Zoekresultaat: 7 artikelen

x
Jaar 2012 x
Artikel

Ontbrekende alternatieven en gevestigde belangen

Een studie naar de posities van overheden in hervormingsdebatten tijdens de financiële crisis

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 4 2012
Auteurs Daniel Mügge PhD en Bart Stellinga MA MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The credit crisis that began in the summer of 2007 has fundamentally challenged much financial regulation and the political institutions that produced it. Measured against the criticisms that have been brought forth against previous financial governance, the extent of governments’ overall reform ambitions has been disappointing. Starting from this observation, this article asks: what explains governments’ reform choices, and thus also their limited ambitions? To explore this question, this article focuses on the positions that four governments central to global financial regulation (the USA, the UK, Germany and France) have taken in advance of the G20 meetings in 2009 across four key issue areas: accounting standards, derivatives trading, credit ratings agencies and banking rules. It evaluates both the overlap between positions across domains and governments as well as the differences between them. Such variation, we argue, provides key clues to the overall drivers behind reforms – as well as their limits. The overall picture that emerges can be summarized as follows: governments have been staunch defenders of their national firms’ competitive interests in regulatory reforms. That has not necessarily meant that they followed industry preferences across the board. It has been the relative impact, compared to foreign competitors, that counted in reform positions, not the absolute impact. These differences of opinion have played out within the context and the limits of the overall debates about thinkable policy alternatives. In spite of fundamental criticisms of pre-crisis regulatory orthodoxy, convincing and coherent alternatives have been forthcoming slowly at best. This has made reform proposals less radical than criticisms, seen on their own, might suggest.


Daniel Mügge PhD
Daniel Mügge is universitair docent politicologie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Correspondentiegegevens: D. Mügge, PhD, afdeling Politicologie, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Oudezijds Achterburgwal 237, 1012 DL Amsterdam, d.k.muegge@uva.nl.

Bart Stellinga MA MSc
Bart Stellinga is medior wetenschappelijk medewerker bij de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. Correspondentiegegevens: B. Stellinga, MA MSc, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Lange Vijverberg 4-5, 2500 EA Den Haag, stellinga@wrr.nl.
Artikel

Framing en reframing in het klimaatdebat

Tijdschrift Bestuurskunde, Aflevering 4 2012
Trefwoorden framing, climate change, values
Auteurs Hans de Bruijn, Ellen van Bueren en Floris Kreiken
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Why is there an on-going debate about climate change? We analyse this question from a framing point of view. We analyse four well-known frames in the climate change debate, and see what kind of reactions and reframing they invoke. The analysis shows that simple frames with an inherent logic, which activates underlying values and which are easy to communicate strongly resonate. It is difficult to counter such a frame. Opponents of the frame are often seduced to counter the frame by using the same wording. In this way, they step into the frame of their opponents and thus confirm the frame. To conclude, the article discusses two possible strategies for reframing: to couple the frame with other frames, and to suggest an alternative frame without stepping into the opposed frame.


Hans de Bruijn
Prof. mr dr J.A. de Bruijn is werkzaam bij de Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management van de TU Delft.

Ellen van Bueren
Dr E.M. van Bueren is werkzaam bij de Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management van de TU Delft.

Floris Kreiken
Mr F.H. Kreiken is werkzaam bij de Faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management van de TU Delft.
Artikel

Voor en na Fortuyn. Veranderingen en continuïteiten in het burgeroordeel over het democratisch bestuur in Nederland

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 2 2012
Trefwoorden Fortuyn, democratic governance, legitimacy, support, satisfaction
Auteurs Prof. dr. Frank Hendriks, Dr. Julien van Ostaaijen en Marcel Boogers
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    For several years, Dutch and international survey research programmes, such as the European Values Studies, the Eurobarometer, and the Dutch Parliamentary Elections Studies, have registered the judgements of (Dutch) citizens regarding a wide variety of topics. The Legitimacy-monitor Democratic Governance (Hendriks, Van Ostaaijen & Boogers, 2011) assembles those statistics that together present a layered picture of the legitimacy of democratic governance in the eyes of Dutch citizens. For this article, we review those statistics and take the ‘Fortuyn-year 2002’, the year in which Fortuyn shook up Dutch politics, as a demarcation point. Among the many continuities in pre- and post-Fortuyn statistics, we register a number of marked changes in the judgements of citizens regarding democratic governance in the Netherlands. The most salient, we conclude, is the growing thirst for vigorous ‘leadership’, which not only breaks with the trend of several decades (ever weaker preference for strong leadership), but also the logic of Dutch consensus democracy (many hands and not one head).


Prof. dr. Frank Hendriks
Frank Hendriks is hoogleraar bestuurskunde aan de Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur,Tilburg University. Correspondentiegegevens: Prof. dr. F. Hendriks, Tilburg School of Politics and Public Administration, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tiburg. F.Hendriks@uvt.nl.

Dr. Julien van Ostaaijen
Julien van Ostaaijen is als onderzoeker en docent werkzaam aan de Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur, Tilburg University. Correspondentiegegevens: Dr. J. van Ostaaijen, Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur, http://rechten.uvt.nl/ostaaijen. J.J.C.vanOstaaijen@uvt.nl.

Marcel Boogers
Marcel Boogers is universitair hoofddocent bestuurskunde aan de Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur, Tilburg University. m.boogers@uvt.nl.

Rob Hoppe
Hoogleraar kennis en beleid Universiteit van Twente, Faculteit Management en Bestuur (MB), Vakgroep Science, Technology and Policy Studies (STePS)

    Urban government is expected to contribute to the solution of major urban problems. At the same time, urban government is riddled with problems itself, often denoted in terms of governing and democratic deficits. In this article, options for governance reform in the urban realm are being explored along five lines, following up on recent research in the Netherlands and abroad. Both more aggregative arrangements (electronic ‘straw polls’, knowledge polls, prediction markets, ‘dot gov’ competitions for ‘best solutions’) and more collaborative arrangements (electronic co-creation, wiki governance, vital coalitions, urban regimes) are being assessed. The conclusions is that there are good arguments for, at least, more experimentation along these lines - not only from a functionalistic, but also from a democratic and social-psychological point of view.


Frank Hendriks
Prof. dr F. Hendriks is hoogleraar Vergelijkende Bestuurskunde aan de Universiteit van Tilburg.
Artikel

Vluchten in bureaucratie

Bureaucratische gehechtheid onder professionals in de jeugdhulpverlening

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden professionalism, youth care, accountability, bureaucracy, marketization
Auteurs Drs. Daniel van Hassel, Prof. dr. Evelien Tonkens en Drs. Marc Hoijtink
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In recent decades, professionals in the public sector have been faced with increasingly detailed demands concerning accountability and performance. It is often argued that this increased accountability and its bureaucratic pressures limit professionals’ discretionary space and autonomy. However, this critique is hardly based on empirical research on the experiences and perceptions of professionals themselves. In this article we present an investigation into these perceptions and experiences with accountability in one particular brand of the public sector, namely youth care.
    Our research indicates that professionals in youth care are hardly interested in greater autonomy or discretion. They rather want clarity, security and options for learning. Moreover, we found ‘bureaucratic attachment’: attachment to bureaucratic procedures particularly as a reaction to increased fears to be sued when something goes wrong with clients. In the recurrent arguments for reduction of bureaucracy, this other face of bureaucracy is often disregarded.
    Regarding working conditions however, the professionals we interviewed do want more discretion. Especially concerning occupation of beds, as the requirement for permanent occupation is viewed to augment risk. We therefore argue for better backing of professionals in youth, for a more precise battle against unnecessary bureaucracy, and for professionalization in order to handle more discretion.


Drs. Daniel van Hassel
Daniel van Hassel is socioloog en als onderzoeker verbonden aan het Nederlands instituut voor onderzoek van de gezondheidszorg (NIVEL), waar hij zich bezighoudt met het thema beroepen in de gezondheidszorg, d.hassel@nivel.nl.

Prof. dr. Evelien Tonkens
Evelien Tonkens is bijzonder hoogleraar actief burgerschap bij de afdeling Sociologie en Antropologie van de Universiteit van Amsterdam en toezichthouder van Meander Medisch Centrum te Amersfoort, e.h.tonkens@uva.nl.

Drs. Marc Hoijtink
Marc Hoijtink is socioloog en onderzoeker aan Kenniscentrum Maatschappij en Recht van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam, waar hij zich bezighoudt met de thema’s sociaal beleid en professionaliseringsvraagstukken, m.a.hoijtink@uva.nl.
Artikel

Overlappende waarden, wederzijdse vooroordelen

Empirisch onderzoek naar de mores van politieagenten en particuliere beveiligers

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden policing, security, public-private values, professional motivation
Auteurs Dr. Zeger van der Wal, Dr. Ronald van Steden en Dr. Karin Lasthuizen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The private security sector is rapidly growing and their operations more and more comprise policing and public order maintenance, tasks which to date have been government’s primary responsibility. Some fear this development because the private sector is characterized by market values as profitability and efficiency instead of public sector values such as lawfulness and impartiality, putting the quality of public safety at risk. In this article the professional values, norms and motivations of police officers and private security employees in the Netherlands are compared on the basis of a standardized survey. The main conclusion is that there are large differences in how both groups perceive each other, however the underlying professional morale is actually more similar than different.


Dr. Zeger van der Wal
Zeger van der Wal is universitair docent bestuurswetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, z.vander.wal@vu.nl.

Dr. Ronald van Steden
Ronald van Steden is universitair docent bestuurswetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Dr. Karin Lasthuizen
Karin Lasthuizen is universitair hoofddocent bestuurswetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
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.