This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

The central question in this article is whether the relationship between the current citizen’s initiatives and government in the Netherlands shows similarities to the relationship between their predecessors (usually denoted as ‘private initiatives’) and government in the past, and more specifically in the time of pillarization. In the article it is claimed that in the time of pillarization – the period between around 1900 and 1970, when Dutch society was characterized by vertical social divisions along denominational (religious) and ideological lines – private initiatives and Dutch government developed a peculiar symbiotic relationship. In this period, on the one hand the pillarized private initiatives, as a matter of course, expected a large degree of autonomy but at the same time all sorts of support from Dutch government when administering various public tasks. On the other hand, Dutch government took for granted that the pillarized private initiatives highly contributed to the initiation and administration of these public tasks. Since the disintegration of the pillars in 1970s Dutch government has been searching for new ways to relate to the old and new private initiatives, and vice versa. Yet in this search both government and private initiatives still seem driven by the old ‘reflexes’ of pillarization.

In citizens’ initiatives (CI’s) citizens themselves take action to solve problems in their community. Many Dutch municipalities have adopted policies to facilitate CI’s. This raises a number of issues. For example who are involved in such initiatives? And, which problems are likely to be addressed? Such questions are pertinent, because for other forms of civic participation research has demonstrated that privileged social groups are overrepresented. We have compared groups of citizens who are actively involved in CI’s with less active citizens. It is demonstrated that in keeping with previous findings privileged social groups (e.g. high income and well educated people) are overrepresented amongst the more active citizens. This is true for both individual and collective neighbourhood initiatives. However, we did not find an overrepresentation of males amongst the activists. In answering the second question, we have looked at the concerns and worries of the citizens. There is no evidence of systematic differences in the problem definitions of more and less active citizens. This mitigates problem of the social selectivity in civic participation: if citizens agree about the issues to be addressed, who cares about who does the job, provided that someone is willing to do it?

In recent years the Dutch welfare state has invested substantial sums of money in activation of citizen’s initiatives in deprived neighbourhoods. As a policy concept citizen’s initiatives refers to enhancements by citizens to the quality of life in their neighbourhood. Is this activation policy productive or counterproductive for citizen participation? This question is answered by analyzing the representativeness of the activated citizens, the nature of their initiatives, the type of relations they develop with institutions, and whether they develop more competences due to their initiative(s). Our findings indicate that the activated citizens are more often female, below 50, lower educated, and 40 percent is migrant, which makes them more representative than the participation elite (male, 50+, white, and higher educated). They form a new vanguard that activates many participants through initiatives that focus on connecting people and on social problems such as anonymity, isolation and nuisance. Many contacts with professionals contribute for them to a partnership relation geared toward cooperation instead of consumerism or dissatisfaction. Also these citizens develop democratic, bureaucratic and social competences as well as social reflexivity and empathy for other citizens and institutions. We conclude that activation of citizen’s initiatives has positive effects on citizen participation.

In the Netherlands it is widely acknowledged that neighbourhood oriented citizen’s initiatives often require some professional support. Little is known, however, about the various types of support that professionals may provide. Moreover, Dutch policies usually tend to take an instrumental stance towards citizen initiatives, focussing on their possible contribution to governmental goals. In this contribution we make an effort to develop a typology of different types and roles of professional support. Four basic types of professional support are derived from two axis. The first axis distinguishes between an instrumental approach and a more personal approach, the second between professional support focussing on the initiative/the initiator or on the broader institutional and civil society context. From our empirical findings we conclude that a vital context for citizen initiatives may be produced through the combination of an instrumental and personal approach. The latter comprises efforts of empowerment attuned to both the specific personal needs and capacities of citizens and the typical neighbourhood context. A combined approach may reduce the risk of ‘crowding out citizenship’ that exists when citizen’s initiatives become an instrument in a government’s policy.

For many years now, citizenship has been a hot topic in Dutch politics. The activation and participation of citizens has been part and parcel of many policy initiatives. In this fashion, the current cabinet of Prime Minister Rutte has stressed the virtues of a ‘big society’ and a ‘small government’. We call this the new civility: a citizenship philosophy in which an ethico-economic claim of self-sufficiency is accompanied by a strong anticipation of policy conformity. Notably, the democratic legitimation of the new civility has been reversed. Now it is government which demands civic accountability, not the other way around. Responsible citizenship, not responsible government is at its heart. Furthermore, the new civility is based on a reversal of the Mandevillean idea of private vices and public benefits. We illustrate its ambiguous strands by a case study of a citizen’s initiative project in the city of Dordrecht. We conclude by showing how the tension between the values of civil self-sufficiency and policy conformity ironically can turn out in a-political conception of citizenship.

Reflection and Debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

Reflection and Debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

Reflection and Debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

In a column a journal editor or an author expresses his or her opinion on a particular subject.