PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

331
MTME 1995) was elaborated in 1994/1995 by a Social Democrat. It displays the typical
optimism of transport’s economic benefits including
an increasing quality of life for the population of the country, the development of new
investments in particular regions of the country, ... decreasing unemployment,...
promoting the development of old and new sectors of industry, reinvigorating the
economies of declining regions and small and medium towns, easing the transfer to the
country of foreign technology, and speeding the integration with European countries.
(MTME 1995, as translated and quoted in Judge 2000)
The paper was considered neither a consistent nor a consensual policy document.
As Taylor (1998:227) summarizes:
Irrespective of the real impact of this document on the realization of transport policy,
it illustrates the way of thinking and preferences of the Ministry of Transport and
Maritime Economy. On one hand, it speaks of necessary changes, more economic
autonomy and financial balance for transport, while on the other, it is against full
privatization and deregulation in transport. Moreover, its discussion of how to finance
transport and its approach to ecological problems, are mostly controversial.
It is of course impossible to pass judgment on this paper without entering a
normative debate on policy and investment preferences. Most important from the point
of view of my study, however, is the fact that the policy was attacked from a great variety
of perspectives which together almost represented the entire bandwidth of sustainable
transport-related discursive frameworks. Neither the IFIs nor the EU were content with
the policy, largely due to its lacking commitment to full liberalization and transition to
market principles. National transport policy experts found traffic forecasts to be
unrealistic and missed a clear and transparent elaboration of infrastructure investments
priorities. The environmental movement hoped for greater support for rail and wanted to
stop the motorway construction program. Given its anti-market, protectionist approach in
key areas of transport policy (particularly in the airline sector), as well as its lack of any