Common use of Policy-Making Processes Clause in Contracts

Policy-Making Processes. Having introduced four ideal types of knowledge use in policy-making processes, one may wonder how these relate to broader characteristics of the domestic policy context. Or more in particular: how is internationally gained knowledge adopted by policy networks around airports, how do the prevailing type of knowledge use and the broader political and institutional context interact, and under which circumstances does this actually lead to policy change? In order to explore actor relations within the policy network, we propose to use the typology of etatism, liberal pluralism and neo-corporatism. Sets of grouped and interrelated aspects of the policy network will allow a systematic comparison. Although admittedly somewhat crude, this typology has proven its value to many scholars endeavouring to compare different national institutional contexts and policy styles (▇.▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2005; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2006; van ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1995a, 1995b). Crucially, the typology summarizes in a nut- shell the allocation of power among the main types of actors involved in decision-making processes. Underlying the use of this classical typology is the assumption that policy networks around specific airports, despite local particula- rities, carry important characteristics of the national context in which they operate. Below, the three ideal types of the typology are outlined in terms of regulatory structure and policy style. Differences in power are expressed in terms of access to the policy network, the distribution of resources among actors and the character of the interaction between them. More particularly, regulatory structure refers to the degree of openness of the policy network, the (types of) actors involved, as well as the resources they control or share. Policy style refers to the relationship between the government and other (societal) actors in the policy-making process and the prevalent style of communication between them.