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.

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.

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.

Agricultural production systems may influence each other in a negative way, with conflicts as a consequence. In general, such conflicts are resolved technically in an ad hoc manner, at farm or greenhouse level. There is no structural attention to so-called co-existence problems. This article makes a plea for acknowledging such problems as policy issues and for grouping these together under the label of co-existence conflicts, broadening this phrase beyond its traditional meaning related to conventional, organic and GM crop production. Co-existence conflicts are concrete, local expressions of the tensions between conflicting values incorporated in the current agricultural system. It is argued that because they are manifestations of conflicting value systems, they offer useful stepping-stones to practically organise and channel discussions on sustainable development in agriculture.