Zoekresultaat: 2 artikelen

x
Jaar 2017 x
Artikel

De aanstellingswijze gewogen

Een overzicht van argumenten voor en tegen verschillende aanstellingswijzen van de burgemeester

Tijdschrift Bestuurs­wetenschappen, Aflevering 4 2017
Auteurs Dr. Julien van Ostaaijen, Dr. Niels Karsten en Prof. dr. Pieter Tops
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article offers the reader an overview of arguments for and against the different modes of appointments of Dutch mayors. The authors do this from different perspectives that are based on relevant values of good governance. In relation to the intended deconstitutionalization of the mode of appointment, they want to contribute with this overview to the debate on the role of the mayor and the mode of appointment. The three modes of appointment discussed are nomination by the Crown, election by the municipal council and direct election by citizens. On the basis of this research, they conclude that changing the mode of appointment to one of the three (pure) modes of appointment has advantages as well as disadvantages, but that the combination has important consequences for the functioning of the local governance system as a whole. In addition, they conclude somewhat paradoxically that the mode of appointment is only one of the factors that influences the functioning of a mayor. Therefore, the question about the mode of appointment of Dutch mayors must be considered within a broader framework of possible measures, with the underlying questions: what kind of mayor, and what kind of local governance, do we want ultimately?


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.

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

Prof. dr. Pieter Tops
Prof. dr. P.W. Tops is hoogleraar Bestuurskunde aan de Universiteit van Tilburg en lector Openbaar bestuur aan de Politieacademie.
Artikel

Belofte maakt schuld

Medialogica in berichtgeving over verkiezingsbeloften in Nederland en de Verenigde Staten

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Media logic, Election promises, Pledge fulfilment, Personalisation, Negativity
Auteurs Erkan Ergün MSc, LLM en Dr. Niels Karsten
Samenvatting

    While existing research shows that politicians fulfil many of their election promises, voters remain very sceptical about pledge fulfilment. A possible explanation is that the media report critical about election pledges. That is why, in this article, the occurrence of media logic is analysed in the coverage of election promise fulfilment in two countries: the Netherlands and the United States. The results indicate that media logic is indeed ubiquitous in the coverage of election promises, but also that there is a difference in media coverage during governing periods and campaign periods. In addition, the results show that, in contrast to what the existing literature suggests, coverage on election promises is more negative in the Netherlands than in the United States. The media evaluate Dutch politicians’ pledge fulfilment more critically. This result offers the valuable insight that citizens and the media may take a negative view of the traditional way of making policies through compromise in consensus democracies because it forces politicians and governments to break their election promises. This, in turn, can fuel political cynicism.


Erkan Ergün MSc, LLM

Dr. Niels Karsten
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.