Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021, 109–121
HOW THE STATE LEGITIMIZES
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS:
THE THIRD DEVELOPMENT AXIS
CASE STUDY, SLOVENIA
Maruša Goluža, Maruška Šubic-Kovač, Drago Kos, David Bole
Public participation in decision-making processes.
P R IM O Ž G A Š P E R IČ

Maruša Goluža, Maruška Šubic-Kovač, Drago Kos, David Bole, How the state legitimizes national development projects: …
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.9572
UDC: 711.122:711.7(497.4)
COBISS: 1.01
Maruša Goluža
1
, Maruška Šubic-Kovač
2
, Drago Kos
3
, David Bole
1
How the state legitimizes national development projects: The Third Development
Axis case study, Slovenia
ABSTRACT: We analyzed planning mechanisms and evaluated their performance in achieving legitima-
cy in infrastructure planning in Slovenia. Planning mechanisms were divided according to the concept
of input, throughput and output legitimacy. We conducted a document analysis and interviews to assess
their effectiveness in achieving legitimate decisions. Although the analyzed decision-making process declar-
atively promoted democratic principles, the mechanisms failed to satisfactorily enhance the legitimacy of
decisions. The study revealed inadequate communication approaches, both in the decision-makers’ rela-
tionship with the public and within the expert discourse. Accordingly, the study argues for more genuine
communication with the public and within academia to address legitimacy challenges in increasingly con-
flictual decision-making processes.
KEY WORDS: deliberative governance, post-political spatial planning, qualitative research, citizen par-
ticipation, transportation planning
Kako država legitimira nacionalne razvojne projekte: primer tretje razvojne osi,
Slovenija
POVZETEK: V prispevku smo analizirali postopek načrtovanja infrastrukturnega projekta v Sloveniji in
ocenili uspešnost uporabljenih pristopov za doseganje legitimnosti odločitev. Pristopi k načrtovanju so
bili razdeljeni v tri sklope, glede na uveljavljen koncept vhodne, postopkovne in izhodne legitimnosti.
Legitimnost uporabljenih prostorsko-načrtovalskih pristopov smo ugotavljali s pomočjo kvalitativnih metod,
natančneje z analizo dokumentov in intervjuji. Raziskava je pokazala, da je največji legitimacijski primanjkljaj
na področju komunikacije, ne le med odločevalci in javnostjo temveč tudi med posameznimi strokami.
Iz tega sledi, da bi morali za večjo družbeno sprejemljivost v bodočih, čedalje bolj konfliktnih postopkih
odločanja, prostorski načrtovalci nameniti več pozornosti kakovosti komunikacije in sporazumevanju med
akterji.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: deliberativno upravljanje, post-politično prostorsko načrtovanje, kvalitativne metode,
participacija civilne družbe, prometno načrtovanje
The article was submitted for publication on February 9th, 2021.
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 9. februarja 2021.
110
1
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute
marusa.goluza@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2011-1547), david.bole@zrc-sazu.si
(https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2773-0583)
2
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Ljubljana, Slovenia
maruska.subic-kovac@fgg.uni-lj.si
3
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana, Slovenia
drago.koss@gmail.com

1 Introduction: The necessary legitimacy of national spatial planning
system
Modern societies increasingly face a crisis of legitimacy in spatial planning and other public policies due
to conflicts, the emergence of citizens’ initiatives and an overall decline in social acceptance of public poli-
cies (Sager 1999; Kos 2002; Inch 2015). Decision-making is often value-based and requires trade-offs and
long-term solutions (Rittel and Webber 1973; Innes and Booher 2010). Differentiated sectoral policies, sci-
ence, and the division of labour between different levels tires of government often overlap spatially and
substantively. Policy decisions are therefore increasingly difficult to make and justify (Healey 1997; Kos 2002).
As a result of the legitimacy crisis, the core question of modern nation-states today is how the state is sup-
posed to justify and maintain its position of control and responsibility for the implementation of public policies
in front of the public – the people who are directly affected by these policies. Habermas addressed this issue
as early as the 1970s, claiming that the state must intervene to limit adverse effects of the liberal market econ-
omy while allowing the economy to function (Plant 1982). The need for trustworthy planning is particularly
relevant in the formulation of long-term development plans where outcomes cannot be expected imme-
diately (Tyler 2001). In this context, Tyler (2001) argues that legitimate government institutions and their
public policies are more efficient and less likely to generate public opposition. Public policies that are per-
ceived as illegitimate are generally more conflictual, less feasible and also more expensive for the state.
Legitimacy has therefore always been one of the central concerns of planning theorists and practitioners.
The concept of legitimacy in spatial planning theory is closely related to the balance between individual
and public interests. It reflects the extent to which national policies and spatial plans (that are supposed
to be in the public interest) are consistent with individual interests and opinions (Alexander 2002). Legitimacy
is thus a powerful means of achieving efficiency in the implementation of national policies and develop-
ment plans (Tyler 2001). It refers to substantive and procedural dimensions of decision-making processes.
Substantively, it depends on the legitimacy and conformity to established norms, rules and processes rel-
evant to the matter at hand. In procedural terms, legitimacy depends on whether and how the decision-making
process enables relevant actors to participate. Legitimacy thus signifies shared beliefs about how a coun-
try should be governed as a political community. It concerns the rights of citizens as well as the rights and
duties of the state (or those who govern). Legitimacy in this sense is closely related to the notion of justi-
fication. Decisions of the state are legitimate insofar as they are properly justified. In other words, policies
and decisions of the state are legitimate if the decision-makers can demonstrate that the powers they have
and use are just, right and reasonable (Bekkers, Dijkstra and Fenger 2007).
Despite various critiques that participatory processes cannot live up to their theoretical ideals in prac-
tice (e.g., Flyvbjerg 1998; Forester 1999; 2009; Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, and Rothengatter 2003; Flyvbjerg and
Richardson 2003; Hillier 2003; Innes and Booher 2010; Sager 2013), there remains a general consensus
among theorists and practitioners that participatory planning approaches are crucial for legitimizing devel-
opment projects (e.g.., Forester 1993; Healey 1996; 1997, 2003; Innes 1996; Marega and Kos 2002). However,
empirical studies have shown that in practice it is often carried out superficially (Nared et al. 2015) and
perceived as a hindrance in decision-making processes. Tokenistic participation is particularly characteristic
of post-socialist countries (Hafner Fink 2012; Pop-Eleches and Tucker 2013; Poljak Istenič and Kozina 2020).
Stable power relations and the strategic functioning of actors in decision-making processes also prevent
genuine collaboration and consensus-building (Flyvbjerg 1998; Flyvbjerg and Richardson 2003).
Nevertheless, little is known about the actual performance of spatial planning and its mechanisms for
legitimizing national development projects in Slovenia (e.g. Nared et al. 2015; Goluža 2020). Several con-
flictual and protracted decision-making processes, especially in the field of transport and energy infrastructures
in the past decades, have shown that legitimation processes in Slovenia have obviously failed. In addition,
Slovenian spatial planning legislation has been amended several times after independence, with clear attempts
to optimize the preparation of national spatial plans, also by limiting public participation. We therefore
hypothesize that the Slovenian attitude towards public participation in spatial planning is a legacy of the
former Yugoslav socialist economic and political system of self-government. The system, which was demo-
cratic in theory and granted considerable decision-making powers to the working population, proved to
be inefficient in practice. Decision-making processes were still heavily influenced by politics and market
relations and were also very time-consuming and unproductive (Centrih 2014). Thus, the self-governance
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
111

Maruša Goluža, Maruška Šubic-Kovač, Drago Kos, David Bole, How the state legitimizes national development projects: …
system did not contribute to more democratic decision-making processes. On the contrary, the experi-
ence with the self-government system probably left traces of distrust in participatory decision-making that
persisted even after Slovenia declared independence in 1991 and transitioned to liberal democracy. Although
Slovenia has adopted the Aarhus Convention (Zakon o ratifikaciji … 2004) and, as an EU member state,
declares the idea of participation as necessary for the legitimacy of public decision-making, its planning
laws require only a minimum of public participation. The purpose of this study is to examine how the
Slovenian spatial planning system relates to legitimacy and how the adoption of democratic norms affects
legitimacy processes in practice. There are two main objectives of this study. The first is to outline the plan-
ning mechanisms used in the decision-making process to legitimize the national development project (the
northern part of the Third Development Axis, hereafter Third Development Axis) and the national spa-
tial plan as the basis for its implementation. Secondly, the legitimacy of the applied mechanisms will be
assessed through a qualitative analysis. The research will contribute to a better understanding of the plan-
ning mechanisms and their contribution to the legitimacy of national development projects. With
a specific focus on the Slovenian case study, the research will in particular deepen the understanding of
key legitimacy problems in spatial planning that Slovenia as a young democracy is facing today.
2 Conceptual framework for assessing legitimacy of decision-making
process: Input, throughput and output legitimacy
Spatial planning is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy due to conflicting scientific viewpoints, uncer-
tainties, time and financial constraints, and many other value-based, institutional, and worldview differences
among actors that are difficult to bridge (Forester 1984; Wheeler 2020). Legitimacy, then, is an elusive and
context-dependent concept that cannot easily be guaranteed by a universal approach to planning. Since
there is no absolutely correct planning approach that would ensure intrinsically legitimate decisions,
researchers have no choice but to analyse and learn from individual case studies. In order to evaluate plan-
ning approaches in terms of legitimacy, some authors propose to decompose the concept of legitimacy
into three pillars: Input, Throughput and Output Legitimacy (e.g. Bekkers, Dijkstra and Fenger 2007; Schmidt
2012; Lieberherr and Thomann 2020), which are summarised in Table 1. The concept of input, through-
put and output legitimacy is also used in this paper as it provides a systematic analytical means to evaluate
decision-making processes.
Table 1: Norms for assessing democratic legitimacy in decision-making processes (adapted from Bekkers, Dijkstra and Fenger 2007).
Input legitimacy Throughput legitimacy Output legitimacy
• Equal opportunities for participation in • Realization of collective decision-making • How decisions taken tackle collective problems;
decision-making process and influencing (e.g., voting, deliberation, etc.); • Effectiveness and efficiency of decision-making
the decisions; • Who participate in decision-making process;
• Representation of relevant interests; (e.g., public, experts, representatives • Accountability of decisions.
• Openness of the governance practices of public sector);
to respond to specific needs in society. • Transparency;
• Balanced power relations.
Input legitimacy refers to a quality of policymaking (Lieberherr and Thomann 2020). It concerns polit-
ical equality, active citizenship and popular sovereignty in shaping spatial policies or plans. It depends on
the opportunities given to citizens to participate, express their interests, engage and influence the decision-
making process. When citizen participation is only indirect, input legitimacy depends on the quality of
representation of interests and preferences by political intermediaries. Input legitimacy also refers to the open-
ness of the agenda-setting process to citizens’ demands and concerns. In this sense, it means the openness
of governance practices to respond to (locally) specific needs in society (Bekkers, Dijkstra and Fenger 2007).
Throughput legitimacy refers to the quality of a governance process (Lieberherr and Thomann 2020),
to rules and processes that define decision-making processes (Bekkers, Dijkstra and Fenger 2007). Since
societal problems and conflicts require collective action, throughput legitimacy is related to the implementation
of collective decision-making. Throughput legitimacy is related to the quality of participation of all rele-
112

vant actors. According to Habermas, communication between all relevant actors should lead to a shared
learning process that promotes mutual understanding and confronts and transforms the power of the state
and capital (Healey 1996). It should be transparent and informative and balance the power relations between
actors. With these prerequisites, throughput legitimacy comes closest to participatory democracy and the
goals of the Aarhus Convention (Bekkers, Dijkstra and Fenger 2007).
The third aspect of legitimacy in the decision-making process is output legitimacy, which represents
the government’s ability to produce outcomes from decision-making processes that solve collective prob-
lems (Bekkers, Dijkstra and Fenger 2007). Output legitimacy focuses on whether the outcomes of the
decision-making process are legitimate in terms of acceptability, rather than the process itself (Lieberherr
and Thomann 2020). Output legitimacy refers to the efficiency and effectiveness of the outputs and out-
comes of the implemented policy or plan. It is concerned with how the decisions made meet the originally
stated goals of the policy or plan and how they respond to the expressed desires of the population. Output
legitimacy also refers to the accountability of decision makers, both for the decisions and for the outcomes
of those decisions. Therefore, decisions and their impacts should be based on a fully transparent provi-
sion of information (Bekkers, Dijkstra and Fenger 2007).
3 Methodology
3.1 Case study selection
The study is based on a case study approach. For our analysis, we chose the planning process for a motor-
way along the Third Development Axis that will extend from the Slovenian-Austrian border in the north
to the Slovenian-Croatian border in the south. We focused specifically on Section F, which refers to the
area between the existing A1 motorway and the town of Velenje (see Figure 1). The selection of the case
study was based on information-oriented sampling (Flyvbjerg 2006), which was motivated by several rea-
sons: 1) the Third Development Axis is one of the few major Slovenian infrastructure projects of the last
decades and also one of the most notorious ones due to multiple problems of legitimacy and conflicts; 2)
the process of preparing the national development plan for Section F was one of the most conflictual and
lengthy decision-making processes in Slovenia; and 3) the case involved actors from different social spheres,
e. g., from civil society, the public sector and experts.
3.2 Methods
Since legitimacy is a rather ambiguous theoretical concept that cannot be fully measured or quantified objec-
tively, we have adopted a qualitative approach for our study, i.e. a document analysis. Documents related
to the preparation of the national spatial plan, such as expert evaluations of alternatives, revisions, reports
and minutes, are publicly available upon request from the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning,
which is also responsible for the implementation of the decision-making process. These documents were
used to identify the applied planning mechanisms used by the State to legitimise the development project
under study, the Third Development Axis. We have presented the applied mechanisms according to the
concept of input, throughput and output legitimacy discussed in Chapter 2 in Table 2). Finally, we assessed
the overall legitimacy of the observed decision-making process.
4 Results: The analysis of decision-making process’s legitimacy
4.1 Overview of the planning process and outline of the applied legitimizing planning
mechanisms
The motorway along the Third Development Axis is a national infrastructure project defined as one of
the development priorities in the national Spatial development strategy of Slovenia (Odlok o strategiji…2004).
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
113
Figure 1: Alternative variants of the Third Development Axis on the Section F .p p. 114

Maruša Goluža, Maruška Šubic-Kovač, Drago Kos, David Bole, How the state legitimizes national development projects: …
114
Legend
Alternative routes of third
development axis on section F
Map by: Manca Volk Bahun
Source: GURS, 2021; Študija variant s predlogom najustreznejše variantne rešitve za gradnjo državne ceste med
avtocesto A1 Šentilj – Koper in mejo z Republiko Avstrijo FAZA: MAPA I – zvezek 3b, 2012 
© 2021, ZRC SAZU, Anton Melik Geographical Institute
0123
km
F6
F5
F1
F2
F1/F2
F4a/b
F3a/b
F4a/F3a
F4b/F3b

The main purpose of the motorway is to increase the economic competitiveness of the regions and cities
(such as Slovenj Gradec, Dravograd, Velenje, Novo mesto) along the planned route, improve their accessi-
bility and strengthen the institutional and economic links between them. In short, it is an instrument for
strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion (Projekt … 2007). The motorway link, which would
connect five Slovenian regions with the Austrian transport system in the north and the Croatian one in
the south, should be implemented by 2013 (Resolucija … 2004). As this is a major national infrastructure
project, the state has a key role in legitimizing and implementing the planning process.
Following the launch of the project in 2004, the first spatial planning conference was organized by the
Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. This was a formally prescribed mechanism (Spatial
Management Act 2002) aimed at soliciting and harmonizing the recommendations, guidelines and legit-
imate interests of local communities, the business community, interest groups and the organized public
with regard to the preparation of the national spatial plan. In accordance with the interests expressed dur-
ing the spatial planning conference, the preliminary expert analysis of the Third Development Axis was
conducted. The analysis took into account various development scenarios, forecasts of traffic flows and
various spatial, environmental and economic indicators. Suitable motorway alignment alternatives were
identified for further analysis and review (Predhodne … 2008).
The proposed motorway alternatives were further analysed and reviewed based on four groups of indi-
cators: spatial, functional, environmental, and economic. The expert analysis ended in 2007 with the proposal
of the most suitable variant for the Third Development Axis. For Section F, two alternatives received the
highest score. Finally, the so-called F2 was selected as the most suitable because it was a better fit with the
highest scoring alternative on the above-lying section (see Figure 1). However, F2 had two major drawbacks.
It was relatively steep and would result in a significant loss of high-quality agricultural land (Študija … 2008).
In 2008, the proposals for the best evaluated sections were presented to the ministries and represen-
tatives of the municipalities that would be affected by the new motorway. They were able to comment on
the proposed motorway route and suggest optimizations, some of which were later included in the pub-
lic displays and public hearings. During the public displays and hearings, fierce opposition arose from the
local communities in the municipalities that would be affected by Section F, especially in the small rural
municipality of Braslovče. They argued that the motorway would unjustifiably damage and cause loss of
high-value and other agricultural land in the area typically used for agriculture.
The decision-making process was also reviewed at this stage by experts, as is customary for national
development projects. The review revealed several shortcomings, such as that the objective of the whole
project and its importance for regional development were not clear enough. They also emphasized that
the project neglected anticipated demographic trends and the increasing importance of public transportation,
which would reduce automobile use and the need for new motorway. The reviewers also pointed out the
ambiguity and inconsistency in the use of various indicators. They claimed that the indicators used in eval-
uating the alternatives did not include an examination of the social acceptability of each alternative. The
lack of clear explanations as to why one alternative is better than others was particularly evident in Section
F, where two alternatives received the same score in the expert evaluation.
As the preparation of the national spatial plan as a whole proved to be very challenging due to sever-
al conflicts, the Ministry of Infrastructure arranged for the project to be divided into four separate spatial
plans. One of these was the spatial plan for Section F. Sectoral ministries were asked to supplement their
guidelines for the preparation of new spatial plans.
In 2010, a draft of the national spatial plan for Section F was presented to the ministries and mayors,
as well as to the public in the municipalities. The partially optimized version of F2 again provoked oppo-
sition from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. It issued three negative opinions in relation
with the environmental report. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food opposed the construction
of the motorway on legally protected, high value agricultural land and pointed out some procedural incon-
sistencies. They claimed that the chosen alternative was enforced without considering other alternatives.
The preparation of the national spatial plan for Section F continued with the inter-sectoral expert group
that the national government had established in 2011 to evaluate the decision-making process. The expert
group found similar inconsistencies as the reviewers. They highlighted the lack of justification of the pro-
ject (in terms of expected traffic scenarios, financial resources, etc.), the vague explanations of the decisions
on the alternatives, and the inadequate methodology for assessing impacts on agricultural land. The method-
ology allowed any type of construction on agricultural land as long as it was planned with mitigation measures.
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
115

Maruša Goluža, Maruška Šubic-Kovač, Drago Kos, David Bole, How the state legitimizes national development projects: …
Thus, in the environmental report, any construction could be assessed as having an insignificant impact
on agricultural land (Poročilo … 2011). In 2012, due to conflicts, the national government initiated the
study of other possible alternatives for the motorway on Section F, but all of them were discarded due to
the crossing of Natura 2000 sites and other protected areas (Študija … 2012).
The preparation of the national spatial plan for Section F was therefore continued for the optimized
alternative F2. The proposal for the plan was put on public display in 2015. Three public hearings were
held in three municipalities, Velenje, Šmartno ob Paki and Polzela. In Šmartno ob Paki, the public hear-
ing was disrupted by local civic initiatives because they objected to the decision-making process and the
selection of the final alternative itself. Despite the objections, the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial
Planning continued the preparation of the National Spatial Plan, which was adopted by the national gov-
ernment in 2017. The municipalities of Braslovče, Polzela and Šmartno ob Paki therefore filed a constitutional
review of the national spatial plan for the motorway (Decree … 2017). They argued that the procedure for
the preparation of the national spatial plan for Section F violated several legally protected rights and legal-
ly binding procedures. For example, they relied on the Slovenian Constitution, which grants citizens the
right to participate in decision-making processes, the Aarhus Convention (Convention on … 1998), which
protects the right to access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice
in environmental matters, as well as several other directives dealing with the impact of projects, plans and
programs on the environment (Directive … 2001; Directive … 2011). In 2019, the Constitutional Court
found that the Decree (2017) was not in conflict with the Slovenian Constitution (Odločba … 2019).
4.2 The evaluation of legitimacy of applied planning mechanisms
In the previous subsection, we summarized the process of preparing the national spatial plan for the Third
Development Axis, in Section F. Here we will assess the mechanisms that state actors used to legitimize
the national development project. They have been presented chronologically and in line with the concept
of input, throughput and output legitimacy in Table 2 below.
On paper, in the case of the Third Development Axis, the planning process began with mechanisms
that promised high input legitimacy, such as the Spatial Planning Conference, which was a legally bind-
ing mechanism and aimed to harmonize the interests of actors, including civil society (Spatial Management
Act 2002). A preliminary expert analysis was also carried out to define possible alternative variants and
a coordination meeting was held with the mayors of the potentially affected municipalities. Local com-
munities and experts were given the opportunity to influence decision-making by providing guidance,
information and expertise (Pravilnik … 2007). However, as the project became more concrete, conflicts
between stakeholders increased, while the receptiveness of decision-makers to the plurality of interests
and proposals from experts and civil society seemed to diminish. The subsequent process was essential-
ly indifferent to the arguments of the opponents of alternative F2, which came from both experts and the
local population in the area concerned. Decision-makers relied exclusively on seemingly rational expert
assessments, even though several external experts (including reviewers, an inter-ministerial expert group,
and agronomists) argued that these assessments were not entirely appropriate.
Throughput legitimacy refers to the communication aspect of the decision-making process and collective
action in responding to problems and conflicts. The case study found that the decision-making process fol-
lowed legally binding mechanisms, such as informing ministries and municipalities of decisions made and
public displays of (propositional) spatial plans with public hearings. The Ministry of the Environment and
Spatial Planning, which carried out the preparation of the national spatial plan, organized even more pub-
lic displays and hearings, as required. This partly contributed to more transparency, and residents were also
better informed about the project. However, it did little to improve the legitimacy of the decision-making
process. The arguments of the opposing actors remained virtually the same throughout the decision-mak-
ing process. The relocation of the motorway to an area of high-quality agricultural land was the biggest stumbling
block, both for agronomists and for local farmers who depend on hop production and agriculture in gen-
eral (Študija … 2012). Conflicts between decision-makers and local residents opposed to the F2 variant
reached their peak in 2015, when local citizens’ groups violently disrupted the public hearing. Public dis-
plays and hearings could have facilitated consultation, but in practice they did not improve communication
between actors.
116

Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
117
Output legitimacy refers to the efficiency and accountability of decisions and is thus closely related to
the reliability of the expert knowledge that supports the decisions. In the case of the Third Development
Axis, the national government reviewed the legitimacy and efficiency of the decision-making process mul-
tiple times, for example through independent reviews and the establishment of an inter-sectoral expert group.
These mechanisms uncovered multiple problems of legitimacy due to inconsistencies (e.g. in the justifica-
tion of how the Third Development Axis would improve regional development, why it should be built as
a four-lane motorway, or why on agricultural land), ambiguities (e.g. in the use and interpretation of indi-
cators), and shortcomings (e.g. in not assessing the social acceptability of the project) in the decision-making
process. There was also opposition from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food because the pro-
posed motorway conflicted with sectoral (agricultural) legislation that protects agricultural land.
In an effort to increase the legitimacy of the motorway and facilitate conflict resolution, decision-mak-
ers decided to split the Third Development Axis project into four separate spatial plans (Študija … 2012).
However, Section F remains controversial and illegitimate even after the government adopted the spatial
development plan. The municipalities affected by the planned motorway submitted the Decree (2017) for
Table 2: The timeline of legitimizing planning mechanisms applied in the preparation of national spatial plan for Section F , according to input,
throughput and output legitimacy.
Year Input legitimacy Throughput legitimacy Output legitimacy
2006 Spatial conference
Preliminary expert analysis of alternatives
2007 Coordination meeting with mayors of affected
municipalities
Expert evaluation of alternatives
2008 Display of the proposed route for ministries
and municipalities
Revision of the expert evaluation
Public display of the proposed variants
and public hearing Opposition in local communities
National spatial plan divided into four sections
Ministries supplement their guidelines
for national spatial plan
2010 Draft national spatial plan for F2 presented Negative opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture,
to ministries and municipalities Forestry and Food
Public display of draft national spatial plan
for F2 and public hearing Opposition of civic initiative in Braslovče 
2011 Inter-sectoral expert group assessed
decision-making process
2012 National government requires expert analysis
of other alternatives on the Section F
Expert evaluation of other alternatives on Ministry of the Environment and Spatial
the Section F Planning proceeds with optimisation of
alternative F2
2015 Public display of draft spatial plan for Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food
optimized F2 and public hearing opposed to the proposed spatial plan
2016 Public display of national spatial plan for
optimized F2 and public hearing
2017 National government adopted spatial plan for
Section F
Spatial plan for Section F was submitted for 
constitutional review
2019 The constitutional court rejected alleged
irregularities

Maruša Goluža, Maruška Šubic-Kovač, Drago Kos, David Bole, How the state legitimizes national development projects: …
constitutional review in 2017, but the Constitutional Court rejected the alleged irregularities in 2019
(Odločba … 2019). As the conflicts remained unresolved and the adopted spatial plan did not achieve social
acceptance, expert consent or the approval of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, the overall
legitimacy in this regard proved weak.
4.3 Discussion: The role of the state in providing legitimate decision-making
The case study showed that the procedural measures used to legitimize the project were not sufficient to
increase the legitimacy of the decision-making process as a whole. With the exception of the spatial con-
ference and the preliminary expert analysis, which allowed for deliberation and co-decision-making in
the initial phase of the project, the other mechanisms did not contribute to achieving a consensual and
legitimate decision. The communication aspect of decision-making was limited to public displays and hear-
ings, which did not allow for argumentation between the actors but for mutual persuasion. Public displays
and hearings are commonly known as mechanisms that aim to inform citizens while allowing minimal
citizen influence on decisions. According to Arnstein (1969), they fall into the category of tokenistic approach
to public participation and give the false impression that decisions are made with public consent (Nared et al.
2015).
The case study revealed an inherently conflictual nature of spatial planning that resulted in a protracted
and erratic decision-making process. The state, represented by ministries, the government and munici-
palities, did not act together and there was a lack of long-term political commitment to the project. The
case study showed that there was no genuine communication not only between state actors, but also between
experts and civil society. Weak input and throughput pillars of legitimacy also led to eroded legitimacy of
the final decision. The constitutional review of the decision-making process, several expert opinions, and
opposition from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food made it clear that the adopted motorway
route was considered illegitimate not only by local communities, but also by experts and politicians. The
decision-making process revealed that some of the claims questioned by experts and civil society (espe-
cially those related to the environment and sustainable transport planning) were not intended for wider
public and expert or scientific discourse. Moreover, government decision-makers did little to increase account-
ability for the outcomes of decision-making processes. Similar to the findings of Flyvbjerg (1998), the
decision-making process analysed demonstrates how power relations and taken-for-granted discourses
between certain groups of actors prevent the ideas and demands of others from coming to fruition or at
least opening public debate and consideration.
The case study examined in this paper shows a vicious circle of stable power relations that have not
fundamentally changed with the transition to liberal democracy, the ratification of the Aarhus Convention
or the accession to the EU. Central decision-making power over the motorway project has remained in
the hands of narrow circle of decision-makers and experts. On the contrary, there has been little room to
reconcile the plurality of interests and opinions among stakeholders, whether from the public sector, wider
circle of experts and academia, or civil society. Low level of trust in public institutions and tokenistic par-
ticipatory approaches, typical of countries in the Central and Eastern Europe (Marinova 2011), are obviously
also present in Slovenia. In Slovenia, public trust in the government is markedly low (Public … 2018), which
means that the state should make even more efforts to legitimize projects through participatory approaches.
The participatory approach to planning was recognized as important in legitimizing national policies. The
decision-making process even went beyond the number of formally required public displays and hear-
ings. Nevertheless, these measures did not strengthen mutual trust between actors or bring them closer
to a common, accountable and legitimate solution. In this respect, the transition in Slovenia has so far been
only partially successful. Awareness of the importance of public participation for legitimate public poli-
cies has certainly increased, but there is an apparent lack of will on the part of actors to put this principle
into practice and participate in a genuine decision-making process.
The concept of input, throughput, and output legitimacy provides a useful and systematic tool not only
for analysis but also for raising awareness of the various aspects of acquiring legitimacy. As such, it is very
informative for spatial planners and decision-makers who, in most cases, represent ‘the state’ in decision-
making processes. It argues for more open, transparent and adaptive spatial planning processes to achieve
greater legitimacy in future decision-making processes, not only in infrastructure planning but in spatial plan-
ning in general. The case study suggests that the mechanisms formally prescribed by the state to legitimize
118

projects facilitate participation (input legitimacy) and shows that the Slovenian national spatial planning
system is relatively open to plurality of interests. Nevertheless, communication between actors appeared
rather symbolic and remained on the lower rungs of the participation ladder (Arnstein 1969). The adher-
ence to formalistic decision-making processes rather than the promotion of an adaptive and deliberative
approach may be the legacy of the earlier system of self-government. Indeed, state decision-makers’ fear
of losing control if too many decision-making powers are distributed among different actors, even the lay
public, is understandable. This may lead to uncritical, unproductive and time-consuming decision-mak-
ing processes (Centrih 2014), as was the case in the former Yugoslavia’s self-government system. Scientific
input (not limited to formally selected four domains of expert analyses) should therefore be crucial to jus-
tify why one option is better than the other. To increase the legitimacy of throughput, the state should make
much more effort to balance power relations and adapt to possible (unexpected) conflicts. Certain con-
cerns of actors, especially in cases where similar criticisms of the project are voiced by both citizens and
experts, should be discussed more transparently (e.g., environmental concerns). Any decision or exclu-
sion of a particular option should be publicly deliberated and justified with the broadest possible (expert
and public) consensus. Adjusting the formally prescribed decision-making process in such cases should
not be seen as an obstacle, but as a moral obligation of the state in changing the environment for present
and future generations. Only when the decision-making process allows different voices to be heard, and
when collective decisions are based on deliberation and soundly justified (rather than being the result of
tokenistic persuasion), can decision-makers make more legitimate and accountable decisions (output legit-
imacy).
5 Conclusion
The case study analyzed has highlighted several legitimacy problems, which do not depend not only on
compliance with formal, procedural mechanisms to facilitate participation, but above all require a change
in actors’ attitudes towards co-decision. Since legitimacy is a context-dependent and rather ambiguous
concept that cannot be easily determined and achieved, the ideal decision-making process cannot be pre-
scribed or formalized. However, being aware of the legitimacy deficits of past decision-making processes
is the only way to gradually improve the legitimacy of future processes. The decision-making process ana-
lyzed in this paper showed rigidity and adherence to legally binding planning mechanisms that did not
significantly enhance the legitimacy of the project. The principles of participatory planning, which encom-
pass the concept of legitimacy, have remained untapped and represent potential that could enhance the
legitimacy of national development projects and government agencies themselves. However, the imple-
mentation of the principles of participatory planning would inevitably require the allocation of
decision-making powers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors thank the Slovenian Research Agency for funding the core pro-
gram Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and the junior researchers postgraduate research program. Both
funds provided support for publishing these findings.
6 References
Alexander, E. R. 2002. The public interest in planning. From legitimation to substantive plan evaluation.
Planning Theory 1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100303
Arnstein, S. 1969 . A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35-4.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Bekkers, V ., Dijkstra, G., Fenger, M. 2007. Governance and the democratic deficit. Assessing the democratic
legitimacy. London, New Y ork. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315585451
Centrih, L. 2014. The road to collapse. The demise of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Research
Paper Series of Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe 2. Internet: https://arhiv.rosalux.rs/en/
artikl.php?id=410 (4. 7. 2021)
Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
119

Maruša Goluža, Maruška Šubic-Kovač, Drago Kos, David Bole, How the state legitimizes national development projects: …
Decree on the national spatial plan for the construction of the national road from the A1 Šentilj–Koper
motorway ramp at Šentrupert to the Velenje-south ramp. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 3/2017.
Ljubljana. 
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment
of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Official Journal 197, 21. 7. 2001.
Directive 2011/92/EU of the European parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official Journal 26, 28. 1. 2012.
Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Rationality and power. Democracy in practice. Chicago.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12-2. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., Rothengatter, W . 2003. Megaprojects and risk. An anatomy of ambition.
Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107050891
Flyvbjerg, B., Richardson, T. 2003. Planning and Foucault. In search of the dark side of planning theory.
Planning Futures. New Directions for Planning Theory. London, New Y ork.
Forester, J. 1984. Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review
44-1.
Forester, J. 1993. Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany.
Forester, J. 1999. The deliberative practitioner. Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge.
Forester, J. 2009. Dealing with differences. Dramas of mediating public disputes. Oxford, New Y ork.
Goluža, M. 2020. Planning major transport infrastructure. Benefits and limitations of the participatory
decision-making processes. Participatory research and planning in practice. The Urban Book Series.
Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_12
Hafner Fink, M. 2012. Political participation, democratisation and citizens’ values in Europe. Teorija in
praksa 49-3.
Healey, P . 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy for-
mation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23-2. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1068/b230217
Healey, P . 1997. Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. London. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2
Healey, P . 2003. Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory 2-2. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1177/
14730952030022002
Hillier, J. 2003. `Agon’izing over consensus. Why Habermasian ideals cannot be `real’ . Planning Theory
2-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005
Inch, A. 2015. Ordinary citizens and the political cultures of planning. In search of the subject of a new
democratic ethos. Planning Theory 14-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214536172
Innes, I. E., Booher, D. E. 2010. Planning with complexity. An introduction to collaborative rationality for
public policy. London, New Y ork. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147949
Innes, J. E. 1996. Planning through consensus building. A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal.
Journal of the American Planning Association 62-4. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975712
Kos, D. 2002. Praktična sociologija za načrtovalce in urejevalce prostora. Ljubljana.
Lieberherr, E., Thomann, E. 2020. Linking throughput and output legitimacy in Swiss forest policy imple-
mentation. Policy Sciences 53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09374-3
Marega, M., Kos, D. 2002. Aarhuška konvencija v Sloveniji. Strokovna priporočila za implementacijo
Konvencije o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva
v  okoljskih zadevah. Ljubljana. Internet: http://web.bf.uni-lj.si/students/vnd/knjiznica/aarhuska/
strokovna_priporocila.pdf (10.8.2021).
Marinova, D. M. 2011. When government fails us. Trust in post-socialist civil organizations. Democratization
18-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.532623
Nared, J., Razpotnik Visković, N., Cremer-Schulte, D., Brozzi, R., Cortines Garcia, F . 2015. Achieving sustainable
spatial development in the Alps through participatory planning. Acta geographica Slovenica 55-2. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1631
Odločba o ugotovitvi, da Uredba o državnem prostorskem načrtu za državno cesto od priključka Šentrupert
na avtocesti A1 Šentilj–Koper do priključka Velenje jug ni v neskladju z Ustavo. Uradni list Republike
Slovenije 36/2019. Ljubljana.
Odlok o strategiji prostorskega razvoja Slovenije. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 76/2004. Ljubljana.
120

Acta geographica Slovenica, 61-2, 2021
121
Plant, R. 1982: Jurgen Habermas and the idea of legitimation crisis. European Journal of Political Research 10.
Poljak Istenič, S., Kozina, J. 2020. Participatory planning in a post-socialist urban context. Experience from
five cities in Central and Eastern Europe. Participatory Research and Planning in Practice. The Urban
Book Series. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_3
Pop-Eleches, G., Tucker, J. A. 2013. Associated with the past? Communist legacies and civic participation
in post-communist countries. East European Politics and Societies 27-1. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1177/
0888325412465087
Poročilo medresorske delovne skupine za evalvacijo dosedanjih postopkov pri prostorskem umeščanju
državne ceste od priključka na avtocesti A1 pri Šentrupertu do priključka Velenje jug. Predlog za obrav-
navo, številka: 350-72/2010/197-0034188. 2011. Generalni sekretariat Vlade Republike Slovenije.
Ljubljana, 2011.
Pravilnik o vsebini, obliki in načinu priprave državnih in občinskih lokacijskih načrtov ter vrstah njihovih
strokovnih podlag. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 99/2007. Ljubljana.
Predhodne analize in določitev alternative za nadaljnje vrednotenje in primerjavo. DARS. Ljubljana, 2008.
Projekt celovitega razvoja območja tretje razvojne osi. Zvezek 1. Zbirno poročilo. Služba Vlade Republike
Slovenije za lokalno samoupravo in regionalno politiko in Ministrstvo za okolje in proctor. Ljubljana,
2007.
Resolucija o nacionalnem programu izgradnje avtocest v Republiki Sloveniji. Uradni list Republike Slovenije
50/2004. Ljubljana.
Rittel, H. W . J., Webber, M. M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science 4. DOI: 1
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Sager, T. 1999. The rationality issue in land‐use planning. Journal of Management History 5-2. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552529910249869
Sager, T. 2013. Collective action. Balancing public and particularistic interests. The Oxford Handbook of
Urban Planning. Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374995.013.0002
Schmidt, V . A. 2012. Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited. Input, output and ‘through-
put’ . Political Studies 61-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x
Spatial Management Act. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 110/2002. Ljubljana.
Študija variant s predlogom najustreznejše variantne rešitve za gradnjo državne ceste med avtocesto A1
Šentilj–Koper in mejo z Republiko Avstrijo. DARS. Maribor, 2008.
Študija variant s predlogom najustreznejše variantne rešitve za gradnjo državne ceste med avtocesto A1
Šentilj–Koper in mejo z Republiko Avstrijo. DARS. Maribor, 2012.
Tyler, T . R. 2001. A psychological perspective on the legitimacy of institutions and authorities. The psychology
of legitimacy. Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge.
Wheeler, G. 2020. Bounded rationality. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition). Internet:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/bounded-rationality (9. 10. 2020).
Zakon o ratifikaciji Konvencije o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do
pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 62/2004. Ljubljana.