Abstract :
[en] Abstract
Drawing on a documentary analysis of two socio-economic policy programs, one Flemish (“Vlaanderen In Actie”; VIA), the other Walloon (“Marshall Plans”; MPs), and a discourse analysis of how these programs are received in one Flemish and one Francophone quality newspaper, this paper illustrates how Flanders and Wallonia both seek to become top-performing knowledge-based economies (KBEs). The paper discerns a number of discursive repertoires, such as “Catching up,” which Flemish and Walloon policy actors draw on to legitimize or question the transformation of Flanders and Wallonia into KBEs. The “Catching up” repertoire places Flanders resolutely ahead of Wallonia in the global race towards knowledge, excellence, and science-driven innovation, but suggests that Wallonia may, in due course overtake Flanders as a top-competitive region. Given the expectations and/or fears that “Catching up” evokes among Flemish and Walloon policy actors, the repertoire serves these actors as a flexible discursive resource to make sense of, and shape, their collective futures, and thus their identities. By rendering explicit how Flanders and Wallonia each acquire a distinct identity through the global KBE, the paper underlines the simultaneity of, and the interplay between, globalizing forces and particularizing tendencies and illuminates the political, nation-building and identity-building functions of science, technology, and innovation.
The paper starts from the following preliminary observations. While both the VIA plan and the MPs emphasize the need of transforming Flanders and Wallonia into KBEs in order meet the demands of globalization (OECD 1996), the plans adopt a different tone and stance. The Flemish plan repeatedly states the need of transforming Flanders into “a top region, not only in Europe, but in the world, particularly in the social and economic field” (VIA, 2006: 4). It also states that Flanders is already prosperous and already has many strengths, but that the welfare and prosperity of Flanders are “under threat” in a “challenging global economic environment” (2). The message is thus that Flanders is doing relatively well in the global economy, but that it must do even better if it is to maintain its competitive edge and its welfare. By contrast, the MP is framed from the perspective of Walloon recovery and “redressement.” Although the term “Marshall Plan” evidently brings to mind the European Recovery Program for rebuilding Western Europe after World War II, recovery also refers to the period of prosperity before the World Wars, when Wallonia was one of the most economically advanced industrial regions in Europe. The MP suggests that Wallonia’s glorious past (“le passé glorieux”) can be rewon, if the Walloons deploy every tool they can muster and work together to “relaunch” the Walloon economy (3). To incite joint action, the MP urges the Walloons to become the architects of their own fate. This aspiration is clearly expressed in the opening sentence of the first MP plan: “The federalization [of Belgium; by which is meant the regionalization of policy and competences] bestows the Walloons with political autonomy, which renders them responsible for their own destiny.” At the same time, this statement reads as a call to independence, as the Walloons are bestowed with political autonomy (by the Flemings, who have repeatedly pushed for the dismantling of Belgium as a unitary state).
As the above excerpts from the Flemish and Walloon policy plans indicate, VIA and the MPs characterize a state of political and economic affairs, take position in relation to these affairs, and, most importantly, envision a prosperous future for the Flemish and Walloon region, respectively. The plans are thus driven by expectations, visions and values, as well as fears. They mobilize arguments, explanations, evaluations, descriptions and prescriptions, sometimes by drawing on tropes or stereotypes, anecdotes, and illustrations. As the plans also indicate, transforming Flanders and Wallonia into top KBE regions does not happen by itself. For instance, while the VIA plan describes Flemings as entrepreneurs, it also states that “we must dare to be entrepreneurial” (3). Similary, the MP urges Walloon citizens to change their “état d’esprit” or mindset, if economic growth is to ensue (3). Thus, identity construction and transformation are in order both in Flanders and in Wallonia.
The above observations serve as starting points for our media analysis. As we want to know whether, and how, these particular conceptions of the nation/region are picked up in press reporting on STI policies, we ask the following interrelated questions: How are the Flemish (VIA) and Walloon STI policies (MPs) received in the Flemish and Francophone press? Do we discern in the press the same notions of identity as in the policy programs? Are these notions reproduced, problematized or transformed? If so, in what ways? What does this mean for Flemish and Walloon identity construction, and for the construction of “Belgium” at large?
Recognizing the role of “institutions of power” (e.g. language, media, technologies) in articulating nationalism (Anderson 1991: 163; Billig 1995: 11), our analysis conceives of journalists and the press as potential policy agenda setters and opinion makers, as the press potentially reproduces and redefines political identities. As this paper will illustrate, the Flemish and Francophone press speak out on issues of collective identity and also offer various policymakers a platform to express their views on regional economic development, STI, and the state. Thus, from our perspective, policymaking is not only the prerogative of mandated policymakers, but of journalists and other opinion leaders (e.g. captains of industry) as well (Lenschow & Sprungk 2010).
To enable analysis, we draw on a range of literatures, including science and technology studies, discourse analysis, and media analyses. Our approach is interpretive and interactionist, as it assumes that realities (e.g. identities, nations, as well as practices and materialities) are socially constructed rather than exist as objective phenomenon that can be discovered through empirical testing (Fischer 2003: 118). Hence, we ask how identity is created, structured, maintained, or conversely deconstructed, resisted, and challenged. Our aim is thus not to uncover an objective reality behind identity, but to understand how identities are collectively made and remade on a continuous basis. To this end, we draw on the notion of “coproduction” (Jasanoff 2006: 2) to empirically demonstrate how STI and nationalism are “coproduced” through technoscientific practices (Felt 2013).
In what follows, we first present, discuss, and situate Flemish and Walloon STI policies in time and place, as a means of contextualizing the “nationalisms” inscribed in the VIA plan and MPs. Next, we present our methodological framework for discourse and media analysis, our data, and key findings. Upon drawing together these findings, we single out the storyline of “Catching up” as an important discursive backdrop against which processes of collective identity construction play out through STI policymaking and press reporting. We conclude by tying our findings into a broader discussion about the place of Belgium in Europe and the world, as nation states are constantly (re)defined in terms of their constituent segments and overarching structures, including the KBE.
The paper’s topics resonate with the overall conference theme and specifically tie into the following conference strands:
• Policy emergence, implementation, diffusion and transfer
• National science policies and the global scientific enterprise
• The multi-level governance of research and innovation and the challenge of co-ordination
Keywords: Flanders, Identity, Knowledge-based economy, Science and technology policy, Wallonia.
References
Anderson, B. (1991), Imagined Communities. Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, Verso.
Billig, M. (1995), Banal Nationalism. London, Sage.
Felt, U. (2013), “Keeping Technologies Out: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the formation of a national technopolitical identity,” Pre-print; Published by the Department of Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna, February 2013; http://sciencestudies.univie.ac.at/publications
Fischer, F. (2003), Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
Flanders in Action (VIA); www.vlaandereninactie.be
Jasanoff, S. 2006. The idiom of co-production. In: Jasanoff, S., Ed., States of Knowledge. The Coproduction of Science and Social Order. New York, Routledge, 1-12.
Lenschow, A. & Sprungk, C. (2010), “The Myth of a Green Europe,” Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1), 133-154.
OECD (1996), The Knowledge Based Economy, OECD/GD, (96)102.
Plan Marshall (MP); http://www.wallonie.be/fr/actualites/plan-marshall-2022
