"Muddling through" in a polder country

Titolo Rivista TERRITORIO
Autori/Curatori Reinout Kleinhans
Anno di pubblicazione 2019 Fascicolo 2018/87
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 7 P. 78-84 Dimensione file 1312 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2018-087013
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Across Europe, entrepreneurial forms of community action are widely promoted. Dutch citizens are setting up community enterprises (ces) to provide services for residents in deprived neighbourhoods. Their efforts to collaborate with governments and other actors can be qualified as forms of co-production to continue smallscale forms of neighbourhood regeneration. Through reviewing empirical research, the article aims to identify contemporary challenges of co-production between ces and other actors in the context of a ‘polder country’. It reveals contradictory institutional responses to ces which often encompass forms of counter-production. ces’ practices of skilful problem-solving in this context are reminiscent of the science of ‘muddling through’, coined by Charles Lindblom in 1959.

In Europa, le forme imprenditoriali a base comunitaria stanno diventando un tema sempre più rilevante nel dibattito sull’innovazione delle politiche. Nel contributo verrà preso in esame il dibattito olandese, osservando inziative di imprese di comunità volte a fornire servizi in aree urbane svantaggiate, con una serie di benefici a scala locale. Saranno esaminate le collaborazioni con i governi locali nella co-produzione e nell’innesco di processi di rigenerazione urbana. L’articolo intende identificare le sfide della co-produzione tra imprese di comunità e altri attori nel ‘paese dei polder’. Le imprese di comunità sembrano incarnare un problem solving incrementale molto simile alla teoria del planning ‘muddling through’, termine coniato da Lindblom nel 1959.

Keywords:Imprese di comunità; rigenerazione a scala di quartiere; co-produzione

  1. Aiken M., Cairns B., Taylor M., Moran R., 2011, Community organisations controlling assets: A better understanding. New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  2. Alford J., 2009, Engaging public sector clients. From service delivery to co-production. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Alford J., 2016, ≪Co-Production, Interdependence and Publicness: Extending public service-dominant logic≫. Public Management Review, 18, 5: 673-691. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2015.1111659
  4. Bailey N., 2012, ≪The role, organisation and contribution of community enterprise to urban regeneration policy in the UK≫. Progress in Planning, 77, 1: 1-35.
  5. Bailey N., Kleinhans R., Lindbergh J., 2018, An Assessment of Community-Based Social Enterprise in three European countries. London: Power to Change.
  6. Boon J., Mierlo T. van, Weeren R. van, 2018, De wijkonderneming als sociaal empower instrument. Nieuwe perspectieven op de Haagse wijkonderneming [The Community Enterprise as a Social Empowerment Tool. New Perspectives on Community Enterprise in The Hague]. The Hague/Utrecht: Kiemkracht and LSA.
  7. Brandsen T., Honingh M., 2016, ≪Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions≫. Public Administration Review, 76, 3: 427-435.
  8. Bovaird T., 2007, ≪Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services≫. Public Administration Review, 67, 5: 846-860.
  9. Bovaird T., Loeffler, E., 2012, ≪From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value≫. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 4: 1119-1138.
  10. bzk Ministry of the Interior, 2013, De Doe-Democratie. Kabinetsnota ter stimulering van een vitale samenleving [The DIY Democracy. White Paper for Stimulating a Vital Society]. The Hague: Ministry of the Interior. ec-European Commission, 2014, A Map of Social Enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe. Synthesis Report. Brussels: European Commission.
  11. Fledderus J., Brandsen T., Honingh, M., 2014, ≪Restoring trust through the co-production of public services: A theoretical elaboration≫. Public Management Review, 16, 3: 424-443. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2013.848920
  12. Gallent N., Ciaffi D., 2016, eds., Community action and planning: Contexts, drivers and outcomes. Bristol: Policy Press.
  13. Ham M., Meer J. van der, 2015, De ondernemende burger. De woelige wereld van lokale initiatieven [The Entrepreneurial Citizen. The Turbulent World of Local Citizen Initiatives]. Utrecht: Movisie.
  14. Healey P., 2015, ≪Civil society enterprise and local development≫. Planning Theory and Practice 16, 1: 11-27. DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2014.995212
  15. Hendriks F., Toonen T., 2001, Polder Politics. The re-invention of consensus democracy in the Netherlands. London: Routledge.
  16. Kalk, E., Dubbelboer, N., 2016, De werkplaats Maak de Buurt. Hoe maatschappelijke initiatieven zich verder kunnen ontwikkelen [The Workshop Create the Neighbourhood. How Societal Initiatives Can Truly Develop]. Amsterdam: Stichting Agora Europa.
  17. Kleinhans R., Doff W., Romein A., Ham M. van., 2015, Project Kennisontwikkeling Experiment Bewonersbedrijven [Project Knowledge Development Experiment Community Enterprises]. Delft: Delft University of Technology. -- https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/leefbaarheid/documenten/rapporten/2015/10/20/project-kennisontwikkeling-experiment-bewonersbedrijven (accessed on: 2018.07.04).
  18. Kleinhans R., 2017, ≪False Promises of Co-Production in Neighbourhood Regeneration: The Case of Dutch Community Enterprises≫. Public Management Review, 19, 10: 1500-1518. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1287941
  19. Lindblom C.E., 1959, ≪The Science of Muddling Through≫. Public Administration Review, 19, 2: 79-88.
  20. Nederhand J., Bekkers V., Voorberg W., 2016, ≪Self-Organization and the Role of Government: How and why does self-organization evolve in the shadow of hierarchy?≫. Public Management Review, 18, 7: 1063-1084. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2015.1066417
  21. Osborne P., Radnor Z., Strokosch, K., 2016, ≪Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment?≫. Public Management Review, 18, 5: 639-653. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
  22. Peeters R., 2013, ≪Responsibilisation on government’s terms: new welfare and governance of responsibility and solidarity≫. Social Policy and Society, 12, 4: 583-595.
  23. Peredo A., Chrisman, J., 2006, ≪Toward a theory of community-based enterprise≫. Academy of Management Review, 31, 2: 309-328.
  24. Pestoff V., 2012, ≪Co-production and third sector social services in Europe. Some crucial conceptual issues≫. In: Pestoff V., Brandsen T., Verschuere V. (eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. London: Routledge, 13-34.
  25. Rijshouwer E., Uitermark J., 2017, ≪Citizenship as enterprise: the transformation of Amsterdam community centres into community enterprises ≫. In: Ham M. van, Reuschke D., Kleinhans R., Mason C., Syrett S. (eds.), Entrepreneurial Neighbourhoods. Towards an Understanding of the Economies of Neighbourhoods and Communities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 270-293.
  26. Somerville P., McElwee G., 2011, ≪Situating community enterprise: a theoretical exploration≫. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23, 5-6: 317-330. DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2011.580161
  27. Somerville P., 2016, Understanding community: Politics, policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
  28. Tricarico L., 2017, ≪Community action: value or instrument? an ethics and planning critical review≫. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 41, 3: 221-233. DOI: 10.3846/20297955.2017.1355278
  29. Van Meerkerk I., Boonstra B., Edelenbos J., 2013, ≪Self-Organization in Urban Regeneration: A Two-Case Comparative Research≫. European Planning Studies, 21, 10: 1630-1652. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722963
  30. Verhoeven, I., Tonkens E., 2013, ≪Talking active citizenship: Framing welfare state reform in England and the Netherlands≫. Social Policy and Society 12, 3: 415–426.
  31. Verschuere B., Brandsen T, Pestoff V., 2012, ≪Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda≫. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 4: 1083-1101.
  32. Voorberg W., Bekkers V., Tummers L., 2015, ≪A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey≫. Public Management Review, 17, 9: 1333-1357. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
  33. Wagenaar H., Heijden J. van der., 2015, ≪The promise of democracy? Civic enterprise, localism and the transformation of democratic capitalism≫
  34. In: Davoudi S., Madanipour A. (eds.), Reconsidering Localism. London: Routledge, 126-145.
  35. Welter F., Trettin L., Neumann U., 2008, ≪Fostering entrepreneurship in distressed urban neighbourhoods≫. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 2: 109-128.

Reinout Kleinhans, "Muddling through" in a polder country in "TERRITORIO" 87/2018, pp 78-84, DOI: 10.3280/TR2018-087013