-
Samenvatting
This article offers the reader an overview of arguments for and against the different modes of appointments of Dutch mayors. The authors do this from different perspectives that are based on relevant values of good governance. In relation to the intended deconstitutionalization of the mode of appointment, they want to contribute with this overview to the debate on the role of the mayor and the mode of appointment. The three modes of appointment discussed are nomination by the Crown, election by the municipal council and direct election by citizens. On the basis of this research, they conclude that changing the mode of appointment to one of the three (pure) modes of appointment has advantages as well as disadvantages, but that the combination has important consequences for the functioning of the local governance system as a whole. In addition, they conclude somewhat paradoxically that the mode of appointment is only one of the factors that influences the functioning of a mayor. Therefore, the question about the mode of appointment of Dutch mayors must be considered within a broader framework of possible measures, with the underlying questions: what kind of mayor, and what kind of local governance, do we want ultimately?
Bestuurswetenschappen |
|
Article | De aanstellingswijze gewogenEen overzicht van argumenten voor en tegen verschillende aanstellingswijzen van de burgemeester |
Auteurs | Dr. Julien van Ostaaijen, Dr. Niels Karsten en Prof. dr. Pieter Tops |
DOI | 10.5553/Bw/016571942017071004002 |
Auteursinformatie |
Toegang tot dit losse artikel kopen
Voor een vast bedrag van € 19,75 (excl. btw) koopt u 24 uur online toegang tot dit artikel. Met deze 24 uur toegang kunt u een artikel online raadplegen en in PDF downloaden en printen.
Per mail ontvangt u een activatiecode waarmee u 24 uur toegang tot het artikel kunt activeren.
24 uur toegang | € 19,75 (excl. btw) |
Uw aankoop activeren
Heeft u een activatiecode, dan kun u uw product hier activeren.