IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v52y2019i2d10.1007_s11077-018-9342-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The governance of self-organization: Which governance strategy do policy officials and citizens prefer?

Author

Listed:
  • José Nederhand

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Erik-Hans Klijn

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Martijn Steen

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Mark Twist

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

This article compares views of policy officials and members of community-based collectives on the ideal role of government in processes of community self-organization. By using Q methodology, we presented statements on four different governance perspectives: traditional public administration, New Public Management, network governance, and self-governance. Perceptions differ about how government should respond to the trend of community self-organization and, in particular, about the primacy of the relationship. Whereas some public servants and collectives favor hands-off involvement of policy officials, others show a preference for a more direct and interactive relation between government and community-based collectives. In general, neither of the two groups have much appreciation for policy instruments based on performance indicators, connected to the New Public Management perspective or strong involvement of politicians, connected the traditional public administration perspective. This article contributes to the discussion of how practitioners see and combine governance perspectives and serve to enable dialogs between practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • José Nederhand & Erik-Hans Klijn & Martijn Steen & Mark Twist, 2019. "The governance of self-organization: Which governance strategy do policy officials and citizens prefer?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 233-253, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9342-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9342-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-018-9342-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-018-9342-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anat Gofen, 2015. "Citizens' Entrepreneurial Role in Public Service Provision," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 404-424, March.
    2. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    3. Patsy Healey, 2015. "Citizen-generated local development initiative: recent English experience," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 109-118, July.
    4. De Moor,Tine, 2017. "The Dilemma of the Commoners," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781316645826, January.
    5. Reinout Kleinhans, 2017. "False promises of co-production in neighbourhood regeneration: the case of Dutch community enterprises," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(10), pages 1500-1518, November.
    6. José Nederhand & Victor Bekkers & William Voorberg, 2016. "Self-Organization and the Role of Government: How and why does self-organization evolve in the shadow of hierarchy?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(7), pages 1063-1084, August.
    7. Dan Durning & Will Osuna, 1994. "Policy analysts' roles and value orientations: An empirical investigation using Q methodology," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 629-657.
    8. Dryzek, John S. & Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1993. "Reconstructive Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 48-60, March.
    9. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(1), pages 73-89, February.
    10. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    11. Tsang, Eric W. K., 2014. "Old and New," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(03), pages 390-390, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yu Peng & Xiaobing Peng & Xu Li & Mingyue Lu & Mingze Yin, 2023. "Effectiveness in Rural Governance: Influencing Factors and Driving Pathways—Based on 20 Typical Cases of Rural Governance in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-15, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dan Durning, 1999. "The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 389-410.
    2. Ma, Yiguan & Chiu, Rebecca L.H., 2018. "Governing rural redevelopment and re-distributing land rights: The case of Tianjin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 533-546.
    3. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    4. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Sewerin, Sebastian, 2019. "Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes – An empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in nine countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    5. Florence Metz & Karin Ingold, 2017. "Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 721-743, December.
    6. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James C.R. & Ware, Dan & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    7. Bertie Vidgen & Taha Yasseri, 2020. "What, when and where of petitions submitted to the UK government during a time of chaos," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 535-557, September.
    8. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    9. Astrid Molenveld & Arwin Buuren & Gerald-Jan Ellen, 2020. "Governance of climate adaptation, which mode? An exploration of stakeholder viewpoints on how to organize adaptation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 233-254, September.
    10. Rizwana Alam & Jon C. Lovett, 2019. "Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-28, June.
    11. Matsuo, Tyeler & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2019. "Managing tradeoffs in green industrial policies: The role of renewable energy policy design," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 11-26.
    12. Thomas Bolognesi & Florence Metz & Stéphane Nahrath, 2021. "Institutional complexity traps in policy integration processes: a long-term perspective on Swiss flood risk management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 911-941, December.
    13. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    14. Ali Shalizar Jalali, 2018. "Male Fertility as a Bull’s Eye for Mastocytosis," Global Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 3(3), pages 58-60, February.
    15. Nikolov, Plamen & Adelman, Alan, 2019. "Do private household transfers to the elderly respond to public pension benefits? Evidence from rural China," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    16. McCloskey Deirdre Nansen, 2018. "The Two Movements in Economic Thought, 1700–2000: Empty Economic Boxes Revisited," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-20, December.
    17. Dana Benešová & Viera Kubičková & Miroslava Prváková, 2020. "Open innovation model in the knowledge intensive business services in the Slovak Republic," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 8(2), pages 1340-1358, December.
    18. Selman, P., 2014. "Intercountry Adoption Agencies and the HCIA," ISS Working Papers - General Series 77404, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    19. Martinho, Vítor João Pereira Domingues, 2019. "Historical records of wine: Highlighting the old wine world," EconStor Preprints 193461, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    20. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9342-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.