This essay review discusses three publications on co-creation: ‘We, the government’ by Davied van Berlo (2012), ‘Co-creation of innovation’ by Corry Ehlen (2015), and ‘New Business Models’ by Jan Jonker et al. (2014). The theme of this essay is the specific character of co-creation compared to other buzzwords (e.g. participation, co-production, social responsibility) that can be heard in the search for a new balance between the state and civil society. We suggest that the distinctive character of co-creation lies in the active engagement of parties who work together to co-create. Co-creation means raising the bar of collaboration and dialogue. Openness, trust, equality and reciprocity are emphasised as essential elements in the process. It is literally about collectively creating multiple values in which there should be plenty of room for creativity and sharing ideas. Following on the publications of Ehlen and Jonker a dual vision on co-creation arises. In general terms, the potential of co-creation depends on the know-how, commitment and values of the actors involved (microscopic perspective) and on the social capital in the wider environment that they can draw upon to bolster the co-creation process (macroscopic perspective).

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?