There are many different ways in which employees may choose to address unequal treatment at work. They may do so themselves, in an informal or formal manner on the work floor. They may also, at some stage in the dispute, decide to involve specialized advisers such as legal advisers, anti-discrimination officers, health and safety executives and labour unions. It is generally assumed that consulting such specialized advisers will help the employee to address unequal treatment more successfully. In this paper, the effectiveness of the interorganizational field of specialized advisers is analyzed on the basis of an elaborate study among different types of respondents. The main finding is that fear of retaliation plays a crucial role in seeking and receiving specialized advice and that the existing interorganizational field broadly fails to cope with this fear. To resolve this issue, the field needs an improved governance structure with better co-ordination between different types of advisers.

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.

This paper offers a critical empirical analysis of the policy terms ‘allochtoon’ and ‘autochtoon’, which have been used in Dutch public policy and administrative practices in recent years, as well as in general public discourse, to distinguish between people with a migrant background and those with a so-called native background on the basis of birthplace. Taking an interpretive policy analysis perspective, we present metaphor and category analyses to show the determining role that ‘place of origin’ has in the policy terms. The analysis includes a historical contextualization of the categories within Dutch policy discourse. The metaphor analysis focuses on the etymology of the terms, and the category analysis examines the taxonomy used by Statistics Netherlands since 1999. The role of ‘place’, and in particular country or land of birth, in these etymologies and taxonomies link to elements from ancient racial thinking, showing that ‘birthplace’ is a surrogate for race in this policy discourse. The analysis leads us to argue that the terms are inherently exclusive and that the exclusive work that the essentialist categories do is in marked contrast to the policy goal of integration.

In recent years the Netherlands have seen an upsurge of housing enclaves. The enclaves are often built as courtyards, castles, estates or apartment complexes. The growing number of people living in housing enclaves indicates a demand for this kind of living areas. However, the motivations behind the increasing popularity of housing enclaves are unclear. Is this a reflection of a long standing tradition of people staying in their own social group, seeking for belonging and sociability? Or does it fit in a global trend of searching for security in gated communities? This paper presents empirical research in the Netherlands that addresses peoples’ motives for living in housing enclaves, as well as the role of the local government in relation to housing enclaves. The research shows that residents of housing enclaves seek a pleasant living environment in the first place, while security is a less important motive. The study gives reason for planners and developers outside the US not to assume that fear of crime and a wish for security are the main reasons for moving to housing enclaves. Further, the study shows that housing enclaves are not completely privatized areas. Local government still has an important role to play.

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

A main motive for policy decentralization is the belief that municipalities are better able to customize public policy to local circumstances, and to realize made-to-measure service provision. In this respect, the introduction of the Social Support Act (Wmo) is an interesting example. With the lack of ‘vertical’ accountability obligations to the national government, the Wmo is governmentally innovative. Whether the decentralization results in customized forms of social support is a fascinating one because a detailed reading of the Wmo and its implementation displays possible incentives as well as barriers to made-to-measure service provision. The empirical exploration in this article uses data from the 2007-2009 evaluation of the Wmo conducted by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP). The evaluation shows that municipalities involve diverse stakeholders in formulating Wmo policy, and that their involvement seems to lead to customized service provision. At the same time, municipalities follow nationwide models, and information provided by the central government seems to have a major impact on local social care policy. The article concludes with an outlook on future directions in local debates on social care and the recommendation to give time for major decentralization trajectories such as the Wmo.

In the Netherlands it is widely acknowledged that neighbourhood oriented citizen’s initiatives often require some professional support. Little is known, however, about the various types of support that professionals may provide. Moreover, Dutch policies usually tend to take an instrumental stance towards citizen initiatives, focussing on their possible contribution to governmental goals. In this contribution we make an effort to develop a typology of different types and roles of professional support. Four basic types of professional support are derived from two axis. The first axis distinguishes between an instrumental approach and a more personal approach, the second between professional support focussing on the initiative/the initiator or on the broader institutional and civil society context. From our empirical findings we conclude that a vital context for citizen initiatives may be produced through the combination of an instrumental and personal approach. The latter comprises efforts of empowerment attuned to both the specific personal needs and capacities of citizens and the typical neighbourhood context. A combined approach may reduce the risk of ‘crowding out citizenship’ that exists when citizen’s initiatives become an instrument in a government’s policy.

The central question in this article is whether the relationship between the current citizen’s initiatives and government in the Netherlands shows similarities to the relationship between their predecessors (usually denoted as ‘private initiatives’) and government in the past, and more specifically in the time of pillarization. In the article it is claimed that in the time of pillarization – the period between around 1900 and 1970, when Dutch society was characterized by vertical social divisions along denominational (religious) and ideological lines – private initiatives and Dutch government developed a peculiar symbiotic relationship. In this period, on the one hand the pillarized private initiatives, as a matter of course, expected a large degree of autonomy but at the same time all sorts of support from Dutch government when administering various public tasks. On the other hand, Dutch government took for granted that the pillarized private initiatives highly contributed to the initiation and administration of these public tasks. Since the disintegration of the pillars in 1970s Dutch government has been searching for new ways to relate to the old and new private initiatives, and vice versa. Yet in this search both government and private initiatives still seem driven by the old ‘reflexes’ of pillarization.