The Interactive State: Democratisation from Above?

The work of Robert Putnam has provoked a lively debate on the democratic importance of a robust civil society. Criticism of his work concentrates on the fact that his concept of social capital conceives of the relationship between civil society and government predominantly as a one-way affair – a strong civil society is good for politics. Taking up this line of argument, an appreciation of political factors is promoted to explain varying patterns of civic engagement. Now that Western governments increasingly initiate and stimulate citizens' participation in policy-making, it is becoming even more important to assess the role of the state. Drawing on recent empirical research on local practices in the Netherlands, we examine a Dutch variant of such top-down participatory arrangements – so-called ‘interactive policy-making’. We ask whether, and under what conditions, democratic advances can be expected from top-down state initiatives. And we develop a theoretical framework for assessing the democratic effects of top-down participatory initiatives. Squaring the main theoretical criteria with the empirical reality of interactive policy-making, we conclude that an active state does not necessarily corrode civil society

Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK) : an international, randomised, controlled trial

Background: Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. Methods: HIP ATTACK was an international, randomised, controlled trial done at 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were aged 45 years or older were eligible. Research personnel randomly assigned patients (1:1) through a central computerised randomisation system using randomly varying block sizes to either accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 h of diagnosis) or standard care. The coprimary outcomes were mortality and a composite of major complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Patients, health-care providers, and study staff were aware of treatment assignment, but outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02027896). Findings: Between March 14, 2014, and May 24, 2019, 27 701 patients were screened, of whom 7780 were eligible. 2970 of these were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive accelerated surgery (n=1487) or standard care (n=1483). The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h (IQR 4\u20139) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 h (10\u201342) in the standard-care group (p<0\ub70001). 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0\ub791 (95% CI 0\ub772 to 1\ub714) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1% ( 121 to 3; p=0\ub740). Major complications occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care, with an HR of 0\ub797 (0\ub783 to 1\ub713) and an ARR of 1% ( 122 to 4; p=0\ub771). Interpretation: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared with standard care. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research