Zoekresultaat: 21 artikelen

x
Article

Performing the COVID-19 Crisis in Flemish Populist Radical-Right Discourse

A Case Study of Vlaams Belang’s Coronablunderboek

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 2 2021
Trefwoorden populism, COVID-19, crisis, discourse
Auteurs Jens Meijen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In June 2020, the Flemish populist radical right party Vlaams Belang (VB) published the Corona Blunder Book (CBB; Coronablunderboek in Dutch), detailing the government’s mistakes in handling the COVID-19 crisis. Populist parties can ‘perform’ crisis by emphasising the mistakes made by opponents (Moffitt, 2015) and may use a specifically populist discursive style, consisting largely of aggressive and sarcastic language (Brubaker, 2017). This paper takes the CBB as a case study in the populist performance of crisis and the populist style, finding that the book is, first, a clear example of populist ‘everyman’ stylistics and the performance of crisis, and, second, that VB uses the book to shift the COVID-19 crisis from a public health crisis to a crisis of governance, seeking to blame Belgium’s federal structure for the government’s alleged mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic and hence arguing for Flemish independence, one of the party’s main agenda points.


Jens Meijen
Jens Meijen is a PhD candidate at Leuven International and European Studies (LINES) at KU Leuven. His research focuses on nationalism, populism, and diplomacy.
Article

The Impact of VAAs on Vote Switching at the 2019 Belgian Legislative Elections

More Switchers, but Making Their Own Choices

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 1 2021
Trefwoorden voting advice applications, vote switching, vote choice, elections and electoral behaviour, voters/citizens in Belgium, VAA
Auteurs David Talukder, Laura Uyttendaele, Isaïa Jennart e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    During electoral campaigns, the use of voting advice applications (VAAs) has become increasingly widespread. Consequently, scholars have examined both the patterns of usage and their effects on voting behaviour. However, existing studies lead to conflicting findings. In this article, we take a closer look at the effect of De Stemtest/Test électoral (a VAA developed by academics from the University of Louvain and the University of Antwerp, in partnership with Belgian media partners) on vote switching. More specifically, we divide this latter question into two sub-questions: (1) What is the impact of a (dis)confirming advice from the VAA on vote switching? (2) Do VAA users follow the voting advice provided by the VAA? Our study shows that receiving a disconfirming advice from the VAA increases the probability of users to switch their vote choice.


David Talukder
David Talukder is a PhD candidate at the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB, Belgium). He works within the research project “Reforming Representative Democracy”. His main research interests are democratic innovations, political representation, and democratic reforms.

Laura Uyttendaele
Laura Uyttendaele is a PhD candidate at the University of Louvain (UCLouvain, Belgium). Her main research interests are Voting Advice Applications, Youth & politics, political attitudes and behaviours, and experimental methods.

Isaïa Jennart
Isaïa Jennart is a PhD candidate (Universiteit Antwerpen & VUB, Belgium) interested in public opinion, electoral campaigns, voting behaviour, Voting Advice Applications and political knowledge. He mainly studies citizens’ knowledge of parties’ issue positions.

Benoît Rihoux
Benoît Rihoux is full professor in political science at the University of Louvain (UCLouvain, Belgium). His research covers comparative methods (especially QCA) as well as diverse topics in comparative politics, political organizations and political behaviour.
Article

Interest Representation in Belgium

Mapping the Size and Diversity of an Interest Group Population in a Multi-layered Neo-corporatist Polity

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 1 2021
Trefwoorden interest groups, advocacy, access, advisory councils, media attention
Auteurs Evelien Willems, Jan Beyers en Frederik Heylen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article assesses the size and diversity of Belgium’s interest group population by triangulating four data sources. Combining various sources allows us to describe which societal interests get mobilised, which interest organisations become politically active and who gains access to the policy process and obtains news media attention. Unique about the project is the systematic data collection, enabling us to compare interest representation at the national, Flemish and Francophone-Walloon government levels. We find that: (1) the national government level remains an important venue for interest groups, despite the continuous transfer of competences to the subnational and European levels, (2) neo-corporatist mobilisation patterns are a persistent feature of interest representation, despite substantial interest group diversity and (3) interest mobilisation substantially varies across government levels and political-administrative arenas.


Evelien Willems
Evelien Willems is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp. Her research focuses on the interplay between interest groups, public opinion and public policy.

Jan Beyers
Jan Beyers is Full Professor of Political Science at the University of Antwerp. His current research projects focus on how interest groups represent citizens interests and to what extent the politicization of public opinion affects processes of organized interest representation in public policymaking.

Frederik Heylen
Frederik Heylen holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Antwerp. His doctoral dissertation addresses the organizational development of civil society organizations and its internal and external consequences for interest representation. He is co-founder and CEO of Datamarinier.
Thema-artikel

Verantwoorde algoritmisering: zorgen waardengevoeligheid en transparantie voor meer vertrouwen in algoritmische besluitvorming?

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden algorithms, algorithmization, value-sensitivity, transparency, trust
Auteurs Dr. Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen en Prof. dr. Albert Meijer
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Algorithms are starting to play an increasingly prominent role in government organizations. The argument is that algorithms can make more objective and efficient decisions than humans. At the same time, recent scandals have highlighted that there are still many problems connected to algorithms in the public sector. There is an increasing emphasis on ethical requirements for algorithms and we aim to connect these requirements to insights from public administration on the use of technologies in the public sector. We stress the need for responsible algorithmization – responsible organizational practices around the use of algorithms – and argue that this is needed to maintain the trust of citizens. We present two key components of responsible algorithmization – value-sensitivity and transparency – and show how these components connect to algorithmization and can contribute to citizen trust. We end the article with an agenda for research into the relation between responsible algorithmization and trust.


Dr. Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen
Dr. S.G. Grimmelikhuijsen is universitair hoofddocent Publiek Management aan de Universiteit Utrecht, Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap.

Prof. dr. Albert Meijer
Prof. dr. A.J. Meijer is hoogleraar Publiek Management aan de Universiteit Utrecht, Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap.
Thema-artikel

Inzicht in transparantie

Een essay over trade-offs achter algoritmische besluitvorming

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden transparency, value conflict, algorithms, trade-offs, public values, ethics
Auteurs Joanna Strycharz Msc, Dr. ir. Bauke Steenhuisen en Dr. Haiko van der Voort
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Algorithms applied in public administration are often criticized for lack of transparency. Lawmakers and citizens alike expect that automated decisions based on algorithmic recommendations to be explainable. The focus of this article is the organizational context behind the idea of transparent algorithms. Transparency is portrayed as one of numerous values that are at play when algorithms are applied in public administration. The article shows that applying algorithms may lead to conflicts between these values. Such conflicts often result in trade-off decisions. Looking from the organizational perspective, we describe how such trade-offs can be made both explicitly and implicitly. The article thus shows the complexity of algorithmic trade-offs. As a result of this complexity, we not only call for more transparency about algorithms, but also more transparency about trade-offs that take place in public administration. Finally, we present a research agenda focused on studying the organization of trade-offs.


Joanna Strycharz Msc
J. Strycharz, Msc is universitair docent Persuasive Communication aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, Faculteit Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen.

Dr. ir. Bauke Steenhuisen
Dr. ir. B.S. Steenhuisen is universitair docent Organisatie & Governance aan de TU Delft, Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management.

Dr. Haiko van der Voort
Dr. H.G. van der Voort is universitair docent Organisatie & Governance aan de TU Delft, Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management.
Vrij artikel

Duwtjes of druk?

De percepties van zorgprofessionals aangaande ‘nudging’ in ziekenhuizen

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden nudging, ethics, autonomy, healthcare, professionals
Auteurs Nienke Maria Huis in ’t Veld MSc, Rosanna Nagtegaal MSc en Prof. dr. Mirko Noordegraaf
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    ‘Nudging’ has been introduced as a policy and management tool as a way to influence behaviour without limiting choice. Nudging is mainly used to influence citizens’ behaviour but can also be used to influence the behavior of healthcare professionals. Examples include posters used to improve hand-hygiene compliance, or ‘default’ options in systems to reduce excessive prescriptions of specific medication. However, using nudges raises major worries and ethical issues, also in relation to the independence of healthcare professionals. While the scientific discussion about the desirability of nudges is extensive, the voices of healthcare professionals, who are the subjects of nudges, remain unheard. In this qualitative research we explore the perceptions of nudging held by various healthcare professionals. The interviews reveal that healthcare professionals are generally unfamiliar with the concept of nudging, but they do recognize nudges in their own field of practice. Furthermore, while they are predominantly positive about nudging, they also express concerns about the pressure on their autonomy. These concerns are related to changing professionalism and regulatory pressures in healthcare.


Nienke Maria Huis in ’t Veld MSc
N.M. Huis in ’t Veld, MSc is alumna aan de Universiteit Utrecht, departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap.

Rosanna Nagtegaal MSc
R. Nagtegaal, MSc is promovenda aan de Universiteit Utrecht, departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap.

Prof. dr. Mirko Noordegraaf
Prof. dr. M. Noordegraaf is hoogleraar Publiek Management aan de Universiteit Utrecht, departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap.
Artikel

Access_open Ethics work for good participatory action research

Engaging in a commitment to epistemic justice

Tijdschrift Beleidsonderzoek Online, september 2020
Auteurs Tineke Abma
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Participatory and responsive approaches to research strive to be democratic, inclusive and impactful. Participatory researchers share a commitment to epistemic justice and actively engage citizens and users as well as other stakeholders in the co-creation of knowledge for social change. While more and more researchers and policymakers feel attracted to these approaches in practice, the normative ideals of social inclusion and justice are sometimes hard to realize, because of established interests, power relations and system requirements. In this article I argue that participatory researchers and evaluators have a moral responsibility to do ‘ethics work’. This is more than just following ethical principles and codes of conduct. ‘Ethics work’ entails the labour and effort one puts into recognizing ethically salient aspects of situations, developing oneself as a reflexive practitioner, paying attention to emotions and relationships, collaboratively working out the right course of action and reflecting in the company of critical friends. In this article I present the theory and ethics of participatory approaches, illustrate ethical issues and ethics work related to collaboration, politics and power, and share lessons based on ten years of practice in the field of health and social well-being.

    Vooraf

    Participatief actieonderzoek en responsieve evaluatie staan volop in de belangstelling bij beleidsmakers en onderzoekers. Dit type beleidsonderzoek en -evaluatie beoogt democratisch, inclusief én impactvol te zijn. Het gaat om onderzoek mét in plaats van óver mensen. En het is actiegericht: onderzoek wil bijdragen aan concrete oplossingen door met betrokkenen gezamenlijke (verbeter)acties te ontwikkelen in de praktijk, en daarop te reflecteren en van te leren. Dit alles met het oog op sociale inclusie. Het zijn mooie idealen, maar wat betekent dit in de alledaagse, vaak weerbarstige onderzoekspraktijk?

    Op 20 januari 2020 organiseerde prof. Abma daarover een symposium, getiteld ‘Responsive, Participatory Research: Past, Present and Future Perspectives’ (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam). De rode draad op het symposium was de vraag wat goed en ethisch verantwoord participatief onderzoek is, en wat dit vraagt van onderzoekers en beleidsmakers. Drie lezingen op deze conferentie zijn nadien omgewerkt tot essays om lezers van Beleidsonderzoek Online vanuit verschillende perspectieven beter kennis te laten maken met deze vorm van onderzoek:

    Prof. Weerman en haar team focussen in hun bijdrage op het zich in de praktijk ontwikkelende onderzoeksdesign en het inzetten van creatieve methoden om participatie te bevorderen. Ze gaan na welke kwaliteitscriteria aan participatief actieonderzoek worden gesteld en hechten daarbij met name aan eisen ten aanzien van participatie, samen leren en verschil maken (zie BoO juli 2021). Ze benadrukken het belang van creativiteit en flexibiliteit.

    Prof. Abma bespreekt in haar artikel de normatieve dimensies en de ethiek van participatief actieonderzoek (zie BoO september 2020). Ze illustreert met een voorbeeld uit de crisishulpverlening aan GGZ-cliënten dat participatief actieonderzoek niet slechts een methodisch-technische exercitie is, maar een sociaal-politiek proces waarbij bestaande machtsverhoudingen verschuiven om ruimte te geven aan nieuwe stemmen en kennis. Dit omvat het zien van en stilstaan bij ethisch saillante dilemma’s en morele reflectie.

    De bijdrage van prof. Cook (zie BoO februari 2021) gaat over de weerbarstige praktijk van participatief actieonderzoek. Het doel is samen leren en voorbij geijkte oplossingen komen. Zij laat zien dat dit uitdagend is voor professionals die geconfronteerd worden met burgers die feedback geven en vragen om het (deels) loslaten van vaststaande professionele kaders. Er ontstaat dan ongemak en onzekerheid, maar zo beoogt en laat Cook overtuigend zien, deze ‘mess’ (niet meer goed weten wat goed en nodig is) is productief om te komen tot hernieuwde inzichten en innovaties.

    (Introductietekst opgesteld door prof. T. Abma)


Tineke Abma
Tineke A. Abma is Professor Participation & Diversity Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, and Executive Director of Leyden Academy on Vitality and Ageing, Leiden.
Article

Deliberation Out of the Laboratory into Democracy

Quasi-Experimental Research on Deliberative Opinions in Antwerp’s Participatory Budgeting

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden Deliberative democracy, mini-publics, participatory budget, social learning, deliberative opinions
Auteurs Thibaut Renson
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The theoretical assumptions of deliberative democracy are increasingly embraced by policymakers investing in local practices, while the empirical verifications are often not on an equal footing. One such assertion concerns the stimulus of social learning among participants of civic democratic deliberation. Through the use of pre-test/post-test panel data, it is tested whether participation in mini-publics stimulates the cognitive and attitudinal indicators of social learning. The main contribution of this work lies in the choice of matching this quasi-experimental set-up with a natural design. This study explores social learning across deliberation through which local policymakers invite their citizens to participate in actual policymaking. This analysis on the District of Antwerp’s participatory budgeting demonstrates stronger social learning in real-world policymaking. These results inform a richer theory on the impacts of deliberation, as well as better use of limited resources for local (participatory) policymaking.


Thibaut Renson
Thibaut Renson is, inspired by the 2008 Obama campaign, educated as a Political Scientist (Ma EU Studies, Ghent University) and Political Philosopher (Ma Global Ethics and Human Values, King’s College London). Landed back at the Ghentian Centre for Local Politics to do empirical research. Driven by the moral importance of social learning (vs. political consumerism) in democracy, exploring the empirical instrumentality of deliberation.
Artikel

Over zelfredzame burgers gesproken

Hoe ambtenaren een buigzaam burgerschapsideaal vormgeven

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 4 2019
Trefwoorden Interactional framing, Self reliance, Silent ideologies, Micro frames, Self referentiality
Auteurs Drs. Harrie van Rooij, Dr. Margit van Wessel en Prof. dr. Noelle Aarts
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The concept of self-reliant citizens reflects an ideology of citizenship that is multiple and flexible. It could be regarded as a ‘plastic’ word, malleable and adjustable according to convictions, needs and purposes. This study shows the importance of considering the way in which ideological views on citizenship are transferred, adjusted and enacted in an organizational context. On the basis of a case study at the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration (DTCA), we contribute to knowledge on the way processes of framing interrelate on micro, meso and macro levels. We found that frames on self-reliance are enacted in a way that tensions and dilemmas are neutralized or reduced. In a dynamic context of conflicting goals and limited resources, DTCA-employees create meanings of self-reliance which legitimate practices and policies. By doing this they reproduce both organizational and social perspectives. Accounts of citizenship play an important role in this process. Self-reliant citizens are presented as active and responsible. The need of help is imagined as a normal and yet an atypical situation. This study promotes attention to the possibility that organizational systems reproduce perspectives in a way that alternative views remain unnoticed, whereas organizational choices are silently accepted as natural facts.


Drs. Harrie van Rooij
Drs. Harrie van Rooij is PhD-kandidaat (buitenpromovendus) bij het Institute for Science in Society (ISiS), Radboud University, en coördinerend adviseur corporate communicatie bij het ministerie van Financiën.

Dr. Margit van Wessel
Dr. Margit van Wessel is universitair docent, leerstoel Strategische Communicatie aan de Wageningen University & Research.

Prof. dr. Noelle Aarts
Prof. dr. Aarts is professor Socio-Ecological Interactions aan het Institute for Science in Society (ISiS), Radboud University.
Article

Fiscal Consolidation in Federal Belgium

Collective Action Problem and Solutions

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 2 2019
Trefwoorden fiscal consolidation, fiscal policy, federalism, intergovernmental relations, High Council of Finance
Auteurs Johanna Schnabel
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Fiscal consolidation confronts federal states with a collective action problem, especially in federations with a tightly coupled fiscal regime such as Belgium. However, the Belgian federation has successfully solved this collective action problem even though it lacks the political institutions that the literature on dynamic federalism has identified as the main mechanisms through which federal states achieve cooperation across levels of government. This article argues that the regionalization of the party system, on the one hand, and the rationalization of the deficit problem by the High Council of Finance, on the other, are crucial to understand how Belgium was able to solve the collective action problem despite its tightly coupled fiscal regime and particularly high levels of deficits and debts. The article thus emphasizes the importance of compromise and consensus in reducing deficits and debts in federal states.


Johanna Schnabel
School of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent, Rutherford College, Canterbury CT2 7NX, United Kingdom.
Article

Consensus Democracy and Bureaucracy in the Low Countries

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden consensus democracy, bureaucracy, governance system, Lijphart, policymaking
Auteurs Frits van der Meer, Caspar van den Berg, Charlotte van Dijck e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Taking Lijphart’s work on consensus democracies as our point of departure, we signal a major shortcoming in Lijphart’s focus being almost exclusively on the political hardware of the state structure, leaving little attention for the administrative and bureaucratic characteristics of governance systems. We propose to expand the Lijphart’s model which overviews structural aspects of the executive and the state with seven additional features of the bureaucratic system. We argue that these features are critical for understanding the processes of policymaking and service delivery. Next, in order to better understand the functioning of the Netherlands and Belgium as consensus democracies, we provide a short analysis of the historical context and current characteristics of the political-administrative systems in both countries.


Frits van der Meer
Frits van der Meer, Professor Institute Public Administration, Leiden University.

Caspar van den Berg
Caspar van den Berg, Campus Fryslân, University of Groningen.

Charlotte van Dijck
Charlotte van Dijck, PhD Fellow Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), KU Leuven Public Governance Institute.

Gerrit Dijkstra
Gerrit Dijkstra, Senior Lecturer, Leiden University.

Trui Steen
Trui Steen, Professor, KU Leuven Public Governance Institute.
Article

Transformative Welfare Reform in Consensus Democracies

Tijdschrift Politics of the Low Countries, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden consensus democracy, welfare state, social investment, transformative reform, Belgium and the Netherlands
Auteurs Anton Hemerijck en Kees van Kersbergen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article takes up Lijphart’s claim that consensus democracy is a ‘kinder, gentler’ form of democracy than majoritarian democracy. We zoom in on contemporary welfare state change, particularly the shift towards social investment, and argue that the kinder, gentler hypothesis remains relevant. Consensus democracies stand out in regard to the extent to which their political institutions help to overcome the politically delicate intricacies of governing for the long term. We theorize the features that can help to solve the problem of temporal commitment in democracy through processual mechanisms and illustrate these with short case studies of the contrasting welfare state reform experiences in the Netherlands and Belgium.


Anton Hemerijck
Anton Hemerijck is Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, Italy.

Kees van Kersbergen
Kees van Kersbergen is Professor of Comparative Politics at the Department of Political Science of Aarhus University, Denmark.
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

Gezocht: Burgerparticipatie (voor vaste relatie)

Een vergelijkende gevalsstudie naar 26 lokale netwerken in het sociale domein in de regio Arnhem

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 1 2016
Trefwoorden citizen participation, co-production, local networks, decentralization, collaboration
Auteurs Rigtje Passchier MSc en Dr. Jelmer Schalk
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In 2015, Dutch local governments have become responsible for youth care, social welfare, employment and income assistance programs, as a result of decentralization. Many municipalities have set up service delivery networks and community teams, in which they collaborate with healthcare providers and civic organizations to build integrated care services. It is assumed that these networks will improve outcomes in terms of enhanced people’s self-reliance and healthcare cost control; by operating close to citizens they are in a position to know the client, activate a client’s social network and mobilize specialized professional expertise if necessary. However, a comparative case study of 26 emerging local networks in the Arnhem area indicates that healthcare providers use the networks mainly for presentation purposes in an effort to secure business continuity, that the role of local governments is fuzzy, and that citizen participation only thrives when actively encouraged in a climate of trust.


Rigtje Passchier MSc
R. Passchier MSc is interim manager voor de publieke zaak en promovenda aan de Universiteit Leiden.

Dr. Jelmer Schalk
Dr. J. Schalk is universitair docent aan de Universiteit Leiden.

    With the term ‘system responsibility’ the authors (both working for the Dutch Scientific Council for Governmental Policy) mean the responsibility for the functioning of complex ‘administrative systems’. In these complex administrative systems supervision can have different roles: to assess the functioning one-sided from the perspective of the government, but also to put on reflective glasses (‘from afar glasses’) that aim at the bigger picture of divergent rationalities of the actors involved. In the second case, there is ‘system responsible supervision’. This essay explores the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of the desirability of system responsible supervision in a society with complex, compound administrative systems. Such supervision can contribute to a somewhat better understanding of these systems and a somewhat better ability to adjust these complex systems. These supervisors can be seen as a necessary complement of the withdrawal of the government and the rise of ‘horizontal administration’, in which the hierarchical decision-power of the central government has gradually shifted to other actors. As unelected and as relatively independent actors they occupy a new, hybrid place in the ‘trias politica’, because on the one hand they have taken over functions of elected politicians and administrators and on the other hand they function in many respects as a quasi-judicial power.


Dr. Peter de Goede
Dr. P.J.M. de Goede is senior wetenschappelijk medewerker van de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. Hij is voormalig redactiesecretaris en hoofdredacteur van Bestuurswetenschappen.

Prof. dr. André Knottnerus
Prof. dr. J.A. Knottnerus is voorzitter van de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.
Artikel

Een duwtje om over na te denken

De belofte van nudging voor de terugtredende overheid

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden nudge, choice architecture, libertarian paternalism, autonomy, decision-making
Auteurs Jasper Zuure MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Nudging is currently high on the political agenda. The idea behind nudging is that the government can gently push citizens in the ‘good’ direction by anticipating their predictable irrational behaviour. In the Dutch discussion nudging often is seen as an instrument to influence citizens more. Therefore critics fear paternalism, manipulation and technocracy. However, we could also see nudging as a replacement of more coercive instruments. Then nudges might even offer chances for a state that is withdrawing under the condition that citizens have both the opportunity and the capability to make alternative choices in practice than the choices to which nudges aim. Therefore nudges by the government should not avoid reflective and conscious thinking processes, but rather stimulate deliberation and make citizens more aware of their decisions.


Jasper Zuure MSc
J. Zuure, MSc is sociaal psycholoog en adviseur bij de Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling (RMO). Tevens schrijft hij een proefschrift in de politieke filosofie over massapsychologie en politieke theorieën.
Artikel

De staat als bondgenoot van burgers

Hoe de intredende overheid zichzelf legitimeert

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 2 2013
Auteurs Gerard Drosterij en Rik Peeters
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article analyzes the political discourse of alliance or partnership thinking. The metaphore of a partnership suggests a government which stands alongside civilians embodying a humble and service-based policy-making. We claim that this metaphore is in fact a justification for an interventionist claim towards those who not subscribe to the pact. The ideal of partnership is based on the political mimesis, a political conception which denies the principled distinction between state and society. The identification of a popular and political will is the legitimation of partnership thinking. It creates a problematic distinction between those who are supposed responsible and those who are not. To oppose governmental policy making leads to a high political price: either you’re with us, or against us.


Gerard Drosterij
Dr. G. Drosterij is columnist voor BNR nieuwsradio, publicist, docent maatschappijleer-in-leiding en docent politieke filosofie op de Hogeschool Rotterdam.

Rik Peeters
Dr. R. Peeters is verbonden aan de Nederlandse School voor Politiek en Bestuur in Den Haag.
Artikel

Ambtenaren en sociale media

Kansen, risico's en dilemma's

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 3 2011
Trefwoorden social media, relationship politics-administration, primacy of politics
Auteurs Dennis de Kool
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Not only companies and citizens, but also governmental agencies are exploring the possibilities of new technologies to communicate with citizens. This article analyzes the challenges, risks and dilemmas of social media for Dutch civil servants. The theoretical framework that is used consists of a classical and a modern approach to public administration. In the classical ‘Weberian’ model, politicians are responsible for policy-making (and communication about it) and civil servants have to implement policies (‘the primacy of politics’). This principal approach implies a limited role of civil servants in social media. However, the modern approach to civil servants highlights their expertise and distinctive responsibilities. The pragmatical approach leaves more space for active participation of civil servants on the internet. Nevertheless, a fundamental reflection about the primacy of politics, the role of governmental communication and culture in the social media landscape remains necessary.


Dennis de Kool
Dr D. de Kool is als onderzoeker verbonden aan het Center for Public Innovation van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Artikel

Verantwoordelijke vrijheid: responsabilisering van burgers op voorwaarden van de staat

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 2 2011
Trefwoorden governance, responsibilisation, political discourse, politics, public administration
Auteurs Rik Peeters en Gerard Drosterij
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Behind many notions of ‘governance’, there lies the image of a ‘modest’ or ‘retreating’ state. The assumption is that local and national authorities can only perform effectively if in cooperation with other public and private actors. Generally, it is said, governments increasingly lack the legitimacy for top-down interventions and hence the need of including participative citizen involvement in policy making and implementation. In recent years this democratic image has been disputed in scientific debates because of its lack of attention for new forms of interventionism by the state in societal processes, e.g. crime, youth care, immigration and integration. In this article, we aim to contribute to this other understanding of modern governance by analysing Dutch political discourse between 2001 and 2010 on (implicit) notions of the role and responsibility of the state. We show how the idea of ‘responsibilisation’ of citizens is turned into an argument for more instead of less state involvement in societal processes and citizens’ lives. By emphasizing ‘shared responsibilities’ between government and society, a tricky picture of parity is sketched of this relation. Dutch government presents itself as ‘an ally’ of citizens in fighting pressing social problems, but in the meantime an ideal of ‘responsible behaviour’ is constructed, namely, citizen behaviour in concordance with government’s policy ambitions. Within this political discourse, the socio-liberal idea of ‘responsibility’ turns into ‘responsibilisation on government’s terms’ and ‘irresponsible’ behaviour becomes a legitimate focal point for deep state interventions through techniques of governance.


Rik Peeters
Rik Peeters is onderzoeker en promovendus bij de Nederlandse School voor Openbaar Bestuur. Correspondentiegegevens: drs. R. Peeters, Nederlandse School voor Openbaar Bestuur, Lange Voorhout 17, 2514 EB Den Haag, peeters@nsob.nl.

Gerard Drosterij
Gerard Drosterij is onderzoeker bij de Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur.
Artikel

Etatisme in de polder?

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 3 2008
Auteurs Berend Snijders en Femke van Esch
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Decision-making in the Netherlands is generally characterised as (neo) corporatist. Whether stakeholders enjoy a similar level of access to, and influence on the formulation of the national position, which the Dutch government advocates in Brussels, remains however unclear. This article aims at providing a first tentative answer to this question by studying the formulation of the Dutch position on EU resolution 882/2004 concerning the official controls on compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare.

    In-depth analysis of this case reveals that the development process of the Dutch stance on 882/2004 was largely devoid of stakeholder-input. As such, this process may be characterised as essentially etatist rather than corporatist. Moreover, it was established – as expected – that specialised lobby groups – those that could offer additional information and expertise to the dossier team responsible for 882/2004 – were able to exert more influence than general advocacy groups. Finally, the hypothesis that openness leads to more stakeholder-influence was not confirmed in this case. To the contrary, only during private bilateral discussion did a selection of business organizations manage to convince the dossier team of the benefits of limited border controls.


Berend Snijders
Berend Snijders is promovendus aan de Utrechtse School voor Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap (USBO) van de Universiteit Utrecht. Correspondentiegegevens: Drs. Berend Snijders Universiteit Utrecht Utrechtse School voor Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap Bijlhouwerstraat 6 3511 ZC Utrecht B.J.B.Snijders@uu.nl

Femke van Esch
Femke van Esch is als universitair docent verbonden aan de Utrechtse School voor Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap (USBO) van de Universiteit Utrecht.
Toont 1 - 20 van 21 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.