Policy Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 469–494 | Cite as

The construction of urgency discourse around mega-projects: the Israeli case

  • Josef van WijkEmail author
  • Itay FischhendlerEmail author
Research Article


Various studies have pointed to urgency in decision-making as a major catalyst for policy change. Urgency evokes a crisis frame in which emotions and cognitive and institutional biases are more likely to be mobilised in support of the policy preferences of powerful actors. As a result, decision-makers tend to be driven by emotions and opportunity, often with detrimental results for the quality of the planning process. Although urgency has such a profound influence on the quality of decision-making, little is known about how, when and by whom urgency is constructed in the planning process of public infrastructure. By means of a discourse analysis, this study traces the timing, motives and ways actors discursively construct a sense of urgency in decision-making on the building of terminals for the reception and treatment of the natural gas that was recently found off the coast of Israel. The results of this study indicate that government regulators, but also private sector actors, deliberately constructed an urgency discourse at critical moments during the planning process. By evoking terms that resonated with the target audience, regulators employed urgency as an instrument to legitimise unorthodox planning practices whilst precluding the consideration of alternative planning solutions. Thus, urgency framing is a means of controlling both the discourse and the agenda—and is therefore an exercise in power maintenance—by entrenched interest groups.


Mega-projects Infrastructure Planning Urgency Crisis Discourse Framing 



We would like to thank Gil Tal and Moshe Maor who shared with us their invaluable insights and expertise that greatly assisted our research, and three anonymous referees for their useful suggestions and constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude to The Levi Eshkol Institute at The Hebrew University for partially funding this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adam, B., & Van Loon, J. (2000). Introduction: Repositioning risk; the challenge for social theory. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. Van Loon (Eds.), The risk society and beyond: Critical issues for social theory (pp. 1–31). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altshuler, A. A., & Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-projects: The changing politics of urban public investment. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ariely, D., & Zakay, D. (2001). A timely account of the role of duration in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 108(2), 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barkat, A. (2013, December 25). The wheel turns: Egypt asks Israel to ensure the flow of gas. Globes. Retrieved October 18, 2015 from (Hebrew).
  5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Israel, A. (2010, September 23). Development of Tamar gas field commences at a cost of 3 billion US Dollar. Globes. Retrieved May 24, 2016 from (Hebrew).
  7. Bernauer, T., & McGrath, L. (2016). Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change: Advance online publication. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2948.Google Scholar
  8. Bruzelius, N., Flyvbjerg, B., & Rothengatter, W. (2002). Big decisions, big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects. Transport Policy, 9(2), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dilling, L., & Moser, S. C. (2007). Introduction. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 1–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dobbs, R., Pohl, H., Lin, D., Mischke, J., Garemo, N., Hexter, J., et al. (2013). Infrastructure productivity: How to save $1 trillion a year. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from
  14. Fischhendler, I., & Nathan, D. (2014). In the name of energy security: The struggle over the exportation of Israeli natural gas. Energy Policy, 70, 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Follmann, A. (2015). Urban mega-projects for a ‘world-class’ riverfront—the interplay of informality, flexibility and exceptionality along the Yamuna in Delhi, India. Habitat International, 45, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foust, C. R., & O’Shannon Murphy, W. (2009). Revealing and reframing apocalyptic tragedy in global warming discourse. Environmental Communication, 3(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garb, Y. (2004). Constructing the Trans-Israel highway’s inevitability. Israel Studies, 9(2), 180–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  20. Giddens, A. (2009). The politics of climate change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  21. Giezen, M. (2013). Adaptive and strategic capacity: Navigating megaprojects through uncertainty and complexity. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(4), 732–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giglioli, I., & Swyngedouw, E. (2008). Let’s drink to great thirst! Water and the politics of fractured techno-natures in Sicily. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(2), 392–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–20). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  24. Gutman, L. (2013, October 15). The state fell asleep during development, the old gas reservoirs depleted and the electricity tariff soared. Calcalist. Retrieved October 18, 2015 from,7340,L-3614386,00.html (Hebrew).
  25. Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2016). Organizing risk: Discourse, power and “riskification”. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 80–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Higgs, R. (2010). Cumulating policy consequences, frightened overreactions, and the current surge of government’s size, scope, and power. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 33(2), 531–556.Google Scholar
  29. Israel. High Court of Justice. (2010). Ruling 2293/10 (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  30. Jhagroe, S., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Framing a crisis: Exceptional democracy in Dutch infrastructure governance. Critical Policy Studies. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2015.1066690.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leijten, M. (2013). Real-world decision-making on mega-projects: Politics, bias and strategic behaviour. In H. Priemus & B. Van Wee (Eds.), International handbook on mega-projects (pp. 57–82). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Leiserowitz, A. (2007). Communicating the risks of global warming: American risk perception, affective images, and interpretive communities. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 44–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lorenzoni, I., & Benson, D. (2014). Radical institutional change in environmental governance: Explaining the origins of the UK Climate Change Act 2008 through discursive and streams perspectives. Global Environmental Change, 29, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lu, H., & Schuldt, J. P. (2015). Exploring the role of incidental emotions in support for climate change policy. Climatic Change, 131(4), 719–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Majoor, S. (2011). Framing large-scale projects: Barcelona forum and the challenge of balancing local and global needs. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(2), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maor, M. (2012). Policy overreaction. Journal of Public Policy, 32(3), 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maor, M. (2016). Emotion-driven negative policy bubbles. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maule, A. J., Hockey, G. R. J., & Bdzola, L. (2000). Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: Changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Psychologica, 104(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mehta, L. (2001). The manufacture of popular perceptions of scarcity: Dams and water-related narratives in Gujarat, India. World Development, 29(12), 2025–2041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ministry of Interior. (2015). Natural gas—NOP 37/H homepage. Retrieved October 18, 2015 from (Hebrew).
  44. Ministry of National Infrastructures, Energy and Water Resources. (2015). The Israeli electricity sector homepage. Retrieved October 20, 2015 from (Hebrew).
  45. Moser, S. C. (2007). More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 64–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion. Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Priemus, H. (2010). Mega-projects: Dealing with pitfalls. European Planning Studies, 18(7), 1023–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rafey, W., & Sovacool, B. K. (2011). Competing discourses of energy development: The implications of the Medupi coal-fired power plant in South Africa. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 1141–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rein, M., & Schön, D. A. (1993). Reframing Policy Discourse. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 145–166). Durham USA: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Risbey, J. S. (2008). The new climate discourse: Alarmist or alarming? Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roeser, S. (2012). Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: A role for emotions. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 1033–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sánchez, F., & Broudehoux, A. M. (2013). Mega-events and urban regeneration in Rio de Janeiro: Planning in a state of emergency. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 5(2), 132–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmidt, V. A. (2011). Speaking of change: Why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation. Critical Policy Studies, 5(2), 106–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shaffer, B. (2011). Israel—New natural gas producer in the Mediterranean. Energy Policy, 39(9), 5379–5387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. State Comptroller (2013). Annual report 64a for the year 2013. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  57. Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34(3), 542–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Urgent. (2016). In Oxford Online Dictionaries. Retrieved May 26, 2016 from
  60. Van Loon, J. (2002). Risk and technological culture: Towards a sociology of virulence. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and choice in public policy: Political decision making in modern democracies. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Zinn, J. O. (2010). Risk as discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 4(2), 106–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss Center for Conflict Research, Management and ResolutionHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of GeographyHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations