158 Participatory Processes
powers, at one time the basis of our polity – becomes increasingly lost as a result of
the institutional clustering. Increasingly one and the same group of highly special-
ized and highly gifted civil servants are responsible for (i) developing the rules that
regulate the workings within a particular socio-material domain (for example
ammonia emission and deposition), (ii) providing for the ‘right interpretation’ of
these rules and (iii) deciding when the rules are violated, or not. In short, even
though the term ‘postmodern’ constellation seems to suggest a more or less defi-
nite, or at least superior, mode of social ordering, as yet things do not function at
all smoothly.
The coordination of projects
With a view to the empirical analysis of the differences discussed here between
multiple processes of unfolding, on the one hand, and macroprojects, on the other,
we need an adjusted vocabulary, a set of interrelated words and concepts, which,
on the one hand, does justice to the outcome of events while, on the other hand,
being fundamentally non-determinist (Knorr-Cetina, 1996).
One of the concepts of great importance here is agenda-setting (Rhodes and
Marsh, 1992; Baumgartner and Jone, 1993; Kingdon, 1995; Just, 1998). That is,
defining the situation, specifying problems, indicating directions for solutions,
and hence identifying the resources that have to be mobilized in order to imple-
ment the intended solutions.
Agenda-setting is not a neutral activity. Crucial issues are who is to join in the
discussions, and who will be excluded.^29 Joining in the discussions provides the
opportunity to influence the agenda: it gives authority and, conversely, only
authoritative persons are invited to join in the discussions. As such, an agenda
represents authority. An institutionalized agenda influences the thinking and act-
ing of others – even when there are no face-to-face relationships; in that case we
can only speak of ‘control from a distance’.
What is authority? Authority, you could say, represents insight into, and over-
view of, the relevant whole – that is, knowledgeability and capability. For this
reason, and also because of the related capability to subsequently arrange events
according to this insight and overview, we can define authority as a type of agency.
It is not, however, an arbitrary type of agency but rather one that is generally rec-
ognized. Again, this makes clear that agency is not an individual attribute. It
emerges in and is brought about by networks.
Control over and mobilization of resources deserve – as do agenda-setting,
authority and networks – a prominent place in the vocabulary with which struc-
turing or ordering of social practices can be understood in a non-determinist sense.
However, it is essential that resources are not taken at face value.
Speaking straightforwardly, a certain area of land, a number of cows, a shed
with adjacent buildings, a certain number of labourers (or whatever) do not repre-
sent resources, either intrinsically or collectively. Material and/or social elements
become resources only in the case of a more or less explicit model, in which they