| dc.description.abstract | This thesis conducts a frame analysis to systematically map the frames used in the political debate about compliance with the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) in the Netherlands, using housing in the Netherlands as a case. The Netherlands lobbied for strict fiscal rules and compliance with the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) for other Member States, yet Dutch compliance is low. There is tension caused by the conflicting attitude the Netherlands had toward strict compliance with CSRs for other Member States while not wanting to be confronted with the same strict requirements themselves. Notably, for the housing crisis, the mortgage interest deductibility and the issue of private debt are not addressed in the Dutch Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP). The frame analysis is conducted by abductively analyzing parliamentary plenary debates between January 1st and July 8th, 2022. This period was selected because it starts with the establishment of a new parliament and ends with the submittal of the RRP, thus being the period in which the RRP was created and debated. The current analysis integrates several frame elements from multiple academic disciplines and sources, namely frame type, (de)politicizing, the type of usage, and the type of logic. This thesis thereby creates a new, systematic method for frame analysis in public administration. The thesis finds that the debate can be divided into 1) frames employed by the coalition to justify their policies through depoliticizing, emphasis frames, legitimizing usage, and justification logic; and 2) frames employed by the opposition to criticize a) the coalition policies, and/or b) European economic governance and integration. The opposition parties use politicizing, emphasis frames, cognitive usage, and influence logic to this end. This thesis contributes an integrated and practical framework for frame analysis to public administration scholars and a systematic overview of the conflicting debate for practitioners. | |
