommodated - supposed to be apolitical
Conservation - AONB –> was accommdated

Question 8

Clumsy solutions (?;?) (?;?)

Answer 8

Rayner 2006; Verweij et al 2006
Mix different world views
flexible, emergent, messy, iterative, argumentative
Cherish conflict - move away from consensus towards compromised negotiation and coalition building
Plural policy responses

Question 9

Rural to urban resettlement and wellbeing in the Three Gorges Dam (?;?)

Answer 9

Wilmsen et al 2011
- declines in income, inequality, debt, food insecurity
Generally poorer livelihoods

Question 10

Environmental problems re. Three Gorges Dam (?;?)

Answer 10

Fu et al 2010
Uncertainties and competing opinions
EIA didn’t entirely reflect the conflicts and divided views
e.g. water quality, biodiversity etc.

Question 11

Public participation in environmental protection in China (?;?)

Answer 11

Li, Liu and Li 2012
No meaningful institutional framework to allow public participation
Chinese gov no institutional commitment for engaging public
Leads to illegitimacy of policies

Question 12

Neoliberal mega projects and struggles for social justice Dharavi (?;?)

Answer 12

Boano, Lamarca and Hunter 2011

Question 13

Dharavi’s industry and economic success, innovation, communities (?;?)

Answer 13

Sharma 2000

Question 14

Public participation in environmental assessment of hydro development (?;?)

Answer 14

Diduck et al 2007
Chamoli District, India
Descriptiors= early and adequate notice; access to info; assistance to represent their interests; opportunities to comment and influence decisions; public hearings; transparency
–> weak - notice, info exchange, hearings
Need opps for earlier more decentralised and active local involvement

Question 15

Mega-projects as displacements (?;?)

Answer 15

Gellert and Lynch 2003
Forces of capital accumulation and modernising ideology
creative destruction
creative for - strong states, wealthy, dominant ethnic groups
destructive for - weaker states enabling private sector actors, societies remote from centres of power, those who depend on ecological status quo, primitive occupations, least mobile due to biases towards progress and freeing labour from land in modernisation ideology