In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

Theory about participation has long moved beyond merely informing citizens, arguing for more influential and effective instruments. Nevertheless, ‘inspraak’ remains widely implemented in Dutch practice, with mixed results. This article argues that the deliberative quality of the instrument is closely related to the performance of power. Dramaturgical concepts are employed to analyze resistance against the siting of a homeless facility in an Amsterdam neighborhood. One particular evening sets the stage for escalation, which ultimately frustrates the policy process. The analysis shows how the performance of the meeting invokes specific kinds of resistance. A different performance of ‘informing’ could potentially improve the quality of the public sphere.

This text wants to draw attention to the question: How do peer specialists build a bridge between the modus operandi of health care professionals and the lifeworld problems of clients receiving mental health care? The Dutch mental healthcare system has recently been host to a range of new developments. Two new trends can be distinguished, going by the name of ‘Recovery-oriented healthcare’ and the introduction of ‘Peer Specialists’. These coincide with changes in budget and organization of treatment. There is an increased awareness of the need for efficiency and cost reduction in the organization of care. The meaning and use of recovery-centered approaches and working with peer specialists remain fairly marginal enterprises due to ever increasing pressure emanating from execution of regulations and administrative procedures, and an accompanying decrease of professional autonomy. In the light of Habermas’ theoretical framework, it is an emphasis on a system-oriented organization of care that cause new approaches to barely be able to find a considerable place in the contemporary practice of mental healthcare in the Netherlands. Trust is identified as an essential foundation on the basis of which future principles of organization should be developed.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.
Systematic research on societal responses to profit in healthcare is scarce. It is a highly complex topic, with many tensions in the public and political debate. In a recent Dutch publication on profit, authors use a ‘lifeworld’ perspective to assess profit in their research, while their assessment could have been different using a ‘system’ perspective. Both perspectives have their merit, and debate on the role of profit in health care should separate the two perspectives. We describe both perspectives and use them to clarify whether making a profit is different from paying that profit to shareholders. We conclude that in healthcare, the general tension between the perspectives can be summarized as ‘profit for one actor may feel – but isn’t always – someone else’s loss’. Recognizing these tensions and searching for a strategy to align interests in which everyone gains may help the current stagnated debate on this issue in the Netherlands.