Zoekresultaat: 12 artikelen

x
Serie

Ambitieuze en ambivalente vernieuwing van de lokale democratie in Nederland

Tijdschrift Bestuurs­wetenschappen, Aflevering 2 2019
Auteurs Dr. Linze Schaap, Prof. dr. Frank Hendriks, Dr. Niels Karsten MA e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article in the series on the local democratic audit, the authors argue that municipal democracy in the Netherlands has become a multiple democracy. Within the formal framework of representative democracy, numerous democratic arrangements have emerged that may be referred to as participatory, direct and also what the authors call ‘do-democracy’. Additions to representative democracy did not come without reason: representative democracy is not a perfect system, either in theory or in practice. Efforts have been made to improve the functioning of representative democracy in a number of ways. Three of these are discussed in this article. The authors note that these three reforms do not solve the problems in representative democracy. So the Dutch municipalities have started looking for additions to representative democracy. In this article various forms of participatory, do-it-yourself and direct democracy are discussed. Many effects of these reforms are still unknown and knowledge about them has crumbled, but one conclusion can be drawn: people with a low education are not inclined to take part, even with arrangements that are easily accessible. Striving for a more vital local democracy seems meaningful; the authors formulate a number of ways of thinking about this.


Dr. Linze Schaap
Dr. L. Schaap is universitair hoofddocent aan de Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur van de Universiteit van Tilburg.

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

Dr. Niels Karsten MA
Dr. N. Karsten MA is universitair docent aan de Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur van de Universiteit van Tilburg.

Dr. Julien van Ostaaijen
Dr. J.J.C. van Ostaaijen is universitair docent aan de Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur van de Universiteit van Tilburg en voorzitter van de Rekenkamercommissie in de gemeente Zundert.

Charlotte Wagenaar MSc.
C.C.L. Wagenaar MSc is onderzoeker bij de Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur van de Universiteit van Tilburg.
Artikel

Access_open HASHTAG POLITIE

Hoe politieagenten omgaan met waardeconflicten die ontstaan door sociale media

Tijdschrift Bestuurs­wetenschappen, Aflevering 3 2018
Auteurs Prof. dr. Gjalt de Graaf en Prof. dr. Albert Meijer
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Social media changes society and causes new dilemmas in local government. Little is known about the nature of these conflicts and the way government organizations deal with them. Therefore the authors of this article have carried out empirical research into the manner in which police officers deal with value conflicts concerning the use of social media. Their research shows that the well-known conflicts in the literature between effectiveness and efficiency and between effectiveness and legality were also dominant in this case, but that many more conflicts than are known from other studies concerned transparency and participation. In addition they discovered that the bias strategy was often used, which suggests that a conservative response is preferable in a situation with a lot of dynamics. In this way the research shows how government officials deal with the tension between a stable organization and a dynamic environment and look for appropriate forms of coping at this specific interface. The authors stress in their recommendations that the further strengthening of the learning ability of organizations deserves attention: not just to find the right way to deal with value conflicts, but to be able to find new ways to deal with the new conflicts that arise.


Prof. dr. Gjalt de Graaf
Prof. dr. G. de Graaf is hoogleraar Integriteit van Academisch Onderwijs aan de Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen van de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam en redacteur van Bestuurswetenschappen.

Prof. dr. Albert Meijer
Prof. dr. A.J. Meijer is hoogleraar Publieke Innovatie aan de Universiteit Utrecht en redacteur van Bestuurswetenschappen.
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.
Artikel

Institutionele leegte: nieuwe bronnen, nieuwe uitdagingen

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Institutional void, Literature review, Societal change, Technical innovation, Governance
Auteurs Prof.dr. Ellen van Bueren en Dr.ing. Bram Klievink
Samenvatting

    Societal and technological developments (such as the digital and energy revolutions) move faster than existing institutions can keep up with. The developments may lead to a metaphorical institutional void, which brings questions about the nature of the void, the changing rules, practices and responsibilities, and about the strategies to deal with the void. The concept has been around for a while but (again) seems relevant to understand current socio-technological innovations and challenges, that also allow us to further conceptualise the institutional void. In this introduction to the issue, we discuss the concept of an institutional void and explore how it is used in various domains of study, including public administration. We argue for how the concept is relevant today and therein also introduce the topics that are discussed in this special issue.


Prof.dr. Ellen van Bueren

Dr.ing. Bram Klievink
Artikel

Crowd-based innovaties: verschuivende verantwoordelijkheden in een institutional void

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden responsible innovation, institutional void, crowd-based innovations, governance
Auteurs Thijs Slot MSc, Dr. ir. Eefje Cuppen, Prof. dr. mr. ir. Neelke Doorn e.a.
Samenvatting

    The crowd increasingly plays a key role in facilitating innovations in a variety of sectors, spurred on by IT-developments and the concomitant increase in connectivity. Initiatives in this direction, captured under the umbrella-term ‘crowd-based innovations’, offer novel opportunities in socio-technical systems by increasing the access, reach and speed of services. At the same time, they signify important challenges because these innovations occur in a context of traditional, well-established institutional and governance structures and practices. This dynamic is captured in the idea of the ‘institutional void’: the tension between traditional structures and (radically) new initiatives. Existing rules, standards and practices are challenged, which raises questions about the safeguarding of public values such as quality, legitimacy, efficiency and governance of crowd-based innovations. This article argues that understanding these tensions requires supplementing empirical research with an explicitly normative dimension to reach thorough and balanced conclusions to facilitate innovation while protecting the valuable elements in existing rules and regulations. Illustrated by a number of short examples, we propose a multidisciplinary research agenda towards formulating appropriate governance structures.


Thijs Slot MSc

Dr. ir. Eefje Cuppen

Prof. dr. mr. ir. Neelke Doorn

Maria Galeano Galvan MSc

Dr. ing. Bram Klievink
Artikel

Een gezamenlijke rekening?

Over digitale innovatie en samenwerking in een institutional void

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden collaboration, digital security, institutional void, collaborative governance, financial cyber fraud
Auteurs Dr. ing. Bram Klievink, Rolf van Wegberg MSc. en Prof. dr. Michel van Eeten
Samenvatting

    The speed and disruptive character of digital innovations affect social structures and practices faster than institutions can keep up with them. This results in an ‘institutional void’, i.e. a gap between the rules and institutions and their ability and the effectiveness of their measures. It also affects the institutional stability that is the basis for the paradigm of collaboration-based types of governance. In this paper, we explore how parties are able to set up collaboration for digital security, which is inherently a topic that transcends organisational boundaries. Yet digital innovations constantly enable new challengers that might not share the same incentives for collaboration. Life in an institutional void is convenient for them and enables new business models. Hence, a key question is whether (institutionalised) collaboration is a sustainable model for addressing shared problems like digital security. We explore this question in the domain of financial cyber fraud. The new (regulatory) space currently being created for innovators suggests that the answer is ‘no’. It is too early to say how this will play out specifically and we argue for further research into the antecedents for collaboration in institutional voids.


Dr. ing. Bram Klievink

Rolf van Wegberg MSc.

Prof. dr. Michel van Eeten
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.

Dr. Rik Reussing
Dr. G.H. Reussing is onderwijscoördinator van de opleiding European Public Administration aan de Universiteit Twente en redactiesecretaris van Bestuurswetenschappen.
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.
Artikel

Bereikt coproductie kwetsbare burgers?

Een analyse van belemmeringen voor kwetsbare burgers in drie fasen

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 4 2015
Trefwoorden co-production, public services, vulnerable citizens, trust
Auteurs Joost Fledderus MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    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.


Joost Fledderus MSc
J. Fledderus MSc studeerde sociologie in Nijmegen en bestuurskunde aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Zijn PhD-onderzoek aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen richtte zich op de relatie tussen coproductie van publieke dienstverlening en vertrouwen in publieke dienstverlening, vertrouwen in de overheid en vertrouwen in de samenleving. Het empirische deel van zijn onderzoek is voornamelijk gebaseerd op ervaringen van deelnemers van werkcorporaties, een activeringsprogramma voor bijstandsgerechtigden in Nijmegen. Op dit moment is hij werkzaam als onderzoeker/adviseur bij Necker van Naem.
Artikel

De democratische waarde van burgerparticipatie: Interactief bestuur en deliberatieve fora1

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 2 2011
Trefwoorden Citizen participation, democracy, democratic innovations, participatory governance, deliberative forums
Auteurs Ank Michels
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Whilst embedding democratic innovations that increase and deepen citizen participation in decision making now is a common policy of governments in many countries, and theorists in democratic theory also tend to emphasize how good citizen participation is to democracy, the empirical evaluation of democratic innovations is still a rather unexplored area of research.

    This article evaluates two types of democratic innovations, participatory governance and deliberative forums in the Netherlands and a large number of other Western countries. The findings show, for both types of innovation, that citizen participation contributes to the quality of democracy in several ways. The analysis also makes it clear that different designs produce different democratic effects, which also reflects tensions between democratic values; participatory governance projects are better at giving citizens influence, whereas deliberative forums appear to be better at promoting the exchange of arguments. Also, whereas cases of participatory governance are more open than deliberative forums, representation is higher for the deliberative type of cases. As a consequence politicians and policy makers can have a major impact on democracy; by choosing for a specific design of citizen participation they may encourage certain aspects of democracy more than others.


Ank Michels
Dr A.M.B. Michels is universitair docent bij het Departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap van de Universiteit Utrecht.
Interface Showing Amount
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.