Attractiveness and competitiveness ... but for who? : regional place marketing collaboration from a discursive perspective

(1)

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

PUBLICATIONS OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

JUHA HALME

Attractiveness and competitiveness …

but for who?

(2)

(3)

Attractiveness and competitiveness … but for who?

Regional place marketing collaboration from a discursive perspective

(4)

(5)

Juha Halme

Attractiveness and competitiveness … but for who?

Regional place marketing collaboration from a discursive perspective

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

No 237

University of Eastern Finland Joensuu

2020

(6)

Grano Oy Jyväskylä, 2020

Editor in-Chief: Markus Mättö Editor: Markus Mättö

Sales: University of Eastern Finland Library ISBN: 978-952-61-3628-8 (print)

ISBN: 978-952-61-3629-5 (PDF) ISSNL: 1798-5749

ISSN: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)

(7)

Authors’ address: Karelian Institute

University of Eastern Finland JOENSUU

FINLAND

Doctoral program: Past, Space and Environment in Society

Supervisors: Professor emeritus Markku Tykkyläinen, Ph.D.

Department of Geographical and Historical Studies University of Eastern Finland

JOENSUU FINLAND

Docent Petri Kahila, Ph.D.

Karelian Institute

University of Eastern Finland JOENSUU

SUOMI

Reviewers: Scientific director Elke Rogge, Ph.D.

Social sciences unit at ILVO MERELBEKE

BELGIUM

Associate Professor Andrea Insch, Ph.D.

Department of Marketing University of Otago DUNEDIN

NEW ZEALAND

Opponent: Docent Ilari Karppi, Ph.D.

Unit of Administrative studies Tampere University

TAMPERE

(8)

(9)

Halme, Juha

Attractiveness and competitiveness … but for who? Regional place marketing collaboration from a discursive perspective

Joensuu: Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2020

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies; 237 ISBN: 978-952-61-3628-8 (print)

ISSNL: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5749

ISBN: 978-952-61-3629-5 (PDF) ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Many European regions are facing downsizing trends such as population decline and a dwindling of financial resources. As a response, regions have started applying place marketing practices which are intended to curb these trends by attracting and repatriating economic and human resources to the region. In the European Union (EU), these practices align with the EU’s regional policy and are supported by European Structural Funds (ERDF).

In this framework, place marketing activity is carried out as public-private partnership projects between various in-region stakeholders. Stakeholder participation has been acknowledged as crucial aspect for successful place marketing or branding practices. However, stakeholder participation has been also considered susceptible to conflicts of interests and power struggles due the selective nature of place marketing practices, where certain geographic or symbolic assets are promoted, and others omitted.

This study investigates local stakeholder collaboration in regional place marketing, focusing on two regional place marketing projects carried out in Eastern Finland between 2011–2015. The study applies a discursive model of collaboration to examine how broader societal discourses which underpin the place marketing practices affect the dynamics of the

(10)

collaboration. The empirical material consists of documental data and semi-structured interviews of the steering group members of the projects.

This dissertation consists of three interrelated articles which each look at different elements of the collaboration as a communicative process.

Article I discusses the discursive antecedents of the collaboration,

examined through the lens of discursive legitimation strategies. Article II analyzes the negotiation of issues and interests between stakeholders.

Lastly, article III looks at the spatially biased power dynamics between stakeholders, conceptualized as a positioning process. The analysis utilizes the discursive model of collaboration, which underlines discourse as a major constituent in collaborations. Discourse is understood here as set of interrelated texts (spoken or written), which form the objects, concepts, subjects or strategies that they discuss.

The results indicate that societal discourses of regional competitiveness and attractiveness are applied in the collaborations as discursive resources to form a common ground between collaborators. However, these discourses were also found to hold conflicts of interests, and produced biased power dynamics between stakeholders where the interests and positions of regional centers were found to be dominant in both studied projects.

Place marketing collaborations are susceptible to power struggles and biased representation of stakeholder groups, due the inherent selectivity where certain geographical and symbolic assets are promoted from a wide range of options. This study argues that the discursive perspective of stakeholder collaboration can contribute in identifying communicative dynamics which can either support the collaboration, or undermine it by privileging the voice of select stakeholder groups. Hence, it offers tools for better stakeholder coordination that can support more inclusive place marketing and branding practices. It urges place marketing practitioners to critically evaluate the influence of the discourses of attractiveness and competitiveness which underpin the place marketing practices, and their relation to the dynamics between the stakeholders involved in the collaboration.

Keywords: Marketing; Regional economics; Interorganizational relations;

Public sector; Private sector; Interest groups

(11)

Halme, Juha

Vetovoimaa ja kilpailukykyä … mutta kenelle? Maakunnallinen aluemarkki- nointiyhteistyö diskursiivisesta näkökulmasta

Joensuu: Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2020

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies; 237 SBN: 978-952-61-3628-8 (print)

ISSNL: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5749

ISBN: 978-952-61-3629-5 (PDF) ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)

TIIVISTELMÄ

Lukuisia eurooppalaisia maakuntia koskevat negatiiviset trendit kuten väestökato ja talousresurssien hupeneminen. Reaktiona tälle, maakunnat ovat alkaneet hyödyntämään aluemarkkinointityökaluja kääntääkseen tämän kehityksen, ja houkutellakseen alueelle sosiaalisia ja taloudellisia resursseja. Aluemarkkinoinnin yleistyminen Euroopassa voidaan nähdä osana EU:n aluepolitiikkaa, ja näin ollen sitä tuetaan EU:n rakennerahasto- jen avulla. Tässä viitekehyksessä, maakunnallista aluemarkkinointia toteu- tetaan paikallisten julkisten ja yksityisten sidosryhmien välisenä yhteistyö- nä. Sidosryhmien osallistuminen aluemarkkinointitoimintaan on kuvattu aluemarkkinointikirjallisuudessa tärkeänä elementtinä toiminnan onnistu- miselle. Kuitenkin, aluemarkkinointitoimintaan liittyvä sidosryhmäyhteistyö on myös nähty erityisen haasteellisena ja alttiina intressiristiriidoille ja valtakamppailuille, jotka johtuvat aluemarkkinoinnin pelkistävästä luonteesta, jossa alueelta valitaan edustettavaksi tietyt maantieteelliset tai symboliset piirteet laajasta joukosta erilaisia mahdollisuuksia.

Tämä tutkimus käsittelee paikallisten sidosryhmien yhteistyötä maakun- nallisessa aluemarkkinoinnissa keskittyen kahteen aluemarkkinointiprojek- tiin, jotka toteutettiin Itä-Suomessa 2011–2015 välisenä aikana. Tutkimus hyödyntää yhteistyön diskursiivista mallia tutkiakseen kuinka laajemmat

(12)

vaikuttavat yhteistyön dynamiikkaan. Tutkimuksen empiirinen aineisto koostuu projekteista kerätyistä dokumenteista, sekä niiden johtoryhmien haastatteluista.

Tämä tutkimuksen yhteenveto koostuu kolmesta toisiinsa liittyvästä tutkimusartikkelista, jotka tarkastelevat sidosryhmien välistä kommuni- katiivista prosessia eri näkökulmista. Artikkeli I käsittelee yhteistyön diskursiivista taustaa aluemarkkinoinnin strategiatasolla vaikuttavien diskur- siivisten legitimaatiostrategioiden kautta. Artikkeli II analysoi toimijoiden välistä neuvotteluprosessia, keskittyen ongelmiin, joihin projektit vastaavat, sekä intresseihin, joita toimijoilla on suhteessa näihin ongelmiin. Artikkeli III tarkastelee sidosryhmien spatiaalisesti jakautunutta valtadynamiikkaa positiointiprosessina. Tutkimuksen teoreettinen viitekehys rakentuu dis- kursiivisen yhteistyön mallin ympärille, joka korostaa diskurssia keskeisenä elementtinä yhteistyössä. Tässä tutkimuksessa diskurssi ymmärretään kokoelmana toisiinsa liittyviä tekstejä (puhutut ja kirjoitetut), jotka muodos- tavat objektit, subjektit ja strategiat, joista ne puhuvat.

Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittivat, että toimijoiden välisissä keskusteluis- sa hyödynnettiin yhteiskunnallisesti laajoja kilpailukyky- ja vetovoimadis- kursseja yhteisen perustan rakentamisessa. Kuitenkin, nämä diskurssit pohjustivat myös intressiristiriitoja, sekä epätasaista valtadynamiikkaa, jossa erityisesti maakuntakeskusten intressit ja positiot olivat hallitsevassa asemassa kummassakin tarkastellussa projektissa.

Aluemarkkinointiyhteistyöt ovat alttiita valtakamppailuille sekä sidosryhmien epätasaiselle edustukselle, johtuen aluemarkkinoinnin valikoivasta luonteesta. Tätä tutkimus väittää, että diskursiivinen näkökulma sidosryhmien väliseen yhteistyöhön voi auttaa ymmärtämään miten tämä valtady- namiikka rakentuu yhteistyön kommunikatiivisessa prosessissa. Näin ollen, se tuo käytännön työkaluja, joita voidaan hyödyntää erityisesti osallistavien aluemarkkinointi- ja brändäyskäytäntöjen kehittämisessä. Tässä suhteessa tutkimus suosittelee, että aluemarkkinointia harjoittavat tahot huomioivat vetovoima- ja kilpailukyky diskurssien vaikutuksen sidosryhmien väliseen valtadynamiikkaan.

Avainsanat: maakunnat; markkinointi; alueellisuus; organisaatiot; yhteis-

(13)

Acknowledgements

This dissertation marks the end of an undertaking of many years, which has included wide scale of emotions ranging from desperation to hope, usually fluctuating in very short intervals. However, the frontmost feeling is a relief that the work is finished and can be let go of. During this journey I have received invaluable support from various people, to whom I would like to express my gratitude.

Firstly, I would like to thank my wife, Isabel, for all the love and

understanding that has made the carrying of the burden of this work an easier task.

From my colleagues, I would like to firstly thank Heikki Eskelinen who welcomed me to the Karelian Institute and assisted with the beginnings of my PhD journey. Next I would like to thank my supervisors Petri Kahila and Markku Tykkyläinen who have watched over my work, and kept my morale high during tough times. From my co-workers from I would like to thank Matti Fritch who helped me significantly with language issues, and was responsible for the map used in the dissertation. Also, I would like to thank Maarit Sireni, Nora Huurinainen, Lea Kervinen, Agnes Németh, Sarolta Németh, Riitta Rouvinen, Merja Ikonen, Minna Piipponen, Driss Habti and Maija Halonen who have offered their help and company during my stay at KTL. Also, my gratitude goes to my pre-examiners Elke Rogge and Andrea Insch, my opponent Ilari Karppi, my proofreader Nick Rowe, and all the interviewees who shared their time to participate to my research.

There are also various friends that I have shared good times during these years, who I would like to thank in no special order: Anna-Mari and Hannes, Pilar and Kalle, Carmen and Heikki, Olalla and Luis, Albert, Tero, Blanca and Jussi, Mariana, Cheikh, Yasemin and Jani, Alicja and Stanley, Elena and Ruben, Markus, Pilvi and Iiro, Ulla and Javier, Mari and Blas, Iara, Seija and Jaume, Niina and Ruben, Marko, Lucas, Pirkko, Riikka and Matti, Mar and Antonio, Alejandro, Germán, Johanna and Víctor, Alfonso, Cristobal, and Yusaku.

(14)

Lopuksi haluaisin kiittää vanhempiani Harria ja Mailaa heidän jatkuvasta tuesta ja kannustuksesta opintojeni aikana. Quiero tambien dar gracias a mi otra familia de España Pilar, Raquel and Juanma quienes me han apoyado y bienvenido con amor a la familia.

For my son Eloi, I hope that you will carve a path in your life that helps you to grow up to be a good and responsible man. Difficult paths lead to beautiful places.

In Joensuu, October 2020 Juha Halme

(15)

1 Introduction

In order to respond to challenges imposed by global competition and local economic challenges, cities, regions and even countries are striving to increase their attractiveness in order to lure skilled workers, businesses, investment, and tourists. These efforts often take the form of ‘place marketing’ or ‘branding’ which originate from practices drawn from the fields of business such as marketing and management. More broadly, this trend can be associated with a shift towards a “promotional culture”, where promotion has become a taken-for-granted discourse in organizational as well as personal life (Wernick, 1991).

Promotional shift has also become visible in European regions, where the European Union has inculcated an attractiveness discourse through its regional policy which defines regions as drivers of global competition instead of states (Barca, 2009). The EU have supported this policy with funding instruments such as the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund), bringing along abundant stream of projects which strive to aid the economic and social development of its regions. In this context, the regional identities are often mobilized in order to gain access to resources for development plans (Paasi, 2002, p.2). This led to a change in regional development where the focus has shifted from an emphasis on regional identity and institutionalization, to one of attractiveness and regional image (Zimmerbauer, 2008b, 2011).

In this context, the Finnish regional authorities responsible of distributing ERDF funding have started directing funding to place marketing projects, which intend to promote the attractiveness of the regions and to separate themselves positively from other places, in order to respond to the competition between places. These projects are carried out as ‘partnerships’, which is a form of collaboration where local stakeholders from public and private sectors participate in funding, governing and producing content for the projects. Partnerships have been described as a less hierarchical form of collaboration, where participants can work together without the assumption of primacy of one particular

(20)

While place marketing and branding have shared wide popularity around the globe, it has been considered a far more complicated practice than regular product marketing or branding. This stems from the fact that places, unlike products, are highly complex entities, with a plethora of voices that participate in the formation of the place identity (Saraniemi, 2009; Zenker, 2011; Kavaratzis, 2012; Dinnie, 2018). In this sense, places can be understood as texts which are continually rewritten through human activities such as marketing or branding (Warnaby and Medway, 2013).

The fact that place marketing and branding practices inevitably contains a symbolic or geographic selectivity of place makes it an inherently contested and political practice (Warnaby, 2009; Clegg and Kornberger, 2010; Boisen et al., 2011; Kavaratzis, 2012; Klijn et al., 2012; Lucarelli and Giovanardi, 2014; Messely et al., 2015).

Place marketing literature has tackled this issue by accentuating the relevance of stakeholder engagement and participation in place marketing projects. On one hand this has been because of the importance of

stakeholders for the improved representation of the place (Hankinson, 2010; Klijn et al., 2012; Kavaratzis and Kalandides 2015; Eshuis et al., 2018). On the other hand, studies have also shown that due to the political and public character of place marketing and branding practices, the

stakeholder involvement is required to establish the democratic legitimacy of the practice (Eshuis and Klijn, 2012; Kavaratzis, 2012; Lucarelli and Giovanardi, 2014).

While the participation of stakeholders has been acknowledged as an important facet in place marketing practices, literature has also addressed several difficulties that it entails. These include tensions between wide participation and efficiency (Kalandides, 2011), biased representation of stakeholder groups (Boisen et al., 2011; Halme, 2020b), conflicts of interests (Halme, 2020a), and power struggles (Kavaratzis, 2012; Messely et al., 2015; Halme, 2020b). In order to address some of these tensions, studies have highlighted the interactive aspects of stakeholder collaboration which can help to manage conflicts between stakeholders (Ashworth and Page, 2011; Beritelli, 2011; Kasabov and Sundaram, 2013; Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013; Stubbs and Warnaby, 2015).

(21)

For example, Kavaratzis and Hatch (2013) have framed place branding as a platform for dialogue, debate and contestation. In a parallel vein, a stream of studies have started adapting discursive approaches in order to study the communicative processes which occur within the place marketing practices, and the part that ‘discourse’ plays in them (Flowerdew, 2004;

Jensen, 2007; Marzano and Scott, 2009; Lucarelli and Giovanardi, 2014;

Halme, 2017, 2020a). In definition, discourse can be defined as a “set interrelated texts (spoken or written), which form the objects, concepts, subjects or strategies which they discuss” (Foucault, 1972).

The aim of this dissertation is to study the relation between

communicative processes in regional level place marketing projects, and the socio-cultural context in which place marketing collaboration is being carried out. The central argument is that these communicative processes are framed by broader societal discourses, which on one hand bring discursive resources which can be used to construct shared meanings and common ground between stakeholders, but on the other hand also produce conflicts of interests and power struggles.

The relationship between communicative processes that happen in the projects and the socio-cultural context is studied through four distinct communicative processes: 1) the discursive legitimation of place marketing practice, 2) negotiation of the issues to be addressed by the collaboration, 3) negotiation on the interests that connect issues to specific stakeholders, and 4) the construction of power dynamics between participants through acts of ‘positioning’ i.e. the attribution of rights and duties. The study of these processes contributes to the literature on the interactive and discursive aspects of stakeholder collaboration in a place marketing and branding context (Kalandides, 2011; Kavaratzis and Kalandides, 2015; Ripoll Gonzalez and Lester, 2018), and the role of power in these processes (Marzano and Scott, 2009; Kasabov and Sundaram, 2013;

Lucarelli and Giovanardi, 2014; Messely et al., 2015).

In order to study the communicative processes in the collaboration, the study applies the discursive model of collaboration proposed by Lawrence et al. (1999), which is based on a conceptualization of the collaboration as a socially produced communication based process, which is neither

(22)

dependent on the market or hierarchical mechanisms, and therefore highly dependent on the interaction between participants (Ouchi, 1980;

Hardy et al., 2005; Lotia and Hardy, 2008; Koschmann et al., 2012; Vangen et al., 2015). The model covers the antecedents, dynamics and outcomes of the collaboration, from which this study focuses on the antecedents and dynamics of the collaboration. The antecedents of collaboration are defined as those discursive and non-discursive elements which form the basis for collaboration. This study focuses on those discursive antecedents which are used to legitimate place marketing practice at the strategic level.

The antecedents of collaboration are further connected to the dynamics of collaboration, which are defined as the dimensions which participants need to achieve a minimum working level understanding, namely issues that the collaboration addresses, interests that attach these issues to certain stakeholders, and the stakeholders that represent these interests.

A key element of above described discursive approach is the embeddedness of these communicative processes within a broader context, in which the collaboration occurs (Hardy and Phillips, 1998;

Lawrence et al., 1999; Lotia and Hardy, 2008). This means that the communicative processes are constrained by previously constituted broader socio-cultural structures, processes and power, which support certain subject positions or voices over others (Fairclough, 1993a, p.66).

This study addresses this relationship by focusing on the relationship between the antecedents and dynamics of the collaboration. Specifically, it analyzes how the discourses that are used to legitimate a place marketing activity underpin and influence the dynamics of the collaboration. This includes, on one hand‚ the construction of common ground based on shared discursive resources, and on the other hand, discursive struggles that are born from an uneven distribution of discursive (and non-

discursive) resources. In this regard, study addresses power dynamics in the collaborations, responding to a call to address “the types of power, which enable the assertions of certain stakeholder groups to operate as gatekeepers in passing certain issues and perspectives concerning place marketing and branding agendas” (Kasabov and Sundaram, 2013).

(23)

The study is based on a multi-case study research design, which applies the logic of literal replication to the case selection (Yin, 2014). It approaches the stakeholder collaboration in place marketing through two ERDF

(European Structural Development Funding) regional place marketing projects. These projects are the: “Regional attractiveness program of North Karelia and Joensuu” (2011 - 2013), and “Mission Future: Regional marketing program of Northern Savonia” (2012 - 2015). These projects are based in adjacent regions in Eastern Finland, which has been a consistently economically weak area of Finland, and therefore a beneficiary of ERDF funding which is designed to reduce economic and social disparities among the Member States and their regions. The regions of North Karelia and Northern Savonia represent typical sparsely populated regions in Finland, which share similar socio-cultural and economic environments. The data gathered from the selected projects consists of strategic documents of the projects, and semi-structured interviews conducted with members of the steering groups of the projects.

The study urges a critical examination of the broader societal discourses which underpin the place marketing collaborations, and the power

dynamics that they support. Hence, it opens ground for alternative discourses to emerge which do not simply reproduce existing power dynamics, but enable the voices of more marginal stakeholder groups which are not aligned with these dominant discourses to be heard.

Hence, it answers a call for more democratic and inclusive forms of place marketing to be developed. For practitioners, the study offers good

practices that can assist in the coordination of stakeholder collaborations.

These include identifying the possible pitfalls of collaboration, such as conflicting interests and power struggles which regional level place marketing projects often face. These are also relevant for the planning of future regional place marketing projects that don’t rely on ERDF funding, but which have to be self-sufficient. Furthermore, by illustrating the specific challenges of regional collaborations, the findings contribute to the broader discussion on regional policy concerning the juxtaposition between regional growth centers and the region at large.

(24)

2 Aim and Structure of the Dissertation

2.1 Research Tasks and Aims

The aim of this study is to progress the theoretical and empirical

knowledge on the discursive dimensions of place marketing collaboration in a regional context, and their relation to the broader socio-cultural and spatial environment where the collaboration is being carried out. Research questions are grounded on the discursive model of collaboration offered by Lawrence et al., (1999) which examines the antecedents, dynamics and outcomes of the collaboration. This study focuses on the antecedents and the dynamics of the collaboration, which are elaborated below.

First, a precondition for any attempt to collaborate is that the participants of the collaboration are willing to participate in the

collaboration. This means that the organization in charge of coordinating the collaboration needs to evoke an acceptance towards the collaborative action. In terms of organizational literature, organizations need ‘legitimacy’

to create acceptance towards their activities, for example, in order to gain resources such as funding from stakeholders (Deephouse and Suchman, 2008). This is also valid for organizations carrying out place marketing practices. Indeed, it has been pointed out that legitimacy is a key element for fruitful collaborations with stakeholders and their mobilisation (Eshuis and Edwards, 2013; Elbe and Emmoth, 2014). In this sense, the ways of evoking legitimacy can be considered as a key antecedent of the collaboration.

Second, from the discursive perspective (Lawrence et al., 1999), there are three key dimensions which the actors of the collaboration need to have at least a working level common understanding, in order for the relationship to be constituted as a collaboration. These are: 1) the issues involved (i.e. the problematic aspects of the world which require action); 2) the interests that attach actors to these issues; and 3) the representation of actors. In place marketing literature, the relevance of the communicative processes between stakeholders has been associated to constructing

(25)

common ground and meanings, and managing conflicts between

participants (Kavaratzis, 2010; Beritelli, 2011; Atorough and Martin, 2012;

Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013; Kasabov and Sundaram, 2013; Stubbs and Warnaby, 2015). Third dimension of ‘representation’ means the discursive construction of roles that the actors fill in the collaboration. This process is essentially political, because the ability to construct roles is subject to the power dynamics that exist between participants (Lawrence et al., 1999).

The relationship between role-like elements and power dynamics have been addressed in the positioning theory of Van Langenhove and Harré (1999), who instead of static ‘roles’ use a more fluid concept of ‘positions’, i.e. sets of rights and duties which are attributed to the participants in a social event such as a collaboration. While the relation between

communication and power has been taken into account in place marketing literature, the linguistic aspects have not yet been sufficiently elaborated.

For example, Kasabov and Sundaram (2013) have urged for research on the types of power which legitimizes the voice of certain groups in place marketing and branding practices.

The objective of this dissertation is to study the stakeholder collaboration in regional level place marketing projects by looking into these discursive processes. For this purpose, the study applies a conceptual framework which covers the discursive legitimation of place marketing practice (Article I), discursive dynamics of the collaboration (Article II), and the positioning process between participating stakeholders (Article III).

The overarching research question of the study is: How are the dynamics of place marketing collaboration constituted through broader societal discourses underpinning the collaboration?

The empirical part of the study is based on two regional level place marketing projects based in Eastern Finland, which are studied using three theoretical lenses, grounded on the discursive model of collaboration (Lawrence et al., 1999). These are presented in three respective research articles. This dissertation presents a summary of the overall work, and discusses intersections between the empirical findings and theoretical ideas presented in these articles. The articles set out to

(26)

answer the following research questions, which constitute different facets of the main research question:

1. How is place marketing practice discursively legitimated at the strategic level of the place marketing activity?

2. How is the common ground and the conflicts between participants constructed as part of the discursive dynamics of the collaboration?

3. How are the power dynamics of the collaboration constructed as positioning acts between the participants?

These questions frame regional place marketing collaboration in a broader socio-cultural environment, and give insight to the links between them.

The discursive model of collaboration grounds this analysis to the key discursive dynamics of the collaboration. Methodologically, this study combines discourse and content analytic frameworks, which facilitate the study of the communicative processes of the collaboration.

2.2 Structure of the Dissertation

The common thread that spans the study is its social constructivist

orientation. Hence, the focus of the analysis is on an interpretation of the interactive processes though which social reality is produced. This covers the socially constructed legitimation strategies which are used to legitimate the place marketing activity, and the interactive processes between

stakeholders who participate in the collaborations. To operationalize social constructivist theory, the study adopts a conceptual framework which addresses the socially constructed nature of the collaborative activity, and how this activity is constituted though pre-existing discourses.

Chapter 3 presents the first part of the theoretical framework of the study. It begins with a brief review the history of place marketing practice, and continues to discuss regional level place marketing as a trend in

European regional development. The final part of the chapter concentrates

(27)

on stakeholder participation in place marketing activities, and the different challenges it presents.

Chapter 4 presents the second part of the theoretical framework, which frames place marketing as a collaborative process, and reviews previous literature. The chapter begins with a discussion on the general increase of partnerships in the regional development context. Next, the chapter moves on to discuss the communicative dynamics of collaboration from a discursive perspective, and describes the discursive model of collaboration of Lawrence et al., (1999). The final part of the chapter discusses

collaboration as a positioning process, and how this reflects the power dynamics of the collaboration.

Chapter 5 introduces the research context, research materials and methodology of the study. The first part of the chapter describes the geographical, historical and organizational context of the cases of North Karelia and Northern Savonia, and the interview and document data collected from these cases. Then the chapter describes the methodological approach, and data analysis method applied to analyze the research materials. The chapter concludes with considerations on the reliability and validity of the chosen methodological approach.

Chapter 6 presents the findings of the three articles. The chapter begins with a presentation of the findings on the discursive legitimation strategies that were found from key strategic documents of the place marketing project of North Karelia. The chapter proceeds to describe identified problematic issues which the steering group representatives considered to be involved with the place marketing project, the interests they had towards these issues, and the discursive struggles which emerged in the negotiation processes. The chapter closes with a discussion of how the positioning process between representatives reflects the power dynamics in the projects.

Chapter 7 presents the concluding remarks on the study, and focuses on generalising its findings and framing directions for future studies.

(28)

2.3 Situating the Articles

The themes of the articles are structured around the discursive model of collaboration by Lawrence et al., (1999), focusing on the antecedents and dynamics of collaborative processes. The outcomes of the collaboration (which constitute the third part of the model) fall outside the scope of this study, but findings from articles II and III do give some insight as to the outcomes of the collaborations.

Article I “Discursive construction of the legitimacy of a place marketing project: the case of North Karelia” looks into the antecedents of

collaboration, while Article II “Constructing Consensus and Conflicts:

Discursive Dynamics in Regional Place Marketing Collaboration” and Article III “Representation and power – Discursive constructions of stakeholder positions in regional place marketing collaboration” both focus on the dynamics of collaboration. Article II looks into the dynamics of the collaboration regarding negotiation on the issues which the place marketing project intends to address, and the interests the participants have towards these issues. Article III continues to study the dynamics of the collaboration, and focuses on how the representatives of the steering groups position their organizations and other participating stakeholders within the collaborations. Table 1 presents the key points of the articles.

(29)

Table 1. Article overview Article I. Discursive con-

struction of the le- gitimacy of a place marketing project:

the case of North Karelia

II. Constructing Consensus and Conflicts:

Discursive Dynam- ics in Regional Place Marketing Collabo- ration

III. Representation and power – Discur- sive constructions of stakeholder positions in region- al place marketing collaboration Research

Task To theoretically ex- plain the significance of discourse for the construction of the legitimacy of place marketing practice, and to illustrate em- pirically how this is done in a

“genre of strategy”.

To study the discursive dynamics in place marketing collaboration, which have the potential to construct common ground between stakeholders, or pro- voke discursive struggles emerging from competing accounts.

To study power dynamics in the form of a distribution of rights and duties within the communicative processes in place marketing collaborations.

Research

Questions How is the legitimacy of a place marketing project in the region of North Karelia, Finland (carried out between 2011 and 2013) discursively constructed?

How do representatives of the steering committees of regional level place marketing projects construct shared understandings of issues and interests in their projects, and what type of discursive struggles emerge from competing understandings of project issues and interests?

What are the story lines that unfold regarding the collaborative process between steering group representatives, how do representatives attribute theirs and other participating organizations positions within these story lines, and how does this positioning process reflect the power dynamics in the projects?

Key Concepts Discourse, Legitima- cy, Place marketing, Strategy genre

Regional Place Mar- keting, Stakeholder Relations, Communi- cation, Discourse

Regional Level Place marketing, Stake- holder relations, Positioning Theory, Power Dynamics Material 3 central strategic

documents of the project of North Karelia

24 Semi-structured interviews for the steering group members of the 2 projects (part 1 of 3)

24 Semi-structured interviews for the steering group members of the 2 projects (part 2 of 3)

(30)

3 Practice of Place Marketing

3.1 History and Definition of Place Marketing and Branding

Place marketing is an increasingly popular practice to apply marketing instruments such as advertising and branding for developing and promoting districts, towns, cities and regions (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2008; Eshuis and Klijn, 2012; Eshuis et al., 2018). Its recent popularity has been attributed to the increasing competition between places resulting from the fluid movement of capital and work force at national and international levels. As Rainisto (2004) has pointed out, faceless capital seeks opportunities over national borders, and comes only in those areas with the highest profits from investment. Place marketing responds to this competitive environment, by recognizing or creating uniqueness so that the place may align themselves in this competition (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2008; Jacobsen, 2009).

While place marketing practices have gained a lot of attention over the past decade, it is not a novel invention, but one that goes far beyond modern times. In his treatise of place selling history, Ward (1998,

p.10) traces three major stages in the history of place selling. The earliest signs of place selling relate to colonization efforts in the North American continent, where setters were consciously being attracted to new frontiers. The next stage of place selling related to urban functional diversity, involving the differentiation of specific urban functions. This stage relates to what has been later termed as destination marketing, such as the advertising of tourist resorts. The latest stage is the regenerative phase, which addresses the shift from mature post-industrial city towards decline. Here, the focus is placed on seeking alternative sources of wealth, to replace those that have gone. It is here where the competitiveness between places became a primary concern, and promotional actions such as the marketing of cities and regions were adopted as a way to respond to it (Ward, 1998, p.8).

(31)

The theory of the competitiveness of places has been advanced in the literature, especially by Michael Porter (1990) who originally theorised that the competitive advantage of the firm comes not only from its efficiency, but also its ability to innovate in the production process, and the value of the products and services produced. Porter extended the model of competitive advantage to places such as countries, cities and regions, and asserting that the prosperity of places is essentially dependent on the productivity of their companies. This productivity is supported by the endogenous factors of places such as knowledge, relationships and motivation, which form key assets in their competitive advantage. Porter accentuated especially on the significance of clusters and business networks, which can generate and disseminate innovation in places. This idea was extended by Florida (2003), who underlined the importance of the attractiveness of the places in creating clusters.

In addition to competitiveness between places, another societal trend which has been associated in literature with the increase of place marketing activities in recent decades, is the diffusion of enterprise culture and promotional language in society. As Ward (1998) has pointed out, the foundation of place marketing should not be understood as urban policy or action, but rather as an entrepreneurial ethos or ideology which has spread in certain times to the common affairs of certain places. This ethos has brought alongside it a widespread generalisation of marketing vocabulary and practices, which have extended beyond the field of

consumer markets to various non-profit sectors of society (Marion, 2005).

In the same vein, Wernick (1991, p.182), has considered the diffusion of marketing ideology, and the pushing of markets to every facet of social life, as a sign of a broad transformation in communication and the emergence of a ‘promotional culture’, which signifies a widespread obligation for places, organizations and even people to promote themselves.

Recent developments in the place marketing literature and practice have shifted attention to the promotional element in place marketing, which is manifested in the idea of “branding” places (Jacobsen, 2009). While place marketing and branding are related practices, there are noteworthy

(32)

differences. A key difference is the shift from an external demand-driven way of marketing, towards a more inside-out introspective building of the reputation of the place (Kalandides, 2011). A way to understand this difference is to look the difference between traditional product marketing and product branding. Traditional marketing is usually defined by an intention of selling a product, while in branding, the significance is shifted from selling the product to selling the symbolic value of the product. This means that products are consciously associated with certain qualities which are considered attractive, and which consumers can identify themselves with. Indeed, a central element of place branding is to distil certain geographic or symbolic elements of places which are relevant for external audiences, and to find ways to convince these audiences that the place is relevant for them (Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013). This brings attention to the essentialist methodology of branding, where only those qualities of the product which are considered beneficial for selling the product are selected, which homogenises and focuses the image of the product. In a similar manner, in place branding the aim is to present a unified vision of the place with a core message, where diversity is reduced in order have a unified brand message (Rainisto, 2008, p.148).

3.2 Place Marketing in a Regional Context

In this study, the focus is on regional level place marketing in the context of Finland, which emerged as a prominent practice after Finland joined the European Union in 1995, and adapted project-based regional

development policies (Sotarauta, 2010; Äikäs, 2004; Zimmerbauer, 2008b;

Niemivuo, 2013). The increase in regional place marketing activities in Finland can be associated with the broader aim of the European Union to promote the development of regions through promotional tools, which has been conveyed through policies such as the “Europe of Regions”, Lisbon Strategy, EU 2020 (Bristow, 2005), and recently the “Smart Specialisation” strategy (McCann and Ortega-Argilés, 2013; McCann, 2015). A central message in these strategies is that regions need to find

(33)

ways to differentiate themselves through their economic, cultural or geographical assets (Paasi, 2002; Barca, 2009). These high level strategies are transmitted to national level policies and strategies, illustrated for example by a report “Definition of regional strengths 2011” by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (2011) which warns that if regions do not find ways to specialize, they risk the loss of competitiveness, resulting in negative consequences for the economic development of the region.

In context of Finland, EU strategies regarding regional competitiveness and differentiation are put into action through Regional Councils, which are joint municipal regional development authorities. Regional councils were created in 1995 when Finland joined the European Union with a duty of regional development and planning. Their duties are legislated by the Law on Regional Development (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, 2014). The central funding instrument which is distributed and governed by Regional Councils is European Regional Development Funds (ERDF).

ERDF aims to promote the cohesion between European regions relating to economic and social differences between regions within the European Union. In practice, this is carried out through a project-based approach which has brought along an abundance of projects aimed to develop the coherent development of EU regions (Niemivuo, 2013). This can be considered as a significant transformation from central governance models towards regional models, where regional authorities are granted more autonomy in their regional development.

The theoretical undercurrent that has paved the way for this

development in Finnish and European regional development can be more generally traced to the assumptions of the theory of a ‘new regionalism’, which have had a strong footing in policy-related regional development studies (Bristow, 2005). Firstly, new regionalism has accentuated the region as a central carrier for economic development and wealth creation in the context of global economy (Paasi, 2009, 2011; Zimmerbauer, 2011). As a result, the competitiveness of the regions has been lifted as a matter of prime importance, echoing the core ideas Porter (1990) described earlier.

This has had a significant impact on the discourse around regions, and as Bristow (2010) has pointed out, competitiveness has been raised as a

(34)

key metric for regional development and performance. Indeed, as Moisio and Paasi (2013) have observed, the influence of the theories of Porter (1990) and Florida (2003) have had significant presence in Finnish regional development, and have brought concepts such as competitiveness,

clusters and creativity to the center of regional development vocabularies.

Secondly, new regionalism holds marked differences to old regionalism (see broader discussion on these differences in Paasi 2009), in the sense that in addition to economic integration, it puts more emphasis on social, political and cultural dimensions. This has manifested especially by accentuating the role of regional identity as a key instrument for the economic competitiveness of the region. This has had a strong influence on the EU’s regional policy, where regional identities had been highlighted as an important aspect of regional development (Paasi, 2009, 2011). The perception of regional identity as a driver for economic development can be considered as a significant precursor for the shift to image-based regional marketing. As Zimmerbauer (2008b, 2011) has observed, this has led to a sea change in regional development. where focus has shifted from an emphasis on strong regional identity and institutionalization, towards one of attractiveness and regional image, which can include elements like knowledge capital, creativity and the innovativeness of the region.

Thirdly, another departure from the old regionalism that was more restricted to inter-state regional organizations and institutions, is that the new regionalism emphasizes the involvement of an array of state and non-state actors which work jointly towards set goals through multi-organizational collaborations (Söderbaum 2003). This idea is manifested in the proliferation of ‘partnerships’, which have increased incrementally especially in 1980s and 1990s (Colman, 1989; Walzer and Jacobs, 1998) and have indeed come to be considered as a global standard institutional framework for local and regional development (Geddes, 2008).

Partnerships are utilized to respond to social and public issues in regions such as diminishing populations and the revitalization of local economic development (Fischler, 2000; Carroll and Steane, 2005). Furthermore, they are considered to be beneficial in pooling resources and reducing uncertainty (Hardy and Phillips, 1999; Selsky, 2005). Partnerships have

(35)

been considered as a lateral form of collaboration between public, private and third sector actors, where there are no assumptions of command by any partner (Geddes, 2008). The partnership model of inter-organizational working is especially relevant in the context of the EU, as it is considered as requirement for gaining entry to the resource flows (McQuaid, 2005;

Geddes, 2008). Indeed, the regional level place marketing in the context of Finnish regional development is carried out as partnerships between public and private actors.

3.3 Stakeholder Collaboration in Place Marketing

Inter-organizational collaboration has been also been a prominent topic in place marketing and branding literature, and interactive approaches have gained prominence regarding stakeholder collaboration (Ooi and Pedersen, 2010; Hanna and Rowley, 2011; Houghton and Stevens, 2011;

Kalandides, 2011; Klijn et al., 2012; Kavaratzis, 2012; Braun et al., 2013;

Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013; Stubbs and Warnaby, 2015; Kavaratzis and Kalandides, 2015; Rinaldi and Cavicchi, 2016). Indeed, as Houghton and Stevens (2011) have indicated, the more successful place marketing projects are ones that are able to engage with stakeholders, while those that fail to do this are more likely to fail. This train of thought can be associated with the broader theme present in the management literature concerning the potential of collaboration in problem solving. This is crystallized in the idea of ‘collaborative advantage’, which states that organizations can accomplish superior outcomes by working jointly rather than on their own (Huxham and Vangen, 2005, p.2).

Studies have elaborated a variety of reasons why stakeholder participation is beneficial for the place marketing and branding activity. Firstly,

studies have addressed that stakeholder involvement contributes to the construction of meaning and content. This can manifest, for example, through co-creation, management, and finally ownership of the place brand (Hanna and Rowley, 2011; Hankinson, 2004; Hatch and Schultz,

(36)

2010; Kalandides, 2011; Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013; Kavaratzis and Kalandides, 2015; Campelo et al., 2011). Secondly, studies have argued that stakeholder involvement contributes to an enriched representation of place (Kavaratzis and Kalandides, 2015), and in this sense also helps to clarify the identity and qualities of the place brand (Hankinson, 2010;

Klijn et al., 2012; Eshuis et al., 2018). In this sense, Kavaratzis (2013) has emphasized the potential of collaboration in forming common ground regarding the individual goals of stakeholders, and to unite them under a shared strategic vision. Thirdly, studies have also highlighted the relevance of stakeholder participation because of the public and political nature of place marketing and branding activities (Klijn et al., 2012; Kavaratzis, 2012;

Stubbs and Warnaby, 2015; Lucarelli and Giovanardi, 2014). In this regard, stakeholder participation has been argued to increase the democratic and political legitimacy of the activity (Eshuis and Klijn, 2012; Eshuis and Edwards, 2013; Braun et al., 2013; Eshuis et al., 2014).

While researchers have identified various benefits of engaging stakeholders in the place marketing process, the literature has also addressed various problems which can influence participation processes.

Firstly, the studies have pointed out that places have a high amount of potential stakeholders, who have various and often conflicting interests regarding the place, and finding common ground to reconcile them can be difficult (Saraniemi, 2009; Paasi, 2011; Zenker, 2011; Houghton and Stevens, 2011; Kavaratzis, 2012; Eshuis et al., 2018; Dinnie, 2018; Halme, 2020a). In this regard Kalandides (2011) has pointed out that too wide a range of participation of stakeholders can hinder the effectiveness of the place marketing activity (Kalandides, 2011).

Secondly, stakeholders who participate in the place marketing activity come from different positions of economic or formal power, which can result in biases of power relations between them. In these struggles, those with more power triumph over others, and can advance their interests over others (Eshuis et al., 2018). This is also reflected in the coordination of the place marketing projects, where because of the high number of potential stakeholders, managers face a decision on which stakeholder groups to

(37)

include in the activity. As a result, managers are more likely to engage with powerful groups with strong interests towards the place marketing activity, while less powerful groups have a possibility of being completely excluded (Boisen et al., 2011; Kavaratzis, 2012; Messely et al., 2015).

Thirdly, the strategic selectivity of certain symbolic and geographical aspects of place that is inherent of place marketing and branding practices (see sub-chapter 3.1) implies that certain groups are always considered as more relevant for the selected representation of the place. Studies have identified that this selectivity leads to issues of inclusion/exclusion and power struggles (Clegg and Kornberger, 2010; Boisen et al., 2011;

Warnaby and Medway, 2013; Kasabov and Sundaram, 2013; Messely et al., 2015). Regarding processes where this selectivity occurs, Kasabov and Sundaram (2013) have urged researchers to address the forms of power that enable the assertions of certain stakeholder groups to operate as gatekeepers in passing certain issues and perspectives concerning place marketing and branding agendas.

While studies have discussed the negative tensions in the place marketing and branding collaborations, there have also been alternative views which have considered struggles as an essential part of the place marketing collaboration. For example, Kavaratzis (2012) has framed the struggles in stakeholder collaboration as ‘creative tensions’, which can bring forward various stakeholder perspectives, and so contribute to developing a brand that is more aligned with the essence of the place.

This line of reasoning resonates with communicative planning theory, which emphasizes inclusion, deliberative communication, and collective decision-making (Fischler, 2000; Healey et al., 2008). In this vein, studies have started to pay more attention to the communication processes in stakeholder collaboration, in order to mitigate the negative effects of the tensions between stakeholders (Beritelli, 2011; Kasabov and Sundaram, 2013), and also the potential of forming common ground between various interests and interpretations (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2008;

Kavaratzis, 2010; Atorough and Martin, 2012; Stubbs and Warnaby, 2015).

One stream of these studies has brought attention specifically to the use of language and discourse within the communicative processes in

(38)

stakeholder interactions. For example, Lucarelli and Giovanardi (2014) have discussed different ways of contestation which can express the hegemonic and sub-alternative positionalities of stakeholders. In a similar manner, Halme (2020a, 2020b), has discussed types of communicative dynamics of collaboration which can contribute to constructing common ground or conflicts between stakeholders. In the next section, this discursive approach to collaboration is discussed in more detail.

(39)

4 Discursive Foundations of Collaboration

The theory of inter-organizational collaboration from a discursive perspective has been advanced by the seminal work of Cynthia Hardy, Nelson Phillips and Thomas Lawrence (Hardy and Phillips, 1998, 1999; Lawrence et al., 1999; Lawrence and Hardy, 1999; Hardy et al., 2000, 2005). These scholars have combined insights from discourse theory to the management of inter-organizational collaborations, and introduced theoretical tools to study the relation between discourse and collaborations. These authors define ‘collaboration’ as a cooperative relationship between organizations, which is not determined either by the market mechanisms or hierarchical use of power (Lawrence et al., 1999). Hence, collaboration is seen as highly dependent on the ability of the participants to reach shared understandings and values through communicative processes (Ouchi, 1980; Lawrence et al., 1999; Tomlinson, 2005; Lotia and Hardy, 2008; Rinaldi and Cavicchi, 2016).

The discursive approach to collaboration concentrates on the role of

‘discourse’ in process of social construction by the participants of the collaboration. Discourse has been defined by Michael Foucault (1972) as a “set of interrelated texts (spoken or written), which form the objects, concepts, subjects or strategies which they discuss”. This conceptualization draws from social constructivist understanding of knowledge, which

proposes that language and communicative acts do not only describe social reality, but are actively used to construct it (Berger and Luckmann, 1991). The constructive function of language is highly salient in social activity such as collaboration, where the construction of shared meanings through communication plays a central element (Hardy and Phillips, 1998;

Lawrence et al., 1999; Lotia and Hardy, 2008).

The meanings which are produced during discursive activity are not unique, but are connected to the world outside of them (Parker, 1992, pp.17–20). It therefore follows that another important aspect of discursive understanding to collaboration is the emphasis on the embeddedness of the collaboration in the broader social context in which

(40)

it unfolds (Hardy and Phillips, 1998; Lawrence et al., 1999; Lotia and Hardy, 2008). As Fairclough (1993b, p.66) has pointed out, the construction

of social reality is tied to previously constituted broader socio-cultural structures, processes and power. The broader social context enters into the dynamics of collaboration through the presence of distinct discursive and non-discursive resources which are available to the actors. In this sense, collaboration can be understood as a discursive struggle between contrasting accounts that construct social reality from diverse, and potentially conflicting positions (Hardy and Phillips, 1999; Lawrence et al., 1999; Tomlinson, 2005; Hardy et al., 2005; Lotia and Hardy, 2008). In this struggle, actors can align themselves with, or strategically mobilize certain discourses, in order to attain backing for their construction of the world, and so influence the collaboration in a way that serves their interest (Lawrence et al., 1999; Hardy et al., 2000; Rojo and Dijk, 1997).

However, the embeddedness of discursive activity in a broader context means that particular uses of language hold more constructive power than others, and certain discourses support certain subject position or voices more than others, thus empowering some constructions of the world, or ways of talking over others (Hardy and Phillips, 1999; Foucault, 1972).

Lawrence et al. (1999) have introduced a discursive analytic model of collaboration which serves as an orderly framework for studying the central communicative processes that occur in collaboration (Figure 1).

The model identifies a common set of discursive processes that can be identified in many kinds of collaborative activity. It covers three cyclical phases of collaboration where discourse plays a central part: antecedents, dynamics and outcomes. In the following sub-chapters antecedents

and dynamics of the collaboration are discussed more in detail, as they constitute the primary interest of this study.

(41)

Figure 1. Discursive model of collaboration (adapted from Lawrence et al., 1999)

4.1 Antecedents of Collaboration

Antecedents of collaboration are those discursive and non-discursive resources which participants have before the collaboration, which serve as a basis for further dynamics of collaboration. Antecedents can be divided into concepts and objects. ‘Concepts’ refer to existing mental formations such as concepts and ideas. They are constructed and reconstructed through various discursive activities. They can be drawn from outside of the collaboration, from other collaborations, or as pointed out in the previous sub-section, from broader societal discourses (coming for example‚ from culture, economy or politics) that have some relation to the collaboration at hand. For example, ‘place marketing’ can be understood as a concept which is developed by academics, practitioners and policy makers, and transferred through various genres such as academic literature and national or EU policy levels. When concepts are applied to real world objects or practices, ‘objects’ come into being. In this regard, objects have a physical existence, while a concept exists only on the ideational level. For example, place marketing can be considered as an object, when for example organizations decide to form a partnership

(42)

project in order to carry out place marketing activities. Discourse has a strong role in forming objects such as ‘place marketing’, because actors need to reach a common understanding on what concepts need to be applied to form the project. This negotiation process has a fundamental role regarding what the collaboration will finally turn out to be.

Tracing the antecedents for a collaboration based on an ambiguous idea like place marketing is a difficult task due to the sheer amount of possible sources where concepts and objects could be drawn from. In order to narrow down this complexity, the present study focuses on antecedents which are relevant for legitimating the practice of place marketing. By focusing on such legitimative antecedents, the study highlights not only the relevance of discourse for the antecedents to the cases being studied, but also provides a look at broader societal discourses which underpin the existence of the practice of place marketing in society. This approach frames place marketing not only as a practice or model, but also as a representation of certain ‘ideological’ aspects prevalent in the society, and especially in the contemporary field of regional development. In the next section, the concept of legitimation and its relevance for the antecedents of collaboration is discussed.

Originally, the concept of legitimacy meant a voluntary support for the use of power by a ruler (Weber, 1978). Later on, the concept has been developed, especially in organizational institutionalism literature (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Suchman, 1995) which has brought attention to how organizations enact support for their activities.

Suchman (1995) has described legitimacy as “a generalised perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”. This means that in the case that full legitimacy is achieved, the actions of an organization are not questioned and are taken-for-granted. Legitimacy is an important resource, especially for organizations coordinating collaborations such as partnerships as they are dependent on external stakeholder resources (Deephouse and Suchman, 2008). For example, Elbe and Emmoth (2014) have pointed out that regarding destination management organizations, the need for

(43)

legitimacy is essential for a successful collaboration with stakeholders and their mobilization. The same applies for place marketing collaborations, which need to engage stakeholders not only for funding projects, but also to cooperate in their management, content production and other activities. Furthermore, authors have underlined the significance of

legitimacy considering the public and political character of place marketing activities (Kavaratzis, 2012; Eshuis and Edwards, 2013; Stubbs and

Warnaby, 2015).

Several scholars of legitimacy have emphasized the socially constructed nature of legitimacy. For example, Suchman (1995) has argued that

legitimacy is bound to a socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions. This aspect of legitimacy has been studied more recently, especially in the discourse analytic tradition. Discourse oriented studies have elaborated on how legitimacy is produced through certain legitimative discourses (Fairclough, 2003; Van Leeuwen, 2007). This is done through an identification of linguistic strategies which are utilized to construct senses of legitimacy in discourses. These strategies resonate with particular culturally acknowledged systems of thought, and in

order to have a legitimating effect, they assume norms and values that are aligned with current legal or political systems, or the broader moral order of society (Van Dijk, 1998). Van Leeuwen (2007) has presented a theoretical framework to study how discourses construct legitimacy for social practices and public communication. This framework describes four main legitimation strategies, further divided into various analytical subcategories. The main categories are 1) authorization, 2) rationalization, 3) moral evaluation, and 4) mythopoesis. All of these strategies respond one way or another to the question of why we should do this first place, or why should we do this in this way?

Authorization strategies convey legitimation through the use of personal authority, which can be for example a statement of a recognized expert which supports the practice. Authority can be also conveyed though impersonal authority, such as laws, rules and regulations. For example, international organizations such as the European Union have control over local regional development discourses in this respect, as it steers the

(44)

regional development strategies with its policies and funding mechanisms.

Authorization can be also conveyed through customs, traditions or conformity.

Moral evaluations instead draw from conventional moral orders to frame practices as something “good”, or in the case of de-legitimation as

“bad”. Moral evaluations are conveyed through subtle ways such as the use of adjectives which frame the practice as positive. Moral evaluation can also occur through comparisons or abstractions which distil a certain positive quality in relation to the practice concerned. Moral evaluations are derived from the cultural context, which means that they cannot be identified purely through the tools of textual analysis, but require interpretative analysis which takes into account the cultural context.

Rationalization strategies provide legitimacy by pointing to the utility of the practice towards certain ends. Rationalizations are instrumental or theoretical. Instrumental rationalization refers to the means, goals and effects that a certain practice has, while theoretical rationalization points to the “state of things”, which legitimates the practice. Rationalizations are never purely “rational” in an objective sense, but rather have a moral dimension, however oblique it might be. As Leeuwen (2007) has pointed out, the rationale and morality are intertwined and cannot be separated by textual analysis. This means that while a rationale would seem at a textual level to be “objective”, there are always moral evaluations related to the rationalization. This stems from the fact that a rationale always evaluates certain practices, positionalities, or actors, and adopts a position of “good and efficient” or “bad and inefficient” towards the set goal, means or effect.

This means that while the logic of increasing regional competitiveness is an instrumental goal, it also accommodates a moral dimension which can be understood through, for example, evaluations in which actors are seen as being “efficient” towards achieving this purpose.

Finally, the mythopoesis strategy provides legitimacy though narrative forms such as cautionary tales or heroic stories, which can be used either to legitimate or de-legitimate a given practice.

The legitimation strategies described here are highly prominent antecedents of the collaborative activity. They reflect what kind of “real

Attractiveness and competitiveness ... but for who? : regional place marketing collaboration from a discursive perspective

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

JUHA HALME

Attractiveness and competitiveness …

but for who?

Attractiveness and competitiveness … but for who?

Attractiveness and competitiveness … but for who?

Acknowledgements

Table of contents

1 Introduction

2 Aim and Structure of the Dissertation

3 Practice of Place Marketing

4 Discursive Foundations of Collaboration