Zoekresultaat: 4 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde x Jaar 2013 x

    Interview with Gert-Jan Buitendijk, director-general Administration and Kingdom Relations at the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.


Henk Wesseling
Drs. H.W.M. Wesseling is hoofd Taskforce Bestuur en informatieveiligheid Dienstverlening (BID), verder verbonden met Berenschot.
Boekbespreking

De overheid is een geluksmachine

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden happiness, government, policy, public policy, well-being
Auteurs Ad Bergsma en Jeroen Boelhouwer
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article is a critical review of four books: Bok, 2010 (‘The politics of happiness’); Van Campen, Bergsma, Boelhouwer, Boerefijn, & Bolier, 2012 (‘Sturen op geluk’); Diener, Lucas, Schimmack, & Helliwell, 2009 (‘Well-being for public policy’); Ott, 2012 (‘An eye on happiness’). Based on these works, we conclude that the quality of government is highly correlated with the happiness of citizens. In countries with high levels of freedom (economic, democracy, press), low levels of corruption and good public services, people appear to be the happiest. In this way governments can be seen as ‘happiness machines’. However, precise causal relationships need to be further clarified; which policies do improve happiness and which don’t? In this context, education is an important area in which government plays a role; people should leave school with the right set of competencies to be able to adequately cope with life. Governments cannot solve everybody’s unhappiness, though, but are important for creating the right circumstances.


Ad Bergsma
Ad Bergsma is psycholoog en spreker, en verbonden aan de Erasmus Happiness Economics Research Organisation (EHERO) van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

Jeroen Boelhouwer
Jeroen Boelhouwer is onderzoeker bij het Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Artikel

Meedoen met de overheid?

Over de stille beleidspraktijk van de doe-democratie

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden silent ideology, democracy of action, citizen initiatives, big society
Auteurs Mirjan Oude Vrielink, Imrat Verhoeven en Ted van de Wijdeven
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Over the past decade, policy attention for ‘active citizenship’ and ‘bottom up’ citizen initiatives has strongly increased. Nowadays, governments tend to approach citizens more and more as practical ‘doers’: as active citizens that can initiate projects in the public domain – for instance to increase the livability of their neighborhood. The dominant policy perspective on what is called the ‘democracy of action’ is one of a small government (to make room for a ‘big society’) that is not directive but supportive to active citizens.
    In this article, we first argue that in practice we observe two ‘silent ideologies’ that suppress this policy perspective of the democracy of action. We call these the silent ideologies of ‘professional centralism’ and of ‘instrumental support’; we claim that in practice these ideologies enable the dominance of professionals over citizen initiatives (and nót that of the citizens). Second we state that the policy perspective of the democracy of action itself contains a silent ideology: it assumes a highly depoliticized form of citizenship. In the short term, this may be convenient for administrators and policy makers but in the long run this can lead to a less democracy because the voices of critical citizens are not heard.


Mirjan Oude Vrielink
Dr. M.J. Oude Vrielink is senior onderzoeker aan de Universiteit Twente.

Imrat Verhoeven
Dr. I. Verhoeven is universitair docent bestuurskunde aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Ted van de Wijdeven
Dr. T.M.F. van de Wijdeven is bestuurskundig onderzoeker en docent aan de Universiteit van Tilburg.

    Values like quality of life, efficiency of services, solidarity in finances and privacy of clients are being compromised continuously in daily practices, inspired by opinions and ideology of (groups of) individuals. Yet, systems like healthcare are dominated by technocratic procedures to enforce transparency and efficiency. This functional rationality pushes away the more fundamental debates on values. This doesn’t mean they are not being compromised, but it’s done in a hidden way. It’s the nurse taking decisions on the amount of time available for a patient. Although restricted by procedures nurses compromise differently. The same counts for healthcare executives in their boardrooms. Restricted by system requirements they take decisions differently, inspired by their convictions. It is all ‘hidden ideology’ in institutions, interactions and intuitions. Even the political arena is imprisoned by the self made technocratic way of debating and deciding on important societal issues. Political debates should be about the values behind procedures instead of technocratic in its essence. Critical checks and balances have to be reinstalled (or reanimated) in political decision making in order to do this and meet patients’ or citizens’ needs, instead of maintaining a procedural attitude that drives politics and ideology away from society.


Kim Putters
Prof. dr. K. Putters is hoogleraar Management van Instellingen in de Gezondheidszorg (Professor of Health Management) bij het Instituut Beleid Management Gezondheidszorg, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, tot 15 juni 2013 lid van de PvdA-fractie in de Eerste Kamer en eerste ondervoorzitter van de Eerste Kamer. Per 15 juni 2013 is hij directeur van het Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
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.