Partly as a result of major problems on the housing market and in particular the large housing shortage, there is now a lot of attention for housing in both the press and politics. After many years of focus on more market forces and decentralization, the national government recently seems prepared to take more responsibility. In this contribution we try to interpret this turnaround by successively considering the main problems in the housing market, the development of government policy and possible solutions to the problems that have arisen. The emphasis is on the role of the national government. We conclude that, in view of the many spatial claims and the major investment tasks, it is important that the national government takes control and makes clear choices, which can then be worked out at regional and local level. By subsequently closely monitoring the developments and intervening if necessary, the central government can make adjustments on the intended housing policies.

What causes the delays in the building of sufficient new homes in the Netherlands? And why do housebuilding projects so often struggle with financial feasibility? The land market typically can be described as an imperfect market, while the performance of the land and housebuilding market are closely connected. This connection seems to cause, at least partially, delays in the building of new homes. To be able to build new houses, ownership of land is crucial. However, land does not always come available in time. Landownership also influences competition in the housebuilding market. Based on a review of scientific literature, policy documents and empirical research results, this paper discusses the performance of the land and housebuilding market and its possible impact on housing production. Additionally, the paper reviews recent proposals that have been suggested in the context of the on-going Dutch housing market debate that may improve the functioning of these markets. What might be the effects of these interventions on housebuilding production? The paper concludes with a couple of dilemmas governments face with regard to the functioning of the land and housebuilding market.

Municipalities are in a new phase of development. This requires rethinking how citizens can be involved in these developments. Instead of asking citizens to respond to municipal project initiatives, one of the (new) ways is to let citizens have their say about where, what and how urban improvements can be made. In this essay, the authors discuss what they mean by ‘areas for improvement’ and discuss two experiments – in two of the oldest Dutch cities: Maastricht and Nijmegen – of citizen participation that are intended to address such areas. In their view, in this way ‘a new, but obviously not the only, way to Rome is created’ in terms of citizen participation.

Dutch social policies are aimed at the integration and participation of all people. This creates challenges for persons with a mental vulnerability and their neighbourhoods. Five municipalities in the province of Flevoland asked us to help them improve the move from protected living to living in the neighbourhood. We used an arts-based participatory action research design and we followed ‘hot topics’, topics that sparked people’s energy and emotion, and which led to empowerment and participation. Focusing on these topics, which initially might not seem to be closely connected to the main research topic, might produce more information, and energy to take action on it, rather than rigidly sticking with the initial research topics. In this article, we focus on the first phases of the project. The emotions that people with mental vulnerabilities expressed when talking about their dogs, led us to the core of what really mattered to them in terms of inclusive living and participation. The dog functioned as an unexpected ‘hot topic’. In a symbolic sense, ‘the dog’ stands for a diverse range of lifeworld topics that can act as a creative catalyst for social change.

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)

Participatory research is increasingly being perceived as a democratic and transformative approach to social situations by both academics and policymakers. The article reflects on what it means to do participatory research, what it contributes to broader knowledge building, and why mess may not only need to be present in participatory research but encouraged. The purposes of participation and mess as nourishment for critical enquiry and more radical learning opportunities are considered and illuminated using case study material from the Family Based Positive Support Project.

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)

Een reflexieve kijk op beleidsonderzoek gaat uit van continue dynamiek tussen kennisontwikkeling en beleids- en uitvoeringspraktijken. Beleidsonderzoekers zoeken naar houvast om gedegen en relevant onderzoek te blijven doen, onderwijl inspelend op onzekerheden, onvoorspelbaarheid en kritische geluiden die kenmerkend zijn voor de huidige kennissamenleving. Via omgevingsbewust werken kunnen zij hun onderzoeksaanpak leren afstemmen op de kenmerken en maatschappelijke context van beleidsdossiers. Via kwaliteitsbewust werken kunnen zij leren inspelen op de verwachtingen rondom een bepaalde expertrol en onderzoeksaanpak binnen de eigen contexten van onafhankelijkheid en wetenschappelijke verantwoording.
Aan de hand van een casus – de lerende evaluatie van het Natuurpact, een innovatieve evaluatiestudie bij het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving – laten we zien hoe een reflexieve aanpak helpt om onderzoek in de nabijheid van de dynamische beleidspraktijk uit te voeren. Doordat deze aanpak buiten de comfortzone van onderzoekers ligt, is omgevingsbewust en kwaliteitsbewust werken voor onderzoekers geen vanzelfsprekendheid. We roepen beleidsonderzoekers zelf, de organisaties waar ze werkzaam zijn en beleidsmedewerkers op om hun reflexieve vaardigheden verder te ontwikkelen via het inrichten van lerende processen, effectieve kennisdeling via Communities of Practice en leerwerktrajecten, en open en adaptieve kennis-beleidsarrangementen.

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)

This research note investigates the role of paid digital campaigning in the 2018 local elections in Flanders. We make use of the official declarations which candidates are legally required to submit. In these declarations, candidates indicate whether and how much they invested in online campaigning tools during the four months preceding the elections. We collected data on a sample of 3,588 individual candidates running in the 30 municipalities of the Leuven Arrondissement. A multilevel logistic regression model shows that the odds of spending on digital campaigning increases among incumbent aldermen and local councillors. The latter finding supports the normalization thesis of digital campaigning. The results also show that scale is important – the more potential voters a candidate has, the higher the odds that the candidate invests in digital tools.

Sub-constituency campaigning occurs when parties focus their campaign resources on specific geographical areas within an electoral district. This behaviour was traditionally thought to occur only in single-member plurality elections, but recent research demonstrates that proportional systems with multi-member districts can also elicit sub-constituency campaigning. However, most studies of sub-constituency campaigning rely on self-reported measures of campaigning, not direct measures of campaign intensity in different regions and communities. We present novel data on geographical variations in the intensity of Flemish parties’ campaign advertising during the 2014 general elections in Belgium, which provides a direct measure of sub-constituency campaigning. Our findings show clear evidence of sub-constituency campaigning: parties campaign more intensely in municipalities where they have stronger electoral support and in municipalities with greater population density.

In recent years few political ambitions enjoyed so much political support as the striving to let the welfare state become more of a ‘participation society’. This ‘participation society’ should be a society with self-reliant citizens; before turning to the state for support, citizens should first of all look at their own capacities, and only in the last case ask the state for help. The premise is promising: collective well-being. However, the fundamental assumptions behind this notion do raise questions. This article argues that the notion for citizens to be self-reliant easily builds on questionable assumptions; these assumptions on the one hand raise hope for collective well-being, but on the other hand easily catalyze citizens’ contemporary uncertainties. It indeed is desirable to restate the relation between state and citizens, but the contemporary focus on citizens’ self-reliance should watch for building on unstable foundations to easily.

In the Netherlands, as in many other countries, housing supply fails to meet the rapidly increasing housing demand in already densely urbanised areas, contributing to rising housing prices and possibly gentrification. The state and local governments aim to satisfy this demand by densifying urban areas and by transforming urban brownfields and vacant office parks into residential areas, thus containing urban sprawl. However, the private actors needed to redevelop these areas operate according to a different institutional logic and discourse: the market. According to this market logic, urban transform is too expensive, even when partly subsidized, and, to some extent, sprawl is unavoidable to satisfy housing demand. The two different logics fail to deliver the housing needed. Building discourse coalitions is suggested as a possible way out of this deadlocked debate, while government actors might also aim to influence the housing market with novel, market oriented policy instruments.

We study the role division between public and private actors in their search for sustainable innovation of industrial clusters. This search unfolds as a two-phase process. In the first phase, private parties develop different projects for sustainable innovation independently from each other. Without coordination, a common ground for the projects emerges. Through their involvement in several of these projects, public actors are able to take up a central place between the projects and their associated actor coalitions. From this position, they are able to act on the common ground, and mobilize other actors for collaboration. The common ground is translated to a vision, and the private projects are assembled into a program, in which synergetic connections between the different projects are established. This starts the second phase of the process, in which a regional collaboration unfolds, coordinated by the public actors. Thus, the crucial role of private actors is to create the building blocks for sustainable innovation in the early stages of the process. The public actors are crucial in acting on these private initiatives, assembling the building blocks into programmatic effort towards sustainable innovation of industrial clusters. The main strength of public actors lies in their betweenness centrality.

Local authorities know for some time from experience with partnerships with local communities in the area of sustainable development that the urgency of climate change increases and that citizens develop into an equal partner. The convergence of these two motivations asks for an innovative way of acting, in which the performance of local authorities is a crucial factor for the ultimate success of local sustainable energy projects in which citizens are actively involved or will be involved. This article exposes the ways in which local authorities innovate with policy for the support of active citizenship in the production of locally generated sustainable energy. The article also explores the barriers that arise. The authors analyse two cases on different levels of government; ‘The Energy-workplace’ (in the Dutch province Fryslân) and ‘The Armhoede sustainable energy landscape’ (in the Dutch municipality Lochem). The cases show that policy innovations crystallize as well at ‘arm’s length’ distance as in the direct sphere of influence of the (local) authority. However, innovation takes place by the grace of the space in the existing institutional framework and the political (and administrative) system. Formal guidelines (like policy or regulation), persons, and informal practices of the traditional policy implementation may hinder a productive interaction between (active) citizens and government.

Science and practice are largely agreed on the importance of interorganizational cooperation in the approach of tackling complex societal problems. Organization transcending innovation through this type of cooperation however appears to be complicated. Based on an analysis of the literature about partnerships, the authors distinguish three challenges: coping with the tension between old and new accountability structures, building good working relationships and developing capabilities for problem-oriented working. Starting from these insights they designed action research into problem-oriented partnerships in the safety domain (safety chain). Their main question was: what is the most important obstacle for innovation through problem-oriented interorganizational cooperation? Over a period of nine months, they watched eight teams of professionals from different organizations. Their task was to develop and implement innovative approaches to tackle persistent organized crime. Although all three challenges identified in the literature indeed played a prominent role, problem diagnosis and problem definition appeared to be the main obstacle for the teams. In this article the authors describe the action research and explore, on the basis of the results and the literature, how partnerships could cope in practice with the challenge of problem definition and problem analysis. They conclude the article with suggestions for the design of a follow-up round of the action research.

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.

Given the scientific and social importance attached to productive interactions between science and policy practices, there is a striking lack of insight into current knowledge practices and the dilemmas they lead to. Our special issue can’t solve this deficiency but it can provide an impetus for opening up current knowledge practices, reflect on the role of science in them and instigate a more systematic exchange of methods. A warning is given for the reification of boundary work and Gabrielle Bammers’ Implementation and Integration Sciences is introduced as framework for the analyses.

Co-production is regarded as a way to actively involve vulnerable citizens with public service delivery. However, there are several critical aspects that may lead to the unexpected exclusion of this group by public organizations, which have been insufficiently addressed hitherto. On the basis of a dissertation research, these critical aspects are analyzed for three phases of co-production. In the first phase, self-selection and organizational selection may lead to the exclusion of vulnerable citizens. In the second phase, a lack of commitment of the user and organizational support increase the chance of early discontinuation of co-production by vulnerable citizens. Finally, in the evaluation phase, it is likely that disadvantaged citizens attribute potential success of co-production to themselves and do not reward the public service provider for this. This has the possible consequence that there is no recognition for the added value of co-production, which may lead to less co-production that involves vulnerable citizens in the future.

Over the last couple of decades, metropolitan areas around the world have been engaged in a multitude of initiatives aimed at upgrading urban infrastructure and services, in an effort to create better environmental, social and economic conditions and to enhance cities’ attractiveness and competitiveness. Reflecting these developments, many new categories of ‘cities’ have entered the policy discourse: ‘sustainable cities’; ‘green cities’; ‘digital cities’; ‘intelligent cities’; ‘smart cities’; ‘information cities’; ‘knowledge cities’; ‘resilient cities’; ‘eco-cities’; ‘low carbon cities’; ‘liveable cities’; and even combinations, such as ‘low carbon eco-cities’ and ‘ubiquitous eco-cities’. Each of these terms apparently seeks to capture and conceptualize key aspects of ongoing urban sustainability efforts. Closer examination, however, reveals that the terms are often used interchangeably by policy makers, planners and developers alike. In this article we examine the reflection of the wider policy debate in academic discourse. By subjecting the twelve most frequently encountered categories mentioned above to bibliometric analysis, we aim to identify the distinct conceptual perspectives harbored by each of them.

In the spring of 2013, the Dutch railway operator, High Speed Alliance, cancelled the acceptance procedures for V250 high-speed train sets they ordered from Italian manufacturer AnsaldoBreda after numerous problems with the build quality and safety systems. It is the latest chapter in a series of failed attempts to build and run a high-speed railway link between Amsterdam and Paris. Inevitably, the question of who was responsible for the decision to order the V250 has become prominent. We study 20 years of public decision-making by analysing the content of over 1,200 documents. Using David’s and Arthur’s theory of path-dependency, we conclude that all the decisions that were taken during those two decades created a situation in which the choice for the V250 was nothing more than an inevitable gamble. It can therefore be concluded that all parties involved, from the railway operator to Parliament, have contributed to the current failure.