Framing the Zone: Political Executives Engaging in a Narrative-Framing Contest During Strategic Decision-making

Storytelling is regarded as an important practice within planning processes. Seminal contributions (Throgmorton, 1992 Throgmorton, J. (1992) Planning as persuasive storytelling about the future: Negotiating an electric power rate settlement in Illinois, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12, pp. 17–31.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar], Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12, pp. 17–31; Flyvbjerg, 1998 Flyvbjerg, B. (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) [Google Scholar], Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) as well as recent research (Jensen, 2007 Jensen, O. B. (2007) Culture stories: Understanding cultural urban branding, Planning Theory, 6, pp. 211–236.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar], Planning Theory, 6, pp. 211–236; van Hulst, 2012 van Hulst, M. (2012) Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning, Planning Theory, 11, pp. 299–318.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], Planning Theory, 11, pp. 299–318) demonstrate that there are multiple competing stories about the meaning of any specific plan. This paper contributes to this debate by considering stories as building blocks for a collective action frame in the form of a mutual story. Political executives engage in a framing contest in order to influence such a mutual story. Our case study is based on interpretative analysis of contrasting narratives ands shows how political executives negotiate the meaning of a plan in such a way that the chances of its implementation through funding are optimized.