{"id":81943,"date":"2017-12-05T16:23:32","date_gmt":"2017-12-05T15:23:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=81943"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:22:54","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:22:54","slug":"de-participatiesamenleving-leidt-tot-groeiende-ongelijkheid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2017\/12\/05\/de-participatiesamenleving-leidt-tot-groeiende-ongelijkheid\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018The participatory society leads to growing inequality\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

It has been four years since King Willem-Alexander heralded the dawn of the participatory society. The government called on citizens to take more matters into their own hands rather than wait for the State to deal with them. So has it worked? Public administration expert William Voorberg: \u201cEveryone wants to get busy on co-creation \u2013 without knowing why.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\t
\n\t\t

Public Administration expert William Voorberg (1985) works as a post-doc researcher for Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences. In the autumn of 2017, Voorberg was awarded a doctorate for his research into co-creation and civic participation<\/a>. He is also the coordinator of the Governance Design Studio<\/a>, which works to develop solutions for issues on the interface of science and practice.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n

Let\u2019s go back to 2013: King Willem-Alexander announced during his speech from the throne that the welfare state would make way for a participatiesamenleving (participatory society). Why was it announced at that time exactly?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI wouldn\u2019t say it was announced<\/em>. It was sooner a case of the King mentioning a trend that was already taking shape. In Business Administration, we have three paradigms that describe how government policy is developed.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor a long time, the Netherlands was known for its welfare system: you could count on the State taking care of you \u2013 whether it was your security or your health. This model came under considerable pressure in the 1990s: people said it led to bureaucracy, sluggish decision-making and high costs.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt which point a second form was introduced: free market principles. In the Netherlands, the clearest manifestation of this philosophy could be found in the care sector: the publicly-funded national health insurance system was abolished, and private health insurers became competitors. Citizens were turned into customers. But this too had a downside: it leads to a flat, one-dimensional approach to public services, where the sole focus is on efficiency and earning money.<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople started thinking: \u2018Surely, we can develop a different kind of relationship with these citizens. Individuals don\u2019t all want to be forced into the same mould. Citizens have a good idea of how they can solve specific problems, and can even help others in some cases. You could already see signs of this development years ago. Public Administration scholars called it \u2018New Public Governance\u2019. The recent financial crisis formed a perfect window of opportunity for publicly launching this participatory society. We had run out of money, which created room for a new approach to policy development. Because that\u2019s another aspect of the participatiesamenleving<\/em>: it\u2019s also an austerity programme.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since then, citizens are expected to actively join in, participate, co-create. What does that mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI like to use a band metaphor. Dave Grohl, the former drummer of Nirvana and the lead vocalist of the Foo Fighters, once explained how he writes songs. He comes up with a new idea, which he then shares with the other band members. After that, everyone pulls the idea this way and that, based on his individual abilities and skills. This turns it into something that gives everyone a sense of ownership. That\u2019s my idea of co-creation: someone takes an initiative \u2013 a private citizen, for example, but it could also be the government \u2013 and seeks out other parties. So that together, they can realise something that\u2019s to everyone\u2019s benefit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018They want to involve citizens in policy at every level. But participation in itself isn\u2019t necessarily beneficial.\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t–<\/span>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWilliam Voorberg\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption>\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

But that wasn\u2019t a new approach as such?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWell, what\u2019s new about it is that the involved citizen is given more leeway to develop ideas of his or her own. For example, you could have an undeveloped site somewhere, and you don\u2019t have to go through miles of red tape before you can start a vegetable garden there. In fact: the municipality may have even reserved a budget for that kind of thing. In addition, a growing number of citizens are getting involved in municipal decision-making. In Rotterdam, for example, you had Stadsinitiatief, in which private citizens were invited to choose between a number of landmark projects. This yielded a skating rink and the Luchtsingel footbridge.\u201d<\/p>\n

This new societal model has a lot of fans. Are you one of them?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m fairly cynical about it, actually \u2013 particularly when it comes to implementation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why are you cynical?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cOne reason is that \u2018participation\u2019 has been adopted as a value in its own right. Like democracy. Or transparency. They want to involve citizens in policy at every level. But participation in itself isn\u2019t necessarily beneficial. It depends on what you want to achieve with it \u2013 and some domains are more suited than others. Take flood risk management. If you\u2019re considering reinforcing a dike, I\u2019d call it very wise \u2013 and in the public interest \u2013 to not let the viewpoint of a farmer who lives behind the dike (and obviously doesn\u2019t feel like moving) carry too much weight.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

Could you offer a concrete example of civic participation having an adverse effect?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIn my study I mention a playground they built in Slovakia. There was a plot of unused land and the local residents had an idea for a playground. The municipality said \u2018Fine, you\u2019re allowed to develop it yourself, but then you\u2019re responsible for managing it too. No problem: they had a beautiful playground that was kept in tip-top shape. Until their children had grown up. It fell into disrepair in no time. That touches on a second, important point of criticism: participation only presents true added value when it transcends the issues of the day: when there\u2019s durable co-creation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The big promise made by the participatory society is that everyone\u2019s allowed to join the debate and pitch in. Does it really work that way?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think so. And that\u2019s my third \u2013 and most fundamental \u2013 objection. In many cases, we\u2019re talking about trendy initiatives \u2013 urban vegetable gardens, playgrounds for city kids \u2013 that have a very exclusionary effect. It\u2019s always the same people who set to work on that kind of civic initiative. They know how the procedures work, and where you need to go for funding. They\u2019re highly educated people with a left-wing orientation and a socio-economic status that allows them to invest their free time in these projects. The latter is a prerequisite. Go figure: if you\u2019re a single parent who hardly earns enough to make the rent every month, you have other things on your mind than redeveloping your street. The same applies to a lawyer who works 60-hour weeks, by the way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018Als de overheid ervoor kiest om dit soort projecten tot standaard te verheffen, ga je mensen uitsluiten\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t–<\/span>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWilliam Voorberg\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption>\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

Is that a bad thing?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s nothing wrong per se with a cultural and economic elite arranging things for other members of its group. But when a government decides to adopt that kind of project as a standard, you start to exclude people. At which point, the participatory society leads to growing inequality.\u201d<\/p>\n

Perhaps it is inherent in this model. You may see it as an unwanted and negative side effect, but a classical liberal would call it a very fair arrangement: if you want something, you need to make an effort for it.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI want to point out that in this model, the people at the bottom end of our society will be forced in direct competition with \u2013 to name an example \u2013 a very vocal GroenLinks voter. The latter has a far better idea of whom he should approach in the corridors of power. That could be a political choice. But it is quite possible that this approach structurally deprives certain groups of equal access to, for example, green spaces, a clean street or a public library.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

In 2015, Vice Mayor Joost Eerdmans introduced the \u2018Right to Challenge\u2019 in Rotterdam. In the case of specific public services, citizens are now allowed to say \u2018I can do a better, more efficient or cheaper job, so give me that contract. Regardless of one\u2019s skin colour, income, level of education or background, right?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIn theory, yes. But once again, you could question whether Eerdmans is really reaching \u2018the common Rotterdammer<\/em>\u2019. He\u2019s not reaching my retired mother, I can tell you that. Furthermore, the whole premise of the Right to Challenge has a polarising effect. The government and the individual citizen become a kind of competitors. Whereas I think that with co-creation, your best tactic is to take advantage of each other\u2019s talents.\u201d<\/p>\n

You have quite a few objections. Do you believe we should return to a traditional welfare state?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cNo. It\u2019s simply that I\u2019m annoyed by the implicit conviction that participation is always a good thing. If participation leads to better care for senior citizens, do we see this reflected in a reduced number of lonely and isolated elderly people? Do these urban gardens result in a healthier, fairer city? Perhaps \u2013 but I\u2019d like to see hard evidence. And you can measure that stuff. In fact, now that we\u2019re recovering from the economic slump, I think this is a fine occasion to start doing just that. The time has come for authorities to professionalise the way they handle civic participation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

De redactie<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t