Buurtgericht beleid en de kunst van vertrouwen geven

Burgerparticipatie is het sterkst doorgedrongen in gemeenten, wijken en buurten. Vanuit een oude traditie van schikken en plooien en polderen worden burgers betrokken bij ontwikkeling, uitvoering en beheer. Momenteel wordt dit ook wel ‘buurtgericht beleid’ of ‘bewonerbetrokkenheid’ genoemd1. In politieke kringen is toenemende aandacht voor de verantwoordelijkheden van burgers in onze maatschappij. Politici zien graag dat bewoners, bedrijven en instellingen meer hun medeverantwoordelijkheid nemen voor de leefbaarheid en veiligheid in hun eigen buurt. ‘Meedoen’, staat er in het motto van het huidige regeerakkoord. Ook minister Pechtold noemt dit element in zijn speech bij het ontvangst nemen van het WRR-rapport ‘vertrouwen in de buurt’: “Bewoners en maatschappelijke ondernemers moet zich meer verantwoordelijk voelen voor de publieke zaak”. De bedoeling is om burgers en diverse organisaties in de buurt zelf te laten bepalen op welke wijze de impuls voor hun wijk wordt vormgegeven. Alleen op die manier kunnen burgers weer meer verantwoordelijkheid voor het wel en wee van hun buurt nemen

Institutional Evolution within Local Democracy - Local Self-Governance Meets Local Government

__Abstract__ In the Netherlands, citizens have the formal opportunity to put issues – under certain conditions – on the political agenda. This has been possible since May 2006 at the national level and at the local level since March 2002. In addition, people increasingly engage in an informal way, on their own initiative, to draw from their expertise, experience and knowledge to formulate ideas for policy that they may offer to government. Such ‘citizens’ initiatives’ can be seen, in addition to interactive policy making, as a form of citizens’ participation (Edelenbos et al. 2008). Citizen participation is often initiated by government; it is a bottom-up development started by citizens themselves (Edelenbos et al. 2008). In this chapter, we elaborate on the institutional implications of the ‘citizens’ initiatives’ within local democracy. These initiatives could be described as forms of selfgovernance, leading to the emergence of ‘proto-institutions’ (Lawrence et al. 2002). These proto-institutions interact with established institutions of representative democracy. This interaction is a co-evolving process in which both types of institutions react to each other in certain ways. In this contribution, we describe this institutional evolution and try to find determining factors in this process. We want to provide explanatory factors of processes of institutional co-evolution. We argue that these factors are of major importance with regard to processes of citizen participation and co-operating mechanisms between proto-institutions developed by citizens’ initiatives and established institutions of representative democracy

Innovations in the Dutch polder: Communities of practice and the challenge of coevolution

Recently, a new initiative has entered the Dutch policy-arena of spatial planning, water management and nature preservation: the so-called Community of Practice (COP). Within such a COP actors with very different backgrounds (experts, inhabitants, officials, stakeholders) participate and try to find creative solutions for persistent political and societal problems by combining conflicting spatial functions in specific areas. From a complex adaptive systems point of view, we analyze the logic and functioning of such a COP. From the literature on complexity and innovation we can learn that staying at the edge of chaos for COPs mean that they not only have to maintain an internal process of co-evolution between the very different actors involved, but also have to maintain relations of co-evolution with their wider environment. After an in-depth case study ‘Gouwe Wiericke’ we conclude that COPs can produce innovative policy results, but reaching ‘bounded instability’ through sustainable co-evolution requires careful balancing acts between extremes

Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in governance networks

This article examines the impact of two facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in urban governance networks. While research on boundary spanning is growing, there is little attention for antecedents. Combining governance network literature on project management and organizational literature on facilitative and servant leadership, we examine two potential conditions: a facilitative project management style and executive support. We conducted survey research among project managers involved in urban governance networks in order to test these relationships. We found positive relationships between facilitative project management and boundary-spanning behaviour, while executive support indirectly, via facilitative management, contributed to boundary-spanning behaviour

Connective capacity in water governance practices: The meaning of trust and boundary spanning for integrated performance

__Abstract__ This article deals with water governance to face institutional fragmentation in water management practices. In this holistic approach the connective capacity with domains, levels, scales, organizations and actors is emphasized. Recent literature and empirical research shows that both trust and boundary spanning leadership turn out to be of great importance for realizing connective capacity and subsequently integrated performance in water management practices. Trust stimulates and consolidates coordination and interaction between different actors from different domains and organizations in the water governance networks, and therefore leads to cross-boundary partnerships. Trust is developed in informal network structures. Boundary spanners are important in creating and stimulating informal spaces of interaction, and thus in creating conditions for trust to evolve in these actor networks. In this way positive relationship between trust, boundary spanning, informal networks and integrated performance is realized

'Polderen over de feiten': waar komt het vandaan en wat levert het op?

In controversiële besluit-vormingsprocessen wordt er zwaar en hevig gevochten over de 'feiten' die gebruikt worden door betrokken partijen ter onderbouwing van hun beleidsstandpunten. Kennis van wetenschappers en professionals is niet onomstreden. De stelling 'over de feiten kunnen we het nog wel eens worden' lijkt in dat opzicht bekritiseerbaar. Kennis is ook (naast bekende tegenstellingen in belang, zienswijze en waarden) onderwerp van strijd in actuele besluitvormingsprocessen. Juist daar waar belangen, zienswijzen en waarden met elkaar botsen, wordt kennis over de feiten vaak gebruikt ter legitimering van de eigen standpunten en het onderuit halen van andermans standpunten. In toenemende mate lijkt het genereren van algemeen aanvaarde feiten lastig te worden

Evalueren als leerproces : een nadere kennismaking met de 'lerende evaluatie'

Dit artikel wil in de eerste plaats licht werpen op de plaats van de lerende evaluatie temidden van de stortvloed aan wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar evaluatiestudies. Aan de hand van een analyse van een door de auteurs uitgevoerd lerend evaluatieproject komen zij tot een nadere plaatsbepaling van de lerende evaluatie. Deze ervaringen kunnen de theorievorming rond de lerende evaluatie maar ook de praktijk van dergelijke evaluatiestudies verder brengen