All rights reservedRaats, Koende Vries, Jochem2024-01-152024-01-152015978-80-01-05782-7https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/1194Book of proceedings: Annual AESOP Congress, Definite Space – Fuzzy Responsibility, Prague, 13-16th July, 2015The shift from government to governance has changed the relationship between the public many policy fields. Providing collective services and goods is traditionally seen as a so but is recently more and more provided in close cooperation with the private sector. The values takes place in dynamic policy arenas where there is continuous tension between the interest. This paper focuses on the critical conditions for successful negotiations. Framing and institutional planning theory emphasize different variables that explain the successful negotiations in governance arenas. A crucial difference between both theoretical perspective problem definition in negotiations. Whereas the institutional planning perspective takes problem as a fixed, static entity that different actors try to solve in the most effective theory suggests that different actors could interpret the collective problem differently From this viewpoint the problem definition is shaped and reshaped by the actors during. The relation between the institutional context and the framing of policy problems is the paper. The cultural heritage sector is a perfect example of a sector that has changed from a pub to an arena in which public and private actors are negotiating on policy outcomes. This the action arena was set around a static and single problem definition, resulting in a pr in which integration of diverging frames was extremely hard.EnglishopenAccessconferenceObject2160-2169