Municipalities have increasingly adjusted their policies in order to better respond to the problematic social and economic participation of permit holders. The core elements within the chosen policies seem to consist of an early activation, combining language and professional training, and providing customization in the support of these newcomers. In this article, this policy change has been studied in the municipalities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht. It becomes clear that a more successful approach only succeeds when permit holders are offered additional and tailored support. For all three municipalities, this means that more permit holders are reached by the available support measures and that local policy makers can better respond to individual needs and possibilities. In addition, these municipalities pay more attention for sustainable labour market participation. At the same time, it is evident that no rapid successes are being made with this new course. In particular, more vulnerable permit holders, including those with low levels of education and women, are not always reached by municipalities. We also see that many of these newcomers must be supported for a long time, even if after have found a place on the labour market. Therefore, evidence suggests that without additional measures there is a good chance that the perspective on social and economic participation for many permit holders in the Netherlands will be extremely limited.

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).

Putnam (2007) claims that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, residents of all ethnic groups tend to ‘hunker down’. Solidarity and trust are lower, mutual help and cooperation rarer, friends fewer. Various studies in the United States found a clear correlation between diversity and cohesion, and also for many different dimensions of social cohesion. Whether this finding also holds in other (European) settings is the subject of hot and unresolved debate. Specifically, this article addresses the question whether living in an ethnically diverse setting has negative consequences for social cohesion in the Netherlands as well. To further the debate, this article pulls apart various contexts and various dimensions of social cohesion. This article examines the relationship between ethnic diversity (in socio-graphically defined neighbourhoods) and four dimensions of social cohesion (trust, informal help, voluntary work and neighbourhood contacts) for the 50 largest cities in the Netherlands. We conclude that the Putnam hypothesis holds only to a limited extent in the Dutch context. The only aspect on which ethnic diversity has a negative effect is the degree of contact in the neighbourhood.