Zoekresultaat: 27 artikelen

x
Vrij artikel

Ontwerpprincipes voor betere burgerparticipatie

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden citizen participation, equality, law-making, local policy
Auteurs Dr. Menno Hurenkamp en Prof. dr. Evelien Tonkens
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Citizen participation is a regular feature of recent legislation and policymaking. However, more often than not, the goals of participation remain implicit. As a consequence, exclusion mechanisms well known from the literature keep coming back. A current example is the Dutch Environment and Planning Act, which is expected to enter into force in 2021. In this article we use this Act to identify the exclusion mechanisms at work and suggest an alternative wording.


Dr. Menno Hurenkamp
Dr. M. Hurenkamp is publicist en is als politicoloog verbonden aan de Universiteit voor Humanistiek en de Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Prof. dr. Evelien Tonkens
Prof. dr. E. Tonkens is hoogleraar Burgerschap en humanisering van de publieke sector aan de Universiteit voor Humanistiek.
Artikel

Waarderen of veroordelen?

De betekenis van kritische burgers die niet meepraten voor lokale participatieprocessen

Tijdschrift Bestuurs­wetenschappen, Aflevering 2 2018
Auteurs Drs. Christine Bleijenberg, Prof. dr. Noëlle Aarts en Dr. Reint Jan Renes
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    To be able to realize the ambitions of citizen participation, diversity of participants is a crucial condition. At the same time excluding groups of citizens, amongst them critical citizens, is inextricably linked with citizen participation. In this article in the series ‘Local democratic audit’, the authors wonder what the exclusion of critical citizens means for the process and outcome of citizen participation. Through two empirical studies during a spatial intervention in different municipalities in the Netherlands, they investigated how people involved in a participation process spoke about critical citizens and their manifestations. The results show that the way these critical citizens are discussed either legitimizes exclusion or questions it critically. The legitimization of exclusion is detrimental to the support for spatial intervention. The problematization of exclusion results in a responsive approach to critical citizens, which is beneficial for both the course of the participation process and for the support for the spatial intervention.


Drs. Christine Bleijenberg
Drs. C. Bleijenberg is promovendus aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen en is verbonden aan het lectoraat Crossmediale Communicatie in het Publieke Domein van de Hogeschool Utrecht.

Prof. dr. Noëlle Aarts
Prof. dr. M.N.C. Aarts is hoogleraar Socio-Ecological Interactions aan het Institute for Science in Society (ISiS) van de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.

Dr. Reint Jan Renes
Dr. R.J. Renes is lector Crossmediale Communicatie in het Publieke Domein aan de Hogeschool Utrecht en universitair hoofddocent aan de Wageningen Universiteit.

    In administrative practice as well as in administrative science administrative innovation is a much desired good. In this article the author makes an attempt to describe the good, or the better, that can be pursued with administrative innovation, much sharper than has been done in the past. The result is a substantive framework for qualifying and evaluating administrative innovations. The article arises from a special interaction research, that started with a question from administrative practice (about the leading principles for administrative innovation in the Dutch municipality of Breda) and ended in a confrontation between desiderata from administrative practice on the one hand and foundations from administrative science on the other hand. Finally, these six leading principles emerged out of the investigation: responsiveness, productivity, involvement, counter-pressure, creativity, and good governance. The author also discusses how the resulting framework can be used and understood. The framework is robust because it not only is theoretically (the literature on governance and democratic innovation) inspired and founded, but also recognizable and manageable for administrative practice.


Frank Hendriks
Prof. dr. F. Hendriks is hoogleraar bestuurskunde aan de Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur van de Universiteit van Tilburg.

Prof. dr. Roel in ’t Veld
Prof. dr. R.J. in ’t Veld is UNESCO-hoogleraar ‘Governance and Sustainability’ aan de Universiteit van Tilburg.
Artikel

Burgertoppen in opkomst

Zegen of zorg voor de gemeenteraad?

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 4 2017
Trefwoorden Burgertoppen, G1000, Raadsleden, lokale democratie, Institutionalisering
Auteurs Dr. Harmen Binnema
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Over the last three years, various G1000s have been organized in Dutch municipalities. These citizen summits share a number of characteristics: random selection of participants, an open agenda, dialogue and inclusion of the entire ‘system’ (inhabitants, politicians, civil servants). The G1000s aim to renew local democracy and to change the relations between citizens and governments. Both of these objectives affect the role of local councilors and this paper discusses their opinions and attitude towards a G1000. It shows that councilors regard the G1000 as complementary to representative democracy and that they want be involved both in the organization of a G1000 in their municipality and the follow-up in local decision-making. On the one hand, this may lead to a better coupling between citizen initiatives and formal policy making. On the other hand, this entails the risk that a G1000 becomes institutionalized and loses its distinctive characteristics that make it a new form of democracy.


Dr. Harmen Binnema
Dr. Harmen Binnema is universitair docent/programmacoördinator bestuur en beleid bij de Universiteit Utrecht, faculteit Recht, Economie, Bestuur en Organisatie.

    This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.


Dr. Tamara Metze
Tamara Metze is voorzitter van de redactie van Beleid en Maatschappij.

    In a final view the other guest editor draws conclusions on local democracy based on the analyses of the Local Election Research presented in this special issue. The good news is that the basic attitude of the Dutch people about their local democracy, their local institutions and their local government is quite positive. A picture of trust and satisfaction arises from the data that are available. However, the picture is much less positive if we look at the local democracy from the perspective of the monitoring citizen. The outcomes of municipal elections are largely dictated by national party preferences, which is both harmful for the process of representation before and the control and accountability after the election of the municipal council. In addition, the level of political participation at the local level is rather low and the participants are not a balanced reflection of the population, even in new forms of participation that are especially designed to break the dominance of the permanent participation elite.


Prof. dr. Tom van der Meer
Prof. dr. T.W.G. van der Meer is hoogleraar Politicologie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam en sinds 2015 codirecteur van het Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek.
Artikel

De demos digitaal bekrachtigd?

Zes e-democracy cases uit binnen- en buitenland

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Ict, Vergelijking / comparison, Innovatie / innovation, Democratie / democracy, Case study
Auteurs Merlijn van Hulst, Colette Cuijpers, Frank Hendriks e.a.
Samenvatting

    E-democracy incorporates digital tools, the internet and social media to enhance democracy. There are many of these tools available to improve governmental responsiveness, transparency, and accountability, but also to support the inclusiveness, representativeness and influence of citizens’ participation. Examples are online petitions, apps for neighborhood watches, wikiplanning and social media monitoring. Web 3.0, which is more interactive and less location specific, enables governments to take a more personalized approach. It also allows for participation across administrative and geographical boundaries. In this symposium two contributions address the question of the influence of e-democracy on the democratization of governmental decision-making, information and service delivery, and of citizens’ participation.


Merlijn van Hulst

Colette Cuijpers

Frank Hendriks

Tamara Metze
Artikel

Non-participatie in de doe-democratie

Tijdschrift Bestuurs­wetenschappen, Aflevering 2 2017
Auteurs Gideon Broekhuizen MSc LLB en Dr. Ank Michels
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Research into citizens’ initiatives usually focuses on those who already participate. In this article the central question is how those who do not participate yet can be motivated to take part in citizens’ initiatives. To investigate this the authors used vignettes in which four key motives for participation in citizens’ initiatives are linked to three types of citizens’ initiatives. The results of this research show that people are more likely to take part in an initiative if a call is made to altruism. Usually it is also in general easier for small-scale, more applied citizens’ initiatives to motivate people. Non-participants will be more inclined, certainly in the presence of a specific local problem and if they are asked, to respond in a positive manner to an invitation to take part. For more abstract citizens’ initiatives, like a citizens summit in which not one single specific problem is addressed, it is much more difficult to motivate people to take part. Participation in citizens’ initiatives indeed increases the quality of local democracy, but only if the (local) government doesn’t take over these initiatives. Also those who do not yet take part in citizens’ initiatives have a positive and constructive attitude towards them.


Gideon Broekhuizen MSc LLB
G.R. Broekhuizen MSc LLB deed een onderzoeksmaster bestuurskunde en organisatiewetenschap aan de Universiteit Utrecht en een bachelor bestuurskunde en recht aan de Universiteit Leiden. Hij schreef zijn scriptie over non-participatie in de doe-democratie.

Dr. Ank Michels
Dr. A.M.B. Michels is universitair docent aan de Universiteit Utrecht bij het Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap (USBO).

    The often gloomy analyses of democratic representation at the local level are frequently directed at the problems with parties and elections. Direct participation is not a good alternative because only certain people who are already politically active use it. However, with the help of the concept ‘representative claim’ and based on two qualitative case studies of decentralizations in the social domain, the authors show that there are other representative people besides elected politicians. These self-appointed, non-elected representatives may advocate on behalf of vulnerable groups who themselves do not have a strong voice in politics. In addition this study shows that elected representatives, like political parties and local counselors, can strengthen their representative role by: (1) cooperating better with the non-elected representatives, (2) highlighting their representational claims and the basis of these claims, and (3) strengthening their responsiveness towards their support base through authorization and other accountability structures other than elections. In this way the democratic representation in municipalities is reinforced and may be stronger than the often gloomy analyses suggest.


Dr. Hester van de Bovenkamp
Dr. H.M. van de Bovenkamp is universitair hoofddocent aan het instituut Beleid & Management Gezondheidszorg (iBMG) aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

Dr. Hans Vollaard
Dr. J.P. Vollaard is universitair docent Nederlandse en Europese politiek binnen het Instituut Politieke Wetenschap van de Universiteit Leiden.
Artikel

Deliberatieve democratie: ervaringen met diversiteit in burgertop Amsterdam

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Democracy, Summit, Dialogue, Diversity, Homogeneity
Auteurs Dr. Peer Smets en Marloes Vlind MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper will show how citizens’ summits in the Netherlands cope with diversity of participants and the impact of this on those initiatives. This provides insight in why diversity is hard to reach and what can be done to improve it. Presently, dissatisfaction about the Dutch democratic system is widespread. Solutions are being sought to strengthen Dutch participatory democracy. For this objective, citizens’ summits develop different kind of initiatives. However, citizens participating in these summits are a homogeneous group, namely mainly white, middle aged and highly educated. Mechanisms of exclusion, selection of candidates, homogeneous composition of the organization, and a dominating intellectual/rational way of debating are playing a role here. Citizens with different backgrounds need to be included in these initiatives to obtain a better representation of society’s voices. This notion has been strengthened by theory, which shows that diversity enables more creativity and innovation.


Dr. Peer Smets
Dr. Peer Smets is universitair docent aan de Vrije Universiteit.

Marloes Vlind MSc
Marloes Vlind MSc is docent en onderzoeker aan de Vrije Universiteit.

    In recent years, there has been a strong diffusion of the concept of the G1000 in the Low countries. Yet, empirical research that concerns the democratic value of these mini-publics is sparse. This raises the question as to how democratic the G1000 initiatives in Belgium and the Netherlands are. To answer this question, we compare the Belgian and the Dutch G1000’s and assess these against a set of deliberative democratic criteria. We conclude that the G1000’s to a large extent meet the process criteria of deliberation. At the same time, the connection with the formal decision-making process appears to be weak. Another lesson to be drawn is that deliberative democratic criteria often seem to conflict with each other, which points to continuing tensions within the ideal of deliberative democracy.


Ank Michels
Ank Michels is politicoloog en als universitair docent verbonden aan het Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap van de Universiteit Utrecht. In haar onderzoek houdt zij zich bezig met nieuwe vormen van besturen en democratie, burgerparticipatie en deliberatie. Ze is mede-auteur van het boek G1000. Ervaringen met burgertoppen (2016) en auteur van onder meer ‘Innovations in democratic governance. How does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy’ (2011) en ‘Participation in citizens’ summits and public engagement’ (2017), beide in International Review of Administrative Sciences.

Didier Caluwaerts
Didier Caluwaerts is als docent verbonden aan de Vakgroep Politieke Wetenschappen van de Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Zijn onderzoek handelt over democratische innovatie, met een specifieke focus op deliberatieve democratie. In 2011 was hij mede-organisator van de G1000 Burgertop in België. Hij is ook mede-auteur van Democratic deliberation in deeply divided societies: From conflict to common ground (Palgrave, 2014) en publiceerde onlangs ‘Generating democratic legitimacy through deliberative innovations: The role of embeddedness and disruptiveness (2016, Representation) en ‘Coproduction in health planning: Challenging the need for “open” policy-making processes’ (2016, International Journal of Public Administration).
Article

Het zou zomaar een zootje kunnen worden

Een Q-methodologisch onderzoek naar de ideeën van non-participanten over de relatie tussen representatieve en participatieve democratie op lokaal niveau

Tijdschrift Res Publica, Aflevering 1 2017
Auteurs Jante Schmidt en Margo Trappenburg
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    New forms of participatory and deliberative democracy gain popularity alongside traditional representative democracy at the local level in the Netherlands. In this article we look at passive citizens defined as citizens who do not participate in any of the new practices. How do they perceive the shift from traditional to new forms of democracy (defined as stakeholder democracy, deliberative polling and associative or ‘do’ democracy)? We performed a Q-methodological study to find patterns of opinion among passive citizens. We found three patterns. Critical citizens are critical about both traditional representative democracy and new forms of democracy. Loyal citizens support traditional local democracy and do not think the shift to other forms is a change for the better. Distant citizens find that politicians should first and foremost uphold the law and act as referees when citizens disagree. This task has been neglected over the years but this deficiency cannot be remedied by new forms of democracy. All three patterns of opinion are cause for concern for the advocates of more participatory and deliberative democracy. While these new forms may restore faith in politics among active citizens they may simultaneously alienate passive citizens.


Jante Schmidt
Jante Schmidt is socioloog en promovenda aan de Universiteit voor Humanistiek. Haar onderzoek gaat over menselijke waardigheid in de ‘participatiesamenleving’: de effecten van de hervorming van de verzorgingsstaat op morele emoties in de context van zorg en ondersteuning.

Margo Trappenburg
Margo Trappenburg is universitair hoofddocent bestuurs- en organisatiewetenschappen aan de Universiteit Utrecht en bijzonder hoogleraar aan de Universiteit voor Humanistiek. Haar onderzoek gaat over veranderingen in de verzorgingsstaat en de gevolgen daarvan voor kwetsbare groepen, andere burgers en professionals.
Artikel

Lokale democratie doorgelicht: inleiding

Tijdschrift Bestuurs­wetenschappen, Aflevering 4 2016
Auteurs Prof. dr. Bas Denters en Prof. dr. Marcel Boogers
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In recent years, attention has increasingly been focussing on the quality of local democracy. Through the transfer of central government tasks to the municipalities, the importance of local government for citizens in the Netherlands has increased. This also places higher demands on the way local democracy functions. For various reasons, it is not easy to meet these demands. The debate on the quality of local democracy can be reduced to two basic questions: what is local and what is democracy? Instead of answering these questions, the authors of the article (editors of this new series) demonstrate what knowledge is needed to do this. They outline broadly the agenda for a local democratic audit, for which this article is an introduction. After a short theoretical discussion of the importance of local democracy, the authors point out those knowledge gaps that still exist in their opinion. They do so on the basis of current research. After identifying the key relations in local democracy, they present an agenda for further research.


Prof. dr. Bas Denters
Prof. dr. S.A.H. Denters is hoogleraar Bestuurskunde aan de Universiteit Twente, wetenschappelijk directeur van de Nederlandse Onderzoekschool Bestuurskunde (NOB) en hoofdredacteur van Bestuurswetenschappen.

Prof. dr. Marcel Boogers
Prof. dr. M.J.G.J.A. Boogers is hoogleraar Innovatie en Regionaal Bestuur aan de Universiteit Twente, senior adviseur Openbaar Bestuur bij BMC en tevens redacteur van Bestuurswetenschappen.
Artikel

Hoe staat de lokale democratie in Nederland ervoor?

Tijdschrift Bestuurs­wetenschappen, Aflevering 4 2016
Auteurs Prof. dr. Klaartje Peters en Drs. Vincent van Stipdonk
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Is local democracy in the Netherlands equipped for its mission? There is confusion and disagreement about the answer to this question. How people assess existing democratic practices is strongly influenced by one of the three main perspectives: representative democracy, participative (deliberative) democracy or ‘do-democracy’ (associative democracy). But to be able to have this discussion in the first place, empirical knowledge is required about the state of democracy at the local level. In this article (apart from the introduction, the first in a series on the local democratic audit) the authors bring together the available research data and organize these data with the help of David Easton’s system model: from input of citizens and civil society via throughput to output and finally feedback again in the political system. The research presented offers some insight in the state of local democracy, although it is not possible to give a final assessment. That depends on the perspective on democracy chosen, but it is also not possible because of the fragmented and incomplete nature of the research on local democracy in the Netherlands. The authors advocate contributing to these discussions with more empirical knowledge. The overview in this article shows that there is work to be done in this respect.


Prof. dr. Klaartje Peters
Prof. dr. K. Peters is zelfstandig onderzoeker en publicist en voor één dag in de week bijzonder hoogleraar Lokaal en regionaal bestuur aan de Universiteit Maastricht.

Drs. Vincent van Stipdonk
Drs. V.P. van Stipdonk is zelfstandig Raadgever & Redacteur en tevens redacteur van Bestuurswetenschappen.
Artikel

De responsabilisering van burgers van verzorgingsstaat tot participatiesamenleving

Discoursanalyse van troonredes en regeringsverklaringen sinds de jaren zestig

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 4 2016
Trefwoorden Participation society, Withdrawing government, Making-responsible citizens, Dutch speeches from the throne, Dutch government statements
Auteurs Ermy Brok MA
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Central concern of this article is tracing back how the making-responsible of citizens takes shape within Dutch speeches from the throne, government statements and reports of the Dutch Social and Cultural Research Institute (SCP) ever since the 1960s. The Dutch participation society, a term much discussed ever since mentioned in the 2013 speech of the throne, is often associated with a withdrawing government and a coming to end of the welfare state. At the same time, according to several authors, the notion of a withdrawing government that operates within a network of multiple equal actors has brought along the need for a widening of the government’s repertoire of action. This has been characterized as making-responsible citizens on conditions of the state. It has raised doubts about true government-withdrawal and authors have related it to the dominance of neo-liberal thinking ever since the 1990s. Applying an analysis framework derived from discourse analysis, it is made tangible in this article how within political discourse beginnings of the making-responsible of citizens can be traced to the 1960s, more than thirty years earlier than expected. It is argued that this longer history makes a plea for encouraging the political dimension of citizenship all the more important.


Ermy Brok MA
Ermy Brok MA is beleidsadviseur op het sociale domein bij de gemeente Tilburg en extern promovenda aan de Tilburg Law School/Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur.
Artikel

Hoe divers, invloedrijk en deliberatief is een G1000?

Het ontwerp van een burgertop en de verwezenlijking van democratische waarden

Tijdschrift Bestuurs­wetenschappen, Aflevering 1 2016
Auteurs Dr. Ank Michels en Dr. Harmen Binnema
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In imitation of the G1000 in Belgium in the Netherlands G1000-meetings were held in Amersfoort, Kruiskamp, Uden and Groningen and a citizens summit in Amsterdam with a similar design. In this article the authors investigate the design of these citizens summits and their contribution to a number of important democratic values. What is the diversity of the participants, the influence on policies and the quality of the discussions during the citizen summit? Their research shows that the diversity of the group of participants is rather limited. The selection method that is chosen, whether a lottery selection or an open invitation, doesn’t make much difference for the diversity of the group of participants. In addition the influence of citizens summits on policies and politics is nearly absent. The subjects that come forward at citizens summits hardly ever come back in the local policies, not even at the citizens summit in Uden, where the municipal council has taken the initiative to organize a G1000. Finally, in general the participants qualify the discussions at the table during citizens summits as constructive and inspiring. The specific form of the dialogue has only little influence on the extent to which the participants feel themselves heard and feel free to say whatever they want.


Dr. Ank Michels
Dr. A.M.B. Michels is universitair docent aan de Universiteit Utrecht bij het Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap (USBO).

Dr. Harmen Binnema
Dr. H. Binnema is universitair docent aan de Universiteit Utrecht bij het Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap (USBO). Hij is ook programmacoördinator van de masteropleiding Bestuur en Beleid voor professionals.
Praktijk

Slimme netwerkgemeente met ‘verbindend vakmanschap’

Reactie uit de bestuurlijke praktijk

Tijdschrift Bestuurs­wetenschappen, Aflevering 2 2015
Auteurs Mr. drs. Christophe van der Maat
Auteursinformatie

Mr. drs. Christophe van der Maat
Mr. drs. C.A. van der Maat is lid van het directieteam van de gemeente Roosendaal. Hij is verantwoordelijk voor de portefeuille ‘maatschappij en economie’: toezicht handhaving veiligheid, onderwijs, sport, cultuur, arbeidsmarkt, werk & inkomen, zorg. In 2012 was hij jonge ambtenaar van het jaar.

Dr. Harmen Binnema
Dr. H. Binnema is universitair docent aan de Universiteit Utrecht bij het Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap (USBO). Hij is ook programmacoördinator van de masteropleiding Bestuur en Beleid voor professionals.

Dr. Karin Geuijen
Dr. C.H.M. Geuijen is werkzaam als universitair docent aan de Universiteit Utrecht bij het Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap (USBO).

    The first contribution to this special issue on local democracy in the Netherlands is the inaugural speech of Job Cohen (the former mayor of Amsterdam) held on January 9th 2015 at the University of Leiden as extraordinary professor at the prestigious Thorbecke-chair. His field is the theory of the municipality as an administrative, political and legal system. The title of his inaugural speech was ‘The fourth D’, in which the first three D’s stand for three different decentralizations of tasks to the Dutch municipalities and the fourth D for democracy. In his speech Cohen advocates a deliberative form of democracy, because it doesn’t emphasize differences and the exaggeration of differences, but emphasizes what the members of a community have in common. Deliberative democracy wants to create space for this common interest through the establishment of an arena for dialogue. Job Cohen is particularly taken by the ideas of the Belgian writer David Van Reybrouck about lottery selection and citizen participation and corresponding initiatives like G1000: a civic-summit, a form of deliberative democracy that generates new ideas, opens new perspectives and increases trust in the democratic process. The element of lottery selection (that was previously put on the agenda by the American professor James Fishkin) is essential for these results, because it creates a maximum of diversity and real involvement of all layers of the population: full citizen participation.


Prof. mr. dr. Job Cohen
Prof. mr. dr. M.J. Cohen is bijzonder hoogleraar decentrale overheden (Thorbecke-leerstoel) aan de Universiteit Leiden en redacteur van Bestuurswetenschappen.
Toont 1 - 20 van 27 gevonden teksten
« 1
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.