LAUSR

Since megaprojects are costly, impactful, and often contentious policymaking processes, scholars have started to look at policy narratives as instruments that actors use strategically to justify their preferences and achieve their goals. But is this really the case? Do actors always adopt a narrative to support their goals? Do they develop arguments that are consistent with their official goals and in a timely manner? This paper suggests that, when megaprojects are not salient, narratives are likely to be strategically nonused or used in a hypocritical way, as such strategies better fit the process-related goals of significant actors. Such a claim is illustrated by a case study on the construction of a new high-speed railway line and station in the city of Florence (Italy). Relying on content and discourse analysis of official documents, and experts’ interviews, the paper shows that, despite favorable premises for the emergence of a battle of narratives, this never took place, as some of the proponents choose to nonuse a strategic narrative, while others occasionally publicly used arguments to jeopardize the whole project. In turn, opponents effectively developed a strategic narrative that, differently from other similar cases, mostly relied on technical arguments and emplotment. Hence, the case study generates hypotheses that could be tested in further studies on the conditions under which a coalitional dynamic emerges and the role played by policy narratives in the process.