Top-down versus bottom-up pathways to collaboration between governments and citizens: Reflecting on different participation traps

In this chapter we reflect on different pathways leading to collaborative forms of public service delivery between citizens and governments: bottom-up and top-down. Bottom-up pathways are initiated and for an important part led by groups of citizens, while top-down pathways are initiated and led by government institutions. Both types can be characterized by certain potentials and pitfalls. In the growing literature on collaborative forms of service delivery it is important to take notice of these different, bottom-up and top-down pathways as they are characterized by different dynamics leading to specific challenges in implementation and assessment. Based on various literature on citizen participation, co-production and community based initiatives, key participation traps are discussed. We are going deeper into the why (motives), how (crucial capacities) and who (representativeness) question of bottom-up and top-down participatory efforts

Top-down versus bottom-up pathways to collaboration between governments and citizens

In this chapter we reflect on different pathways leading to collaborative forms of public service delivery between citizens and governments: bottom-up and top-down. Bottom-up pathways are initiated and for an important part led by groups of citizens, while top-down pathways are initiated and led by government institutions. Both types can be characterized by certain potentials and pitfalls. In the growing literature on collaborative forms of service delivery it is important to take notice of these different, bottom-up and top-down pathways as they are characterized by different dynamics leading to specific challenges in implementation and assessment. Based on various literature on citizen participation, co-production and community based initiatives, key participation traps are discussed. We are going deeper into the why (motives), how (crucial capacities) and who (representativeness) question of bottom-up and top-down participatory efforts

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

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 relationships between trust, boundary spanning, informal networks and integrated performance is realized

Do public–private partnerships achieve better time and cost performance than regular contracts?

Infrastructure development with public–private partnership (PPP) contracts has been claimed to lead to better performance compared to regular contracts. However, the empirical evidence for this claim is weak. The authors assessed the difference in the actual performance of Dutch infrastructure PPP projects (design–build–finance–maintain: DBFM) compared to regularly procured projects (design-and-construct: D&C). DBFM projects demonstrated significantly better cost performance. IMPACT: Public–private partnerships (PPPs) have been widely used for the development and management of transport infrastructure, such as highways, railways, and waterways. However, hard evidence that PPPs perform better than regularly procured projects is lacking. Existing evidence tends to rely on anecdotal and perceptual data. This paper provides policy-makers and managers with real information about the actual performance and benefits of PPPs

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

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 relationships between trust, boundary spanning, informal networks and integrated performance is realized

The Challenge of Navigating the Double Hybridity in the Relationship between Community Enterprises and Municipalities

Collaboration between municipalities and community enterprises, a spatially confined subset of social enterprises, can be advantageous for both parties in theory, but there also is discussion on whether and how these benefits really come to pass in practice. Based on a small-scale exploratory study in the Dutch city of Rotterdam, we discuss double hybridity as a complicating factor in the relationship between community enterprises and municipalities, as it leads to challenges concerning (1) awareness and recognition, (2) funding and procurement, (3) fragmentation and (4) accountability and impact.</p

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