The Public Value of Citizens’ Initiatives: Evidence from a Dutch Municipality

S. Blok, A. van Buuren, H. Fenger
{"title":"The Public Value of Citizens’ Initiatives: Evidence from a Dutch Municipality","authors":"S. Blok, A. van Buuren, H. Fenger","doi":"10.1177/02750740231175162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Active citizens who take initiative are generally regarded as desirable. However, the precise reasons why citizens’ initiatives are considered valuable and what their value consists of remain unclear, vague, and often unanswered. In this study, we used Q methodology to explore how civil servants, local politicians, and societal actors in a Dutch municipality view the public value of citizens’ initiatives. The analysis reveals four distinct views of the value of citizens’ initiatives: a view that values intangible results, a view that values a hands-on mentality, a view that values acting out of a sense of purpose, and a view that values citizens organizing and acting out of their own interests. Theoretically, we distinguish between material, immaterial, and process-oriented interpretations of values, and empirically this distinction shows that across the four value views, the process-oriented values are the most disagreed upon. Finally, we find common ground between the value views that we label “selfish collectivism.” This is the view that appreciates citizens’ initiatives for solving problems for the sake of the community, not for their altruism, but because they are self-serving. The strong differences in value views suggest that there is a risk that subsequent policy language and instruments based on these views could lead to conflict between the actors involved.","PeriodicalId":22370,"journal":{"name":"The American Review of Public Administration","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Review of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231175162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Active citizens who take initiative are generally regarded as desirable. However, the precise reasons why citizens’ initiatives are considered valuable and what their value consists of remain unclear, vague, and often unanswered. In this study, we used Q methodology to explore how civil servants, local politicians, and societal actors in a Dutch municipality view the public value of citizens’ initiatives. The analysis reveals four distinct views of the value of citizens’ initiatives: a view that values intangible results, a view that values a hands-on mentality, a view that values acting out of a sense of purpose, and a view that values citizens organizing and acting out of their own interests. Theoretically, we distinguish between material, immaterial, and process-oriented interpretations of values, and empirically this distinction shows that across the four value views, the process-oriented values are the most disagreed upon. Finally, we find common ground between the value views that we label “selfish collectivism.” This is the view that appreciates citizens’ initiatives for solving problems for the sake of the community, not for their altruism, but because they are self-serving. The strong differences in value views suggest that there is a risk that subsequent policy language and instruments based on these views could lead to conflict between the actors involved.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公民倡议的公共价值:来自荷兰市政当局的证据
积极主动的积极公民通常被认为是可取的。然而,公民倡议被认为有价值的确切原因,以及它们的价值由什么组成,仍然不清楚、模糊,而且往往没有答案。在这项研究中,我们使用Q方法来探讨荷兰市政当局的公务员、地方政治家和社会行动者如何看待公民倡议的公共价值。分析揭示了关于公民主动性价值的四种不同观点:一种重视无形结果的观点,一种重视动手心态的观点,一种重视出于目的感的行动的观点,以及一种重视公民出于自身利益而组织和行动的观点。从理论上讲,我们区分了物质的、非物质的和面向过程的价值解释,从经验上看,这种区分表明,在四种价值观中,面向过程的价值是最不一致的。最后,我们找到了我们称之为“自私的集体主义”的价值观之间的共同点。这种观点赞赏公民为了社区的利益而主动解决问题,不是因为他们的利他主义,而是因为他们是自私的。价值观的巨大差异表明,基于这些观点的后续政策语言和工具可能导致相关行为者之间的冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Texas Public Pensions: A Common Pool Resource Perspective Race, Lived Experience, Representation, and Discrimination: Analyzing the Representative Capacities of the Racial Majority The Conditional Effects of the Transformational Leadership Behaviors on Leaders’ Emotional Exhaustion: Roles of Deep Acting and Emotional Intelligence Lack of Gender Representation in Academia: The Experiences of Female STEM Students Impatiently Waiting: Women Managers, Professionalism, Psychological Costs, and the Reduction of ER Wait Times
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1