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

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.

Keywords

citizens’ initiatives civil society self-organization public value q methodology

Expectations of Citizens’ Initiatives

Citizens are asked to participate in a wide range of policy processes (Healey, 2015; Uitermark, 2015; Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013; van de Wijdeven, 2012) and self-organizing citizens’ initiatives are counted on to produce public services in a wide variety of domains. Citizens’ initiatives or community-based initiatives also contribute to public life and generally have positive effects on society (Hurenkamp et al., 2006, p. 10 & p. 20; Boonstra & Boelens, 2011, p. 117; Healey, 2015, p. 116).

Citizens’ initiatives are viewed by local governments as promising vehicles to deliver solutions to a broad range of public problems. These initiatives are often expected to reduce costs for implementing policy programs, sometimes because they are “believed to empower and educate citizens and reduce the reliance of individuals and social organizations on state bureaucracies” (Bakker et al., 2012., p. 396, see also Edwards, 2009 about civil society expectations). Local governments want to include citizens in both policy-making and its implementation, or at times, want citizens to take care of themselves as self-sufficient and self-organizing beings (Hurenkamp & Tonkens, 2011, p. 27). Active citizenship is approached by governments to provide a solution to different kinds of societal puzzles. These range from providing libraries, playgrounds, and kindergartens, to correcting a deficiency of social cohesion, consumerism and asocial behavior, social exclusion, or to bridging the increasing gap between government and society (Tonkens, 2006, p. 5; Uitermark, 2015, p. 2311).

The “promise” of citizens’ initiatives is sometimes labeled public value (Bryson et al., 2013, p. 25; Brandsen et al., 2017, p. 682; Duijn & Popering-Verkerk, 2018). However, what this value entails is often fuzzy (e.g., van de Wijdeven, 2012). Examples of describing these values are varied:

citizens produce “publically valued goods and services in non-state and non-market ways” (Healey, 2015, p. 116),

citizens’ initiatives contribute to various societal values (Mattijssen et al., 2015, p. 85),

citizens’ engagement is necessary for better results and because of moral necessity (Hurenkamp and Tonkens, 2011, p. 27), or

citizens’ initiatives have a favorable effect on the local community (Hurenkamp et al., 2006, p. 57).

The specific ideas about the public value that citizens’ initiatives produce are oftentimes vague while the expectations by local governments are high. We expect differences because initiators or participants themselves may have other views on why citizens’ initiatives are more valuable than those of policy-makers or politicians (van Straalen et al., 2017). If this expectation is true and there is indeed a mismatch in what is perceived as the value of a citizen initiative, such ambiguity can help in understanding why the interaction between governments and citizen initiatives is often problematic. Governments may expect too much of citizens’ initiatives, even demanding too much of them, resulting in disappointment by both initiators and governments. Or governments may create a suboptimal institutional context in terms of rules, enabling conditions and policy instruments which are not in agreement with the motives and ambitions of the initiative itself (Streeck & Schmitter, 1985, p. 122). Some overlap or the complementarity between perceptions and ideas of public value by citizen initiatives is likely to be important for successful coproduction. Therefore, we propose to investigate the following question: To what extent do ideas of the public value(s) of citizens’ initiatives differ between local politicians, civil servants and societal actors?

With this study, we analyze whether there is such a difference and, if so, what that possible difference could look like. In doing so, we provide some clarifications within the public value debate (Alford & Hughes, 2008; Hartley et al., 2017; Prebble, 2018). Responding to Stoker's (2006) argument that public value has a highly contextual character, this research creates a specific contextual setting to determine what is valued by the public: the value of citizens’ initiatives within a local context. In other words, our research adds to the understanding of the question of what “a public values” instead of what “the public values” (Benington, 2009, p. 233; Hartley et al., 2017, p. 672). If there is a perception gap between the initiators of citizens’ initiatives and local governments of what public values are, unraveling this gap may help to revisit the current ‘ways of working’ between these two. Consequently, clarifying the current working relationship, including the usual incentives to support (Blok et al., 2022) and the institutional arrangements between citizens’ initiatives and local governments, may promote productive interaction.

Theoretical Literature: Public Value and Categorizing Outcomes

Two types of literature are discussed: the literature that helps to understand the value that citizens’ initiatives could lead to and the literature that helps to further distinguish different kinds of valuable outcomes. We start with the former by providing three lenses that provide a perspective on why citizens’ initiatives could be valuable.

Public value is a broadly coined concept that is also used to capture some of the trends surrounding self-organization (e.g., Mattijssen et al., 2015, who speak of “creating value with the public”; Duijn & Popering-Verkerk, 2018). Public value is primarily known through Moore's book Creating Public Value (1995). But public value is a complicated concept for at least two reasons. The first reason is that Moore's book “has the term ‘public value’ in its title, but the book is really more about quality public management and presents no stable concept of public value” (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007, p. 357). Therefore, the absence of a sound definition of public value, while the concept is massively used¹, is a profound problem (ibid., but see also Alford & O’Flynn, 2009; Bozeman, 2002; Overeem & Tholen, 2011). For example, the concept is used to make a point about innovation in the public sector, but, although fulfilling an important part of the authors’ arguments, “what the value actually is” is often taken for granted (e.g., Hartley, 2005). Rhodes and Wanna state (2007, pp. 408 & 419): “Moore is unclear whether he offers a new theoretical framework, a concept, a heuristic device, or an operational tool of management.” The second reason is summarized by Stoker (2006, p. 50): “The concept of public value does appear to have a decidedly context-dependent character” which makes it difficult to use to define valuable outcomes in general (see also Alford & O’Flynn, 2009, p. 176). Anything can be valuable given “the right” context.

The public value paradigm, framework or theory offers, so far, little if any help in defining what makes citizens’ initiatives valuable. The premise on which the public value discourse is based—value—could be of use. As Alford and O’Flynn (2009, p. 175) note about value: “that property of a thing because of which it is esteemed, desirable or useful; worth, merit or importance.” Similar definitions arise from Meynhardt (2009, p. 197).

In sum, someone must find value in something that citizens’ initiatives produce. The question remains: who is to do the valuing? Alford and Hughes (2008) argue that public value is valuable to whoever consumes it. Self-organizing citizens often produce valued goods or services that they use themselves as well. In that sense, from the public value perspective, citizens’ initiatives are valuable because they do something that initiators or participants themselves see as desirable (and because they use it themselves). Moreover, as argued in the introduction, public authorities value citizens because they produce desirable goods and services. There are multiple actors who may be suited to do the valuing (see also Hartley et al., 2017, p. 674).

The second lens is about how value is created. Self-organized citizens’ initiatives are a form of collective action: (Bakker et al., 2012; Blok et al., 2020). When citizens successfully organize and produce “something,” they overcome the collective action problem (Ostrom et al., 1994). Succeeding in collective action can be seen as valuable because it signals the ability to cooperate. Thus, citizens’ initiatives are seen as valuable because they are a form of collective action or because they show evidence that its problems, as described by Olson (1965), can be overcome.

The third and final lens is value expressed by concepts such as civil society, social cohesion, and social capital. These concepts are prominent cornerstones in Putnam's work (2001, p. 22): bonding social capital, as he labels it, is “good for undergirding specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity.” In line with this, bonding social capital is associated with trust and citizen participation, a combination that enables the production of socially desirable outcomes (ibid., p. 288). Social capital, Putnam states in the end of Bowling Alone, makes us smarter, healthier, safer, richer, and better able to govern a just and stable democracy, (ibid., p. 290). Social capital “is presumably what produces a dense civil society” (Fukuyama, 2000, p. 7; see also Walzer, 1991). Civil society encompasses all social relations between citizens (Bryant, 1993) and has a dense network of civil association (Foley & Edwards, 1996, p. 38). As such, it is also seen as necessary for fruitful and spontaneous self-organization (Bryant, 1993, p. 399) and a healthy public sphere (Diamond, 1994; Edwards, 2009). Castells (2008, p. 76) argues that civil society is the place where various views are expressed and that a good relationship between the state and civil society is the cornerstone of democracy (see also Keane & Merkel, 2019). Self-organizing citizens’ initiatives are valuable because they can be seen as an expression of “the civil society.” Within this civil society, citizens deliberate about common affairs and act and organize independently of the state.

However, making distinctions between these last two lenses might lead to some confusion. Citizens’ initiatives are manifestations of cooperative behavior (lens two) and, therefore, naturally connected to concepts such as social cohesion and civil society (lens three). As such, we feel it is necessary to elaborate more on these distinctions. Following Edwards (2009) position on this matter, distinctions should be made between civil society or collective action as a means to get somewhere on the one hand and as a vision of “the good society” on the other. In this research, we view civil society (that one wants to create) and social capital (which is something one possesses) as valuable ends.

These ends could be achieved through collective action by citizen's initiatives, but this is not necessarily the case. Civil society can also be created by healthy states, well-functioning markets, and non-associated citizens. Simultaneously, a vivid associational life full of initiatives is hardly sufficient in itself to make a society civil (Edwards, 2009, pp. 44–48).

Next, for the second type of literature, we identified three fruitful starting points to better understand the public value(s) of citizens’ initiatives: first, distinguishing between internal and external; second, conceptualizing different levels of outcomes; and third, defining public value in terms of material, non-material, and process outcomes.

Igalla and colleagues (2019) make the distinction between internal and external outcomes. External outcomes are observable outside the initiative; they are the produced goods. They state that citizens’ initiatives “provide and maintain an alternative form of traditional governmental public services, facilities, and/or goods themselves, such as water distribution, education and training, and residential care” (ibid., p. 7). In terms of external outcomes, the authors find that, according to the literature, most initiatives contribute to social improvements of the community, economic improvements of the community, physical improvements of the community, and environmental improvements. In terms of internal outcomes, they refer to organizational aspects that the initiatives realize for the initiative itself, such as durability, legitimacy, and organizational outcomes (ibid., p. 10).

Another distinction in outcomes is made by van de Wijdeven (2012, p. 257). He differentiates between the outcomes in terms of the questions of “what does it yield,” “what does it bring about” and “what does it bring forth”? Van de Wijdeven answers these questions sequentially: the first with “the clean park,” then, with “sociality and self-confidence,” and finally, with “citizenship.” His distinction is primarily aimed at how the impact of outcomes is experienced by those who are involved.

Van der Torre et al. (2019) studied public value for “The Association of Netherlands Municipalities.” As a starting point, they used three categories of values (ibid., p. 5) that are also useful for this research: material values (of which lower taxes or higher employment opportunities are examples); immaterial values (of which happiness or a sense of community are examples); and process values (of which co-creating a space for citizens, making decisions transparently, or anchoring in democratic processes are examples).

Ultimately public value, social capital, and collective action are well-connecting concepts (Benington, 2009). The public value of citizens’ initiatives is related to its external goods, also to its internal goods, and to the process of how citizens’ initiatives do things. Our framework captures these distinctions by the previous authors in combination with the three lenses on valuable outcomes that we have just discussed. In this way, we can distinguish between these values:

The material values: refer to the external goods of citizens’ initiatives (Igalla et al., 2019) or the “what does it yield-question” by van de Wijdeven (2012). Material values are ends and may also encompass the more instrumental benefits of self-organizing citizens’ initiatives (see e.g., Eriksson, 2012, p. 688).

The immaterial values: are ends that refer to the outcomes that are good for citizens and society (Tonkens, 2006; van Dam et al., 2015). This relates to the ‘what does it brings about-question’ (van de Wijdeven, 2012). Self-reliance, civil society, and mutual relating concepts, such as sociality (Walzer, 1991) or social capital (Putnam, 2001), are in this category.

The process values: are somewhat difficult to separate definitively from the immaterial values. We follow our framework by pointing to collective action, deliberation (Bryant, 1993, p. 356; Bohman, 2000, pp. 55–56), or interactive problem-solving as examples of process values. The process values are related to the valuable aspects of how citizens’ initiatives do things (and what results from the “act of doing,” such as acquiring a skill or the ability to work better together)² and in that sense process values are categorically more like means.

Next, we discuss the ground for expecting differences in the perspectives of public value between different actors surrounding citizens’ initiatives.

The Tensive Relationship Between the Government and Initiatives

In many countries collectives of citizens who engage with public problems are becoming increasingly important (Baum, 2001; Bailey, 2012; Healey, 2015; Henriksen et al., 2018). There are multiple reasons why governments are partial to citizens’ initiatives. Firstly, most ideas refer to “the right behavior” of citizens (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011, p. 101). For example, citizens should be self-reliant because it is good for them and good for society (Tonkens, 2006, p. 9; van Dam et al., 2015, pp. 165 & 175). Arguments often start with stating that citizens rely too much on the government and, furthermore, that they behave like consumers (Kleistra, 2019; van Rooij et al., 2019, p. 429). The Dutch government stated in 2013 that “the goal is to activate as many citizens as possible to take on local activities” (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 2013). Secondly, active citizenship is necessary for a well-functioning democracy associated with natural communal activities and self-organization and is therefore a crucial building block for civil society (Eriksson, 2012, p. 687). Within the Dutch context of this research, the government has set up multiple efforts to increase the number of citizens participating in society or to support, facilitate, and even entice citizens to participate and organize themselves (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 2018; van Dam et al., 2015, p. 164).

Both of these views held by the government illustrate that there are high expectations about citizens’ initiatives. These high expectations by political parties and civil servants have also been found in previous studies (Den Ouden et al., 2019; de Haan et al., 2018, p. 313; who, for the record, also found some lower expectations of civil servants). In addition, social funds and housing corporations have laid their eye on citizens’ initiatives (Denters et al., 2013). To illustrate the point of having unreasonably high expectations, we quote Edwards (2009, p. 16) about associations in the civil society, which we believe also applies to citizens’ initiatives:

“There is equal danger in expecting too much from associational life, as if it were a ‘magic bullet’ for resolving the intractable social, economic and political problems (…). It seems, [they] are expected to organize social services, govern local communities, solve the unemployment problem, save the environment, and still have time left over for rebuilding the moral life of nations.”

These expectations make governments eager to help (Den Ouden et al., 2019, p. 51). However, with the best intentions, governmental involvement can have adverse effects (Vollan, 2008, p. 563). Brandsen and colleagues (2017, p. 676) warn that local governments may take over citizens’ initiatives, resulting in a manufactured civil society instead of a spontaneous one. In such a situation, the character and value for which citizens’ initiatives are valued are crowded out. Moreover, while intended as supporting, governmental attitudes are sometimes described as controlling (Streeck & Schmitter, 1985, p. 122; Benington, 2009, p. 242), and citizens’ initiatives sometimes encounter this controlling tendency (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011, p. 107; van Straalen et al., 2017).

In conclusion, governments have high expectations about citizens’ initiatives and the public value they create. But these expectations may be too high, and, moreover, we seriously doubt that all expectations are shared by those involved in citizens’ initiatives. This mismatch of expectations may consequently result in wrong or suboptimal policies and inappropriate instruments aimed at inviting or supporting citizens’ initiatives. As such, we find it crucial to understand more precisely what the perspectives of all the actors are and how they differ.

Research Design

We used Q methodology (Brown, 1993; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Stephenson, 1953; Watts & Stenner, 2005), which has quantitative features, such as factor analysis to order and to couple certain qualitative points of view. “Fundamentally, Q methodology provides a foundation for the systematic study of subjectivity” (Brown, 1993, p. 93). The purpose of this study is to discover how different actors, or different ‘publics’ if you will (Benington, 2009), view the public value(s) of citizens’ initiatives. In a sense we are exploring the “contests, debates and arguments between and among different [actors] about what constitutes public value” (Hartley et al., 2017, p. 674). And because values “express subjectivity” (Meynhardt, 2009, p. 199), a systematic study of subjectivity fits the purpose because the participants in this study decide what they think is valuable about citizens’ initiatives (Watts & Stenner, 2005, p. 69).

To successfully execute the Q study, the following procedure was applied: (1) making a Q sample of statements by sampling a topic such as the public value of citizens’ initiatives; (2) selecting the P set, i.e., the participants or respondents; (3) having the respondents sort the sample of statements, their Q sort; followed by (4) analyzing the data through factor analysis, and finally, (5) interpreting the analysis (Brown, 1993; McKeown & Thomas, 2013; Watts & Stenner, 2005). The study was done in a medium-sized municipality (approximately 57.000 inhabitants in 2021) in the Netherlands. The municipality was merged in 2019 and contains 21 villages. Given the village-like character and the possibly close-knit community there, there may be a relatively strong tendency to value things such as social cohesion.

The Q Sample: Public Value Statements

The primary concern of constructing the Q sample is making it generally representative (Watts and Stenner, 2005, p. 75). Collecting the samples can be done either in an unstructured or in a structured way. And as structured samples are drawn based on theoretical arguments (McKeown & Thomas, 2013, p. 23), or, more specifically, the theoretical framework, we chose to do the latter. A total of 179 statements was reduced to 36 statements (12 for each value). First, we categorized the statements on face value, which led to roughly 25 categories of statements for each type of value. Next we further compressed the statements by finding overlaps between the categories until a total of 12 statements for each type of value remained. One of the authors scraped the Dutch ‘Coalition Agreements’ by city councils of 2018 on citizens’ initiatives (and similar labels). This led to an inventory of 31 municipalities profiling themselves with high ambitions for citizens’ initiatives (all but one explicitly and actively wanted to support citizens’ initiatives). None of the municipalities explicitly mentioned citizens’ initiatives before the merger. In the new coalition agreement, the municipality is quite vocal about citizens’ initiatives. Examples are that they “really want to give space,” that they see “citizens’ initiatives as leading in how the municipality deals with its community” and that they want to “stimulate, encourage and facilitate” citizens’ initiatives. The inventory of coalition agreements was then used to check whether the 36 statement also represented these coalition agreements. Finally, we discussed the statements with a panel of eight experts ranging from science and practice, to local and national government. We created a Q sample from the following sources (see appendix 1 for an overview):

Dutch commissioned research from practice: for example, a ministry commissioned a series of five research projects on citizens’ initiatives and another ministry commissioned a research report on the possibilities for the Right to Challenge;

Dutch scientific research that is often used by researchers or practitioners;

International scientific research that is often used by researchers or practitioners;

Other semi-public research or pieces about citizens’ initiatives, such as documents by Courts of Audits [Rekenkamercommissie], the Ombudsman, or the Dutch information center for democracy, “ProDemos.”

It was already remarkable how most of the documents were aimed at stimulating citizens’ initiatives or describing indicators that increase the success of citizens’ initiatives without explaining what it is that is valuable or successful in terms of citizens’ initiatives.³ Many of the documents also have a rather instrumental vision of citizens’ initiatives. For example, Movisie (2011) presents an overview of interventions to stimulate active citizenship, and a committee of a local Court of Audit stresses the need for citizens’ initiators to work with other actors to realize their goals (instead of working well together internally, i.e., collective action).

The P set: Selecting Participants

The selection of actors who will do the “valuing” has partly been theoretically presorted (McKeown & Thomas, 2013, p. 31) because we expect various social actors to have different views. Therefore, we included local politicians, civil servants, and societal actors, including initiators. Together with the municipality, we selected a diverse set of participants within these groups, for example, local politicians from different political parties and civil servants ranging from the city manager to street-level bureaucrats. As for citizens, we included initiators and non-initiators and they were all active and societally-involved respondents (from schools, the library or the ‘village council’) who could be approached via the municipality. With this step in the Q methodology, we tried to refrain from including only enthusiasts (Fiorina 1999, p. 402).

With this P set, we figuratively “created well-informed publics”—again, not the public—to express ideas about the public value of citizens’ initiatives (Benington, 2009, p. 232; Meynhardt, 2009, p. 206).

The Q Sort and Interview: Ordering Statements and Expressing Ideas

Our sample of 22 respondents ranked the 36 statements according to a forced-choice format (appendix 2). The statements were ranked on a normal distribution from – 4 to + 4, which is appropriate for Q samples smaller than N = 40 (McKeown & Thomas, 2013, p. 29). Respondents ranked the statements from ‘least in accordance’ to “most in accordance.” This range indicates that a score (or position on the format) is always to some extent in accordance.

Due to the covid pandemic, the interviews took place in the summer of 2021 via MS Teams and Miro (an online whiteboard) and the statements were posted on digital post-its. The Q interviews typically lasted 50 −70 min. A few questions were asked before the sort: e.g., “what is your background?” and “how do you define citizens’ initiatives?” And a few after the sort: “why did you put these statements at the extremes?”, “did you miss specific statements?”; “do you think citizens’ initiatives can do the majority of public tasks better than governments?”; “do you think citizens’ initiatives should always be financially supported?”; and “what are the downsides with and problems for citizens’ initiatives?” The answers to these questions and the additional explanations to the rankings were written down by the researchers, leading to 22 research notes of approximately 1,000 words a piece.

Analysis and Results

We analyzed the Q sorts with KADE (Banasick, 2019), an open-source application for the analysis of Q study data. First, the correlations of all respondents were calculated, resulting in a .22 correlation between all the sorts, indicating that the respondents were a rather heterogenous group. Second, the Principal Components Analysis led to 8 factors of which 7 had an Eigenvalue higher than 1. We reviewed the analysis and noticed that, with 5 factors or higher, only single respondents represented those factors. Therefore, we continued with 4 factors having an explained variance of 57% (the "composites" of these 4 factors are in appendix 3). Third, factors were rotated using Varimax.

Table 1 shows the various respondents (categorized by types) and how they “loaded” on the factors. Respondents can load negatively (–1 to 0) or positively (0 to + 1) on the factors. Next, we interpreted each of the factors based on the characterizing statements, i.e., those statements with a score of ± 3, 4 or the distinguishing statements (these are “significantly” different for one factor compared to the others), and the explanations of the respondents.

Table 1.

Correlation Coefficient Between Respondents and Factors.

Resp. #	Respondent type	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
9	Civil servant (project office)	0,7415*	−0,0284	0,3009	0,2046
12	Civil servant (housing)	0,7051*	0,0365	−0,114	0,0975
5	Politician (liberal)	0,6928*	0,2847	0,0857	0,1553
3	Civil servant (communications)	0,6886*	0,2853	0,1197	−0,033
6	Civil servant (social domain)	0,6634*	−0,0365	0,1544	0,2226
18	Civil servant (clerk)	0,6589*	−0,1262	−0,4021	0,3353
4	Civil servant (legal)	0,6516*	0,2092	−0,0663	0,1095
21	Politician (local party)	0,524*	0,3809	−0,3476	0,1315
17	Politician (local party)	0,0194	0,6737*	−0,2058	0,2065
15	Societal actor (village council and business association)	−0,0112	0,6514*	0,0511	−0,1869
22	Politician (Christian democrat)	0,1393	0,5222*	0,079	0,1369
1	Societal actor (teacher and board member school)	0,0146	0,5134*	0,3495	0,3306
16	Civil servant (field service)	0,4284	0,4692*	0,004	0,467
10	Societal actor (village council)	0,3361	0,4079*	0,065	−0,0114
14	Societal actor (Fortress Governor and initiator)	−0,1117	−0,1015	0,8176*	0,0973
2	Societal actor (initiator and member foundation)	0,2617	0,4191	0,5367*	−0,3943
11	Civil servant (city management)	0,3117	0,2235	0,5307*	0,1087
20	Societal actor (director of a societal organization)	−0,0514	0,1817	0,0972	0,797*
19	Civil servant (strategic)	0,3809	0,1387	−0,1122	0,7317*
13	Civil servant (communications)	0,3194	0,224	−0,2984	0,7014*
7	Societal actor (volunteer)	0,213	−0,0851	0,2229	0,5992*
8	Societal actor (librarian)	0,5181	−0,227	0,2094	0,5198*

*Are significant factor loadings.

At the p < .05 is one that exceeds 1.96(1/√36) = ± 0,33. Significance the p < .01 exceeds 2.58(1/√36) = ± 0,43 (see Watts and Stenner, 2005, pp. 87–88). All significant factor loadings also exceed Humphrey's rule (Brown, 1980, p. 223): multiplying the highest factor loadings should exceed twice the standard error (SE) = .32 (The SE in this study is 1√[number of statements], 1√36 = .16).

Factor 1: Idealistic Immaterialists

Factor 1 has 8 significant loadings: 6 civil servants and 2 local politicians. Factor 1 opines that citizens’ initiatives are intrinsically valuable. That citizens’ initiatives contribute to the involvement in the community, liveability, and solidarity/community spirit are expressions of that intrinsic value. Respondents who associate strongly with this factor value citizens’ initiatives because they are viewed as a form of reassurance that people are still willing to do something for their community and the public cause.

Factor 1 is also rather idealistic in the sense that it values the immaterial rather than the material. All the statements that the participants did not agree with are material values; furthermore, their idealism is visible in the statement quotes. Citizens’ initiatives should—in principle—not be valued for the savings they might realize or as replacements for the government's role in major maintenance projects. In other words, the real value of citizens’ initiatives is not as instruments to realize output. Another respondent also highlights how “feeling involved” is what matters for citizens’ initiatives, and anything else is secondary (Table 2).

Table 2.

Statements with Highest/Lowest Scores for Factor 1.

	Rank	Sig	Type	Statement/quote (by respondent)
Agree	+ 4	**	P	25 CI's are valuable in themselves.
	+ 3	*	I	15 CI's contribute to community involvement.
	+ 3	**	I	17 CI's contribute to liveability in the neighbourhood.
Disagree	−4		M	10 CI's create savings because they take over tasks from the government.
	−3		M	4 CI's contribute to the economy.
	−3		M	6 CI's ensure ‘major maintenance’ in the neighbourhood.
Notable	−2	*	P	29 CI's contribute to the self-reliance of the participants.
Quotes				“People are – still – willing to do something, which is why citizens’ initiatives are so valuable.” (6) “The value of citizens’ initiatives lies in those side effects: how one feels. Those are positive.” (9)
				“It's not about money in my view. Money should not, in principle, be ‘the reason.'” (3) “You shouldn't do it for savings because it demotivates. Then you are immediately watching the money again and steering accordingly.” (5)

Distinguishing statement at * p < .05, ** p < .01. Types in the table are P for process values, I for immaterial values and M for material value. Citizens' iniatiatives are abbreviated as CI's in the tables.

Factor 2: Pragmatic Partners

Factor 2 has 6 significant loadings: 3 societal actors, 2 local politicians, and 1 civil servant. This factor is called pragmatic because it conveys a certain kind of hands-on-mentality. Not the kind that leads to all sorts of material output, but the kind that leads to liveability and a better relationship between the municipality and the community. The statement ‘CI's solve problems that they themselves find important’ also ranked + 3 on this factor.

The combination of taking action when necessary as initiators is central to this factor and also central for nurturing collaboration/partnership between the municipality and the community. The interaction is necessary to get acquainted and to strengthen cooperation/partnership between governments and initiators. In addition to Table 3, other quotes illustrate this position:

‘The relationship really improves by talking to each other. (…) And it is good to listen to initiatives because then you notice what is happening locally.’ (16)

This factor is also characterized by some sort of sobriety. One should not overexaggerate the value of citizens’ initiatives. They are not training grounds for better behavior, personal development, or mutual relationships. They also do not contribute to “the economy,” nor do they create value for the entire society. Pragmatic partners want no nonsense and view citizens’ initiatives as a way to force governments and initiatives to partner up.

Table 3.

Statements with Highest/Lowest Scores for Factor 2.

	Rank	Sig	Type	Statement/quote (by respondent)
Agree	+ 4	**	P	27 CI's contribute to the ability to work together.
	+ 3	**	I	17 CI's contribute to liveability in the neighbourhood.
	+ 3	**	I	14 CI's contribute to a better relationship between the government and residents.
Disagree	−4	∼	P	32 CI's contribute to altruistic/selfless behaviour.
	−3	**	I	13 CI's create societal value for the entire society.
	−3		I	21 CI's contribute to personal development.
Quotes				“Collaboration between the government, residents, entrepreneurs and village councils is very important and it will get much better.” (15) “That's what it's about. You often see situations of ‘it is so bad if something happens to it or not’ and then people take action and it is solved.” (10)
				“It doesn't have to yield anything. Citizen initiatives often cost a lot. (…) Finally, many things are difficult or undesirable to calculate in economic terms, such as quality of life!” (1)

Factor 3: Personal Purpose

Factor 3 has 3 significant loadings: 2 societal actors and 1 civil servant. This third perspective is characterized by a mix of immaterial and material values. Factor 3 encompasses elements of both meaning and fun because taking initiative provides both. Furthermore, they find meaning in engaging with important subjects such as ecology and sustainability.

But factor 3 is also quite unique by disagreeing strongly with three process-type values. Citizens’ initiatives do not contribute to democracy, inclusivity, or altruistic behaviour. Respondent 11 summarized this view:

“When people are involved in citizens’ initiatives, it really contributes to their sense of purpose. That is not selfless. They do it because they find it important themselves or because they want to achieve something. Or because it's fun. And that's fine. But that's not altruism and it doesn’t have to be.“ (11)

This factor perceives citizens’ initiatives a little bit in the “bonding-social-capital-approach” as it sees initiatives as oriented on themselves. Citizens’ initiatives are tightly knit—therefore, they are also quite exclusive toward outsiders—and it is important for the in-group to search for the important things in life and to engage with them (14) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Statements with Highest/Lowest Scores for Factor 3.

	Rank	Sig	Type	Statement/quote (by respondent)
Agree	+ 4	**	I	20 CI's contribute to the meaning of the participants.
	+ 3	**	I	7 CI's contribute to sustainability.
	+ 3	**	M	3 CI's ensure ecological value and nature.
Disagree	−4	*	P	33 CI's strengthen democracy
	−3	**	P	31 CI's contribute to an inclusive society.
	−3		P	32 CI's contribute to altruistic/selfless behaviour
Quotes of interviews				“We all think it's very important, we enjoy doing it, and everyone gets a lot out of it.” (2)
				“Democracy, that's way too big. Municipal councils and citizens’ initiatives are sometimes at odds with each other.” (11) “There is a split between ‘old’ groups and newcomers here (…). So, it is quite exclusive.“ (14)

Factor 4: Democratic Developers

Factor 4 has 5 significant loadings: 3 societal actors and 2 civil servants. This final factor sees citizens’ initiatives as boosters for democracy. But there's a catch: citizens’ initiatives are not democratic per se, but they strengthen democracy by advocating for and acting on their interest. In that sense, they increase the democratic influence of participants and increase the quality of policy decisions. It is expected, but nevertheless, legitimate, that citizens’ initiatives act—perhaps egoistically—out of their own interest. No person can be truly altruistic and, moreover, democracy needs the articulation of interests and action of collectives. It is valuable and important that citizens’ initiatives take responsibility and ‘solve the problems that they themselves find important.’

Factor 4 also values citizens’ initiatives because they are viewed as self-determined and constructive. Protest is seen both as “being against something” or as encouraging others to do something rather than taking action oneself. Citizens’ initiatives should also—just as the idealistic immaterialists believe—not be viewed too instrumentally. They are not to be seen as producers of public goods, a savings opportunity, or as replacements for the municipal field service (Table 5).

Table 5.

Statements with Highest/Lowest Scores for Factor 4.

	Rank	Sig	Type	Statement/quote (by respondent)
Agree	+ 4	**	P	33 CI's strengthen democracy.
	+ 3		P	28 CI's increase the control/influence of the participants.
	+ 3		M	5 CI's contribute to the quality of policy decisions.
Disagree	−4	**	P	34 CI's ensure protest about what is wrong.
	−3		M	10 CI's create savings because they take over tasks from the government.
	−3		M	1 CI's ensuring collective/public goods for all.
Notable	−2	**	M	2 CI's contribute to the practical management and refurbishment of things.
Quotes of interviews				“Especially because I believe that taking initiative and taking action is a social decision. It is about determining in your own living environment.” (19) “Control, certainly. [Local] Politics is absolutely sensitive to citizens’ initiatives. And she should be!” (8)
				“You don't achieve much with protest in itself. You mainly encourage others to do something while you are not doing it yourself.” (7) “I think that basically people also come into citizens’ initiatives out of an interest that they also have themselves. (…) Altruism is wonderful, but at its core it must/needs to arise from altruistic motives. (19)

Similarities and differences

In the introduction, we argued that it is extremely important that a specific agreement or complementarity between the perceptions and ideas of public value as produced by citizen initiatives is to result in successful coproduction. To understand this (lack of) overlap and complementarity, we make a few comparisons.

In table 6, the correlations between factors are presented (1 is high, 0 is low). The correlations show that especially the factor of personal purpose seems to have the most disagreements with the other factors. There also seems to be a considerable correlation between the idealistic immaterialists and the democratic developers, indicating that a consensus about the value of citizens’ initiatives could be reached easier between these two factors. For example, both factors show disagreement on the statements that citizens’ initiatives contribute to sustainability or ensure “major maintenance” in the neighborhood. Both factors also show relatively strong agreement with statements that citizens’ initiatives solve problems they themselves find important or that they increase control of and influence over the participants.

Table 6.

Correlation Coefficient Between Respondents and Factors.

	Idealistic immaterialists	Pragmatic partners	Personal purpose	Democratic developers
Idealistic immaterialists	1	0,3674	0,053	0,4968
Pragmatic Partners	0,3674	1	0,1129	0,3628
Personal purpose	0,053	0,1129	1	0,0013
Democratic developers	0,4968	0,3628	0,0013	1

There are three statements about citizens’ initiatives that lead to the most disagreements (in appendix 4 we discover some more differences):

They strengthen democracy

They are valuable in themselves

They contribute to meaning-making for participants

These disagreements are salient because political or governmental discourse on citizens’ initiatives is often related to democracy (see van Dam et al., 2015).

In general, this Q study shows that the conflicting statements are generally process statements, and the most agreeable statements are generally material and immaterial statements. It seems that the material value of citizens’ initiatives—within this study context—are the least disputed.⁴ In the end, all views combine multiple types with what they agree or disagree on. The idealistic immaterialists, however, strongly agree on immaterial statements (that's no surprise), and this factor also relates quite well to the second lens (citizens’ initiatives as expressions of the civil society and “what does it bring forth?” question). The personal purpose type, on the other hand, strongly disagrees with the process-type statements.

The statement “citizens’ initiatives solve problems they themselves find important” was the most agreed upon with scores of +2 and +3 by all factors. And the statement “Citizens’ initiatives contribute to altruistic/selfless behaviour” was disagreed upon by all factors with scores of either −3 or −4. Two other statements that the factors generally agree on is that citizens’ initiatives do not necessarily create safety nor innovation. But generally, this “selfish collectivism” (self-selection of problems and non-altruïsm) is common ground across all the value views.

Finally, while it is not at the heart of Q studies to compare the respondents (rather, it is about their views), we were still interested to—albeit prudently—compare the social actors. Figure 1 shows how our actors, on average, relate to the four value views. Societal actors share the view of “personal purpose” the most and “idealistic immaterialists” the least. Civil servants mostly share the view of “idealistic immaterialists” and least share the view of “personal purpose.” Local politicians share the view of “pragmatic partners” the most and of “personal purpose” the least. This comparison is a first glimpse, and again such a comparison is not at the heart of Q studies, so this result should be considered cautiously.

Figure 1.

Average correlations of actors and value views.

Our results show that there are some shared aspects across the views, for example, selfish collectivism, that could be common ground for fruitful coproduction. At the same time, as Figure 1 illustrates, there are not only differences between views, but also meaningful disagreements between views and, likely, between social actors. To illustrate this point imagine a city council that shares a vision and sets budgets in line with the pragmatic partners, and civil servants who (having some discretionary room) write/employ policy language and act in line with the immaterial idealists. While the initiators and participants themselves need support to meet their needs in line with personal purpose. Such a scenario would lead to strain, frustration, and would reduce motivation.

Conclusion and Discussion

In the introduction and theoretical sections, we problematized the possible misalignment of values between governments and citizens’ initiatives. The vast majority of information that we analyzed to help us collect statements for the Q interviews, more or less took the value of citizens’ initiatives for granted. The majority of the research or reports was concerned with increasing the conditions for the success of citizens’ initiatives. It was all about pushing the buttons or changing the levers in order to “systematically increase outcomes” regardless of what the outcomes are (MacIntyre, 2011, p. 90). But exactly what the value of citizen's initiatives is, was often taken for granted, unspecified, and/or accepted as the one thing that they “just create.” The value perspective was not questioned. Citizens’ initiatives are approached as “initiatives-as-they-happen-to-be” and facilitated, upgraded, and governed. But if the values are examined more closely, there's a whole world behind them, and our research was able to show that this world contains a plurality of values.

By studying different types of social actors within a medium-sized Dutch municipality using Q methodology, we found four different views connected to the values of citizens’ initiatives. These four views all have different configurations of how they define what is valuable about citizens’ initiatives. But there are also similarities. All four views value citizens’ initiatives because of their self-determination. Various actors value citizens taking action and doing something instead of waiting for officials to step in. This relates to other findings (Edelenbos et al., 2018, p. 61) where it is concluded that citizens’ initiatives take action because of some trigger. Another interesting similarity among the views is that citizens’ initiatives are not necessarily valuable because they “contribute to selfless behavior.” This view subscribes to the idea that it is logical and acceptable that citizens’ initiatives are (partly) driven by individual or group interests. We labelled the common ground between value views “selfish collectivism.”

One of the theoretical lenses that helped us to examine our research question was about distinguishing types of values. We found that process-type statements created the most disagreements. Statements expressing the idea that citizens’ initiatives are valuable in themselves or strengthen democracy were especially prone to grave disagreements. In contrast, the material values are, relatively, the least prone to disagreements (because most disagreed with these statements).

As for how the different actors viewed the value of citizens’ initiatives, we did a more in-depth study towards how the different views of the values concerning citizens’ initiatives take shape. We did, however, also take a look at how the various types of actors/respondents connect to the four views. While this type of study is not definitive in claiming that these differences are significant—these findings should be interpreted cautiously—it does suggest that there may be meaningful differences between actors in value views about citizens’ initiatives that may hinder fruitful collaboration. This is especially the case when it comes to creating the right “invited space” or funding schemes for citizens’ initiatives.

Next, we set out a few implications based on our study and findings. Given that governments are fond of citizens’ initiatives (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011; Bakker et al., 2012; Brandsen et al., 2017; Hurenkamp & Tonkens, 2011) and that they likely have specific value views about citizens’ initiatives or specific goals (such as strengthening democracy), tensions could definitely arise. As citizens’ initiatives may be shaped by the perceived expectations and goals of governments (van Dam et al., 2015, p. 174), they could be subjected, controlled, and governed in a way that does not align with their value views about themselves. “This governmental control of organizations can be achieved through at least four mechanisms: (…) [such as] the use of symbolic policy language” (Brandsen et al., 2017, p. 684). We have already demonstrated how a mismatch between a council's language, policy language, and needs of initiators can exist. And there is still the risk that citizens’ initiatives can be seen as magic bullets (Edwards, 2009). We therefore argue that it is crucial to first discover the relevant value patterns within a certain context before creating various arrangements.

In this study, we set a specific context (a medium sized Dutch municipality) in which we let various respondents express their value-views of citizens’ initiatives. This approach which fits exceptionally well the studying of public value(s) (Meynhardt, 2009, p. 199), even in municipalities with different characteristics. We started with the argument that what people value about citizens’ initiatives is often somewhat fuzzy, unclear, or that it is just “a heap of good things.” We believe that with this study, we made the discourse about the value of citizens’ initiatives clearer and more comprehensible and that we have discovered distinctive value patterns. Q methodology is indeed, as suggested by Hartley and colleagues (2017), suited to trace and map values. Our final contribution is to show that it indeed matters to explore the value views of citizens’ initiatives and be specific about them. As “public value can only exist in a coproduction between government, citizens, associations, entrepreneurs and firms” (Brandsen et al., 2017, p. 682) it seems wise in these interdependent coproductions to understand each other's value views before action is taken.

This study has limitations and we discuss the most important ones. First, this study is mainly about citizens’ initiatives with some government involvement. There are citizens’ initiatives that operate almost completely independently of governments (although they must abide by the law). These initiatives are naturally less affected by high or specific expectations from governments. Second, we did not quantitively examine significant differences in views between groups. In order to further inquire the possible tensions and problems we described, such a study would be very helpful. Third, studying values is a difficult exercise. With our distinctions between type of goods and type of values, we made the exercise somewhat less difficult. But these distinctions are not perfect. We acknowledge that some statements could have fitted in other types of value-views, depending on how they are interpretated. Another weakness is that Q study does well when the statements are unambiguous and when not open to too many different interpretations from participants. We tried to design such statements, but straightforward statements can also flatten a complex discourse, such as the one about values. Nevertheless, there is little, or even no room, for conditional viewpoints about a statement because it needs to be ranked. Working with these statements also leaves less room for the sedimentation in values: the potential future spinoff in values or the changes in values over time. Finally, as the Q methodology is not yet mainstream (but becoming more en vogue), some would also criticize this method; for example, there is the criticism that any sample of statements is prone to selection bias by the researchers. From a Q-point-of-view, we argue that it is not so much about “the total meaning” of the Q sample, but how meaning is given by respondents to “the Q sample”; that is the heart of the method (Brown, 1993, p. 101).

Of course, there are multiple promising options for further research. First, it would be useful to do this Q study in other municipalities, regions, or provinces to see how meaning is given to the value of citizens’ initiatives elsewhere. It is also promising to zoom in on various actor groups: What kind of value views characterize different groups such as civil servants or local politicians, and which value differences exist within these groups? In this study we more a less treated these actor groups as homogeneous, not acknowledging nor inquiring about the differences within these groups. Finally, a more quantitative approach—perhaps based on the statements or the four views in this study or future studies – to explore the various value views of citizens’ initiatives of a representative sample of the whole population would be insightful. Such an approach would greatly increase our knowledge about how various actors perceive the value of self-organization and about the possible problems and tensions set out in this piece.

Footnotes

Appendices

Appendix 1: Used literature and checked coalition agreements for the concourse

Author			Type
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.			International Scientific
Igalla, M., Edelenbos, J., & van Meerkerk, I. (2019). Citizens in action, what do they accomplish? A systematic literature review of citizen initiatives, their main characteristics, outcomes, and factors. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(5), 1176-1194.			International Scientific
Van Dam, R., Duineveld, M., & During, R. (2015). Delineating active citizenship: The subjectification of citizens’ initiatives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(2), 163-179.			International Scientific
Bakker, J., Denters, B., Oude Vrielink, M., & Klok, P. J. (2012). Citizens’ initiatives: How local governments fill their facilitative role. Local Government Studies, 38(4), 395-414.			International Scientific
Healey, P. (2015). Citizen-generated local development initiative: recent English experience. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 19(2), 109-118.			International Scientific
de Haan, E., Meier, S., Haartsen, T., & Strijker, D. (2018). Defining ‘Success’ of Local Citizens’ Initiatives in Maintaining Public Services in Rural Areas: A Professional's Perspective. Sociologia Ruralis, 58(2), 312-330.			International Scientific
Verhoeven, I., & Tonkens, E. (2013). Talking active citizenship: Framing welfare state reform in England and the Netherlands. Social Policy and Society, 12(3), 415.			International Scientific
Bakker, J., Denters, S. A., & Klok, P. J. (2011). Welke burger telt mee (r) in de doe-democratie?. B en M: tijdschrift voor beleid, politiek en maatschappij, 38(4), 402-418.			Dutch Scientific
Vrielink, M. O., & Verhoeven, I. (2011). Burgerinitiatieven en de bescheiden overheid. Beleid en Maatschappij, 38(4), 377-387.			Dutch Scientific
Van de Wijdeven, T. M. F., De Graaf, L. J., & Hendriks, F. (2013). Actief burgerschap: lijnen in de literatuur.			Dutch Scientific
Igalla, M., & Van Meerkerk, I. (2015). De Duurzaamheid van Burgerinitiatieven. Een Empirische Verkenning (The Sustainability of Citizen Initiatives. An Empirical Exploration). Een Empirische Verkenning (The Sustainability of Citizen Initiatives. An Empirical Exploration), 25-53.			Dutch Scientific
Salverda, I., & Van Dam, R. (2008). Burgers en landschap deel 1: Voorbeelden van burgerparticipatie en maatschappelijk initiatief. Wageningen: Alterra Wageningen UR.			Practical/commisioned Research
Van Dam, R., During, R., & Salverda, I. (2008). Burgers en Landschap deel 2: Trends en theorieën over betrokkenheid van burgers. Wageningen: Alterra Wageningen UR.			Practical/commisioned Research
Dam, R. V., Salverda, I., & During, R. (2010). Burgers en Landschap deel 3: Strategieën van burgerinitiatieven. Wageningen: Alterra Wageningen UR.			Practical/commisioned Research
Duineveld, M., van Dam, R. I., During, R, & van der Zande, A. N. (2010). Burgers en Landschap deel 4: The importance of being nimby; Een essay over burgerverzet en erfgoed. Wageningen: Alterra Wageningen UR.			Practical/commisioned Research
Van Dam, R. I., Salverda, I. E., & During, R. (2011).). Burgers en Landschap deel 5: Effecten van burgerinitiatieven en de rol van de rijksoverheid. Wageningen: Alterra Wageningen UR.			Practical/commisioned Research
Denters, S. A. H., Tonkens, E. H., Verhoeven, I., & Bakker, J. H. M. (2013). Burgers maken hun buurt. Platform31.			Practical/commisioned Research
ProDemos (2015). Doe-democratie. Tips voor raadsleden, wethouders, ambtenaren en burgers. Available via: https://www.prodemos.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ProDemos-Doe-democratie_brochure.pdf			Practical Literature
Ombudsman (2018). Burgerinitiatief: waar een wil is…. Onderzoek naar de rol van overheidsinstanties bij burgerinitiatieven. Available via: https://www.nationaleombudsman.nl/system/files/bijlage/Burgerinitiatieven%20waar%20een%20wil%20is%20rapport%202018-020.pdf			Practical Literature
Movisie (2011). Actief burgerschap. Een overzicht aan interventies. Available via: https://www.movisie.nl/sites/movisie.nl/files/publication-attachment/Verkenning%20Actief%20Burgerschap%20%5BMOV-177889-0.4%5D.pdf			Practical Literature
Ouden W. den, Boogaard G. & Driessen E.M.M.A. (2019), Right to Challenge. Een studie naar de mogelijkheden voor aan algemene regeling voor het ‘Right to Challenge’ en andere burgerinitiatieven in Nederland [eindrapport]. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.			Practical/commisioned Research
Rekenkamercommissie Wassenaar, Voorschoten, Oegstgeest, Leidschendam-Voorburg (2018). De burger neemt het initiatief. Via: https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/media/255725/rapport_onderzoek_burgerinitiatieven.pdf			Practical Research
Ministerie van BZK (2020). Lokale democratie: tentoonstelling over de ontwikkeling van de lokale democratie na 1945. Nota Doe-democratie. Available via: https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/het-geheugen-van-bzk/lokale-democratie/tijdlijn-lokale-democratie-4/2010-heden/2013-nota-doe-democratie/			Practical literature
Ministerie van BZK (2013). De Doe-Democratie. Kabinetsnota ter stimuleren van een vitale samenleving. Available via: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/publicaties/2013/07/09/kabinetsnota-doe-democratie			Practical literature
Buurtwijs. (2019). Wat maakt burgerinitiatieven duurzaam?. Available via: https://www.buurtwijs.nl/content/wat-maakt-burgerinitiatieven-duurzaam			Practical literature
Universiteit van de Humanistiek & Movisie. (2018). Niet meer zomaar te stoppen: Over duurzaamheid van burgerinitiatieven Available via: https://www.movisie.nl/sites/movisie.nl/files/2019-01/Niet-meer-zomaar-te-stoppen-duurzaamheid-burgerinitiatieven.pdf			Practical research
van Delden, P. (2020). Sociaal offensief tussen lockdowns door. Sociale vraagstukken. Available via: https://www.socialevraagstukken.nl/sociaal-offensief-tussen-lockdowns-door/			Practical Literature
Visser, V. (2019). Lager opgeleiden voelen zich te min om te participeren in burgerinitiatieven. Sociale vraagstukken. Available via: https://www.socialevraagstukken.nl/lager-opgeleiden-voelen-zich-te-min-om-te-participeren-in-burgerinitiatieven/			Practical Literature
de Moor, T. (2020). Meer ruimte voor de commons'’ Sociale vraagstukken. Available via: https://www.socialevraagstukken.nl/meer-ruimte-voor-de-commons/			Practical Literature
Salverda, I., van Dam, R. & Pleijtje, M. (2017). Pionieren: De impact van innovatieve maatschappelijke initiatieven op een natuur-inclusieve samenleving. Wageningen University Research. Available via: https://edepot.wur.nl/425310			Dutch Scientific
Vullings, L.A.E., A.E. Buijs, J.L.M. Donders, D.A. Kamphorst, H. Kramer & S. de Vries (2018). Monitoring Green Citizens’ Initiatives; Methodology, indicators and results of a pilot project and baseline assessment. Wageningen, Statutory Research Tasks Unit for Nature & the Environment, WUR. WOt-technical report 125			Dutch Scientific
Coalition agreements scanned of municipalities:
Eijsden-Margraten	Leidschendam-Voorburg	Hollands Kroon	Soest
Achtkarspelen	Leudal	Zaanstad	Voorschoten
Amersfoort	Maasgouw	Zuidplas	Weesp
Asten	Weststellingwerf	Hilversum	Utrecht
Bunschoten	Enkhuizen	De Wolden	Westerveld
Doesburg	Goes	Houten	Woudenberg
Horst aan de Maas	Gooise Meren	Oegstgeest	Zwartewaterland
Leiderdorp	Bernheze	Rijswijk

Appendix 2: Q sort format

				36
				35
			32	33	34
			29	30	31
		24	25	26	27	28
	17	18	19	20	21	22	23
	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Least in accordance Most in accordance
−4	−3	−2	−1	0	+ 1	+ 2	+ 3	+ 4

Appendix 3: Composites: views,statements and positions

#	Statement	1	2	3	4
1	CI's ensuring collective/public goods for all.	0	−1	−3	−3
2	CI's contribute to the practical management and refurbishment of things.	0	0	1	−2
3	CI's ensure ecological value and nature.	−2	0	3	−1
4	CI's contribute to the economy	−3	−3	−1	−1
5	CI's contribute to the quality of policy decisions.	0	1	−2	3
6	CI's ensure ‘major maintenance’ in the neighbourhood.	−3	1	1	−2
7	CI's contribute to sustainability.	−2	−1	3	−2
8	CI’ create mainly nice extras in the neighborhood.	1	1	1	−2
9	CI's solve problems they find important themselves.	2	3	2	2
10	CI's create savings because they take over tasks from the government.	−4	0	0	−3
11	CI's contribute to the public cause.	2	−1	−1	0
12	CI's contribute to policy implementation.	−1	0	−1	0
13	CI's create societal value for the entire society.	1	−3	0	2
14	CI's contribute to a better relationship between the government and residents.	1	3	0	1
15	CI's contribute to community involvement.	3	2	0	1
16	CI's create a sense of responsibility among its participants.	1	2	0	2
17	CI's contribute to liveability in the neighbourhood.	3	3	0	1
18	CI's lead to (more) innovation.	0	1	−1	0
19	CI's ensure more mutual relationships between the participants.	0	−2	3	1
20	CI's contribute to the meaning of the participants.	−1	−1	4	0
21	CI's contribute to personal development.	−2	−3	1	−1
22	CI's contribute to safety in the neighbourhood.	−1	0	−1	−1
23	CI's lead to a sense of community/belonging among its participants.	3	0	1	1
24	CI's make sure that society – aside from the government and the market – has more influence on the public space.	1	1	2	3
25	CI's are valuable in themselves.	4	−1	2	−1
26	CI's increase diversity of contacts and identities.	0	2	−2	0
27	CI's contribute to the ability to work together.	0	4	0	1
28	CI's increase the control/influence of the participants.	2	2	−1	3
29	CI's contribute to the self-reliance of the participants.	−2	0	0	2
30	CI's increases societal skills among its participants.	−1	1	2	0
31	CI's contribute to an inclusive society.	0	−1	−3	−1
32	CI's contribute to altruistic/selfless behaviour	−3	−4	−3	−3
33	33 CI's strengthen democracy	1	−2	−4	4
34	CI's ensure protest about what is wrong.	−1	−2	1	−4
35	CI's contribute to the development of (public) opinions among its participants.	−1	−2	−2	0
36	CI's lead to a change of how governments work.	2	0	−2	0

Appendix 4: Differences in most disagreed statements across factors

Statement: Citizens’ initiatives…	Type	Idealistic immaterialists	Pragmatic partners	Personal Purpose	Democratic developers	Difference beween agreement & disagreement
strengthen democracy	P	0,37		−1.89		2,26
			−1,10		1,31	2,33
				−1,89	1,31	3,2
are valuable in themselves	P	2,4	−0,54			2.93
		2,4			−0,58	2,9
contribute to meaning making for participants	I		−0,6	2,14		2,73
		−0,5		2,14		2,64
contribute to the ability to work together*	P	0,05	2,36			2,32
create societal value for the entire society	I		−1,59		1,06	2,64
ensure protest about what is wrong	P			0,84	−2,21	3,05

*Even though there is quite a difference in scores, they are still both positive.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the submitted manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Steven Blok

Notes

Author Biography

S. N. Blok is a PhD candidate at the Department Public Administration & Sociology at Erasmus University Rotterdam. His research interests are the collective action problems, crowding effects and value perceptions of self-organizing collectives of citizens.

H. J. M. Fenger is Full professor Institutional Policy Analysis at the Department of Public Administration & Sociology at Erasmus University Rotterdam. His research focusses on analyzing and explaining changes in the policies, governance, administration, and implementations of European welfare states

M. W. van Buuren is Full Professor of Public Administration at Erasmus University Rotterdam and Director of the Department of Public Administration & Sociology. His research interests are on issues of (co-)design for policy and governance, invitational governance and self-organization, collaborative governance and co-creation, policy innovation and institutional change.

References

Alford

Hughes

(2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008314203

Alford

O’Flynn

(2009). Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent meanings. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 32(3-4), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732731

Bailey

(2012). The role, organisation and contribution of community enterprise to urban regeneration policy in the UK. Progress in Planning, 77(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2011.11.001

Bakker

Denters

Oude Vrielink

Klok

P. J.

(2012). Citizens’ initiatives: How local governments fill their facilitative role. Local Government Studies, 38(4), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2012.698240

Banasick

(2019). KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(36), 1360. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360

Baum

H. S.

(2001). How should we evaluate community initiatives? Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976225

Benington

(2009). Creating the public in order to create public value? Intl Journal of Public Administration, 32(3-4), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902749578

Blok

S. N.

Fenger

H. J. M.

van Buuren

M. W.

(2022). Stimulating civic behavior? The paradoxes of incentivising self-organization. Local Government Studies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2022.2087061

Blok

S. N.

van Buuren

M. W.

Fenger

H. J. M.

(2020). Exclusivity of citizens’ initiatives: Fuel for collective action? Journal of Civil Society, 16(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2020.1794168

10.

Bohman

(2000). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. MIT press.

11.

Boonstra

Boelens

(2011). Self-organization in urban development: Towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Research & Practice, 4(2), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2011.579767

12.

Bozeman

(2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00165

13.

Bozeman

(2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press.

14.

Brandsen

Trommel

Verschuere

(2017). The state and the reconstruction of civil society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(4), 676–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315592467

15.

Brown

S. R.

. (1980). Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methdology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

16.

Brown

S. R.

(1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91–138. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.93.100504

17.

Bryant

C. G.

(1993). Social self-organisation, civility and sociology: A comment on Kumar's’ Civil Society’. British Journal of Sociology, 44(3), 397–401. https://doi.org/10.2307/591809

18.

Bryson

J. M.

Quick

K. S.

Slotterback

C. S.

Crosby

B. C.

(2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x

19.

Castells

(2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The aNNalS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311877

20.

De Haan

Meier

Haartsen

Strijker

(2018). Defining ‘Success’ of local citizens’ initiatives in maintaining public services in rural areas: A professional's perspective. Sociologia Ruralis, 58(2), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12173

21.

Den Ouden

Boogaard

Driessen

E. M. M. A.

(2019). Right to Challenge. Een studie naar de mogelijkheden voor aan algemene regeling voor het ‘Right to Challenge’ en andere burgerinitiatieven in Nederland [Right to Challenge. A study into the possibilities for a general arrangement for the ‘Right to Challenge’ and other citizens’ initiatives in the Netherlands].

22.

Denters

S. A. H.

Tonkens

E. H.

Verhoeven

Bakker

J. H. M.

(2013). Burgers maken hun buurt [Citizens make their neighbourhood]. Platform31.

23.

Diamond

(1994). Rethinking civil society: Toward democratic consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1994.0041

24.

Duijn

Popering-Verkerk

(2018). Integrated public value creation through community initiatives—evidence from Dutch water management. Social Sciences, 7(12), 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7120261

25.

Edelenbos

van Meerkerk

Schenk

(2018). The evolution of community self-organization in interaction with government institutions: Cross-case insights from three countries. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016651142

26.

Edwards

(2009). Civil Society. Polity.

27.

Eriksson

(2012). Self-service society: Participative politics and new forms of governance. Public Administration, 90(3), 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01996.x

28.

Fiorina

M. P.

(1999). Extreme voices: A dark side of civic engagement. In Skocpol

Fiorina

M. P.

(Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 395–425). Brookings Institution Press.

29.

Foley

M. W.

Edwards

(1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1996.0048

30.

Fukuyama

M. F.

(2000). Social capital and civil society. International Monetary Fund.

31.

Hartley

(2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00447.x

32.

Hartley

Alford

Knies

Douglas

(2017). Towards an empirical research agenda for public value theory. Public Management Review, 19(5), 670–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192166

33.

Healey

(2015). Citizen-generated local development initiative: Recent English experience. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 19(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2014.989892

34.

Henriksen

L. S.

Strømsnes

Svedberg

(2018). Civic engagement in Scandinavia. Volunteering, informal help and giving in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Springer.

35.

Hurenkamp

Tonkens

(2011). De onbeholpen samenleving: burgerschap aan het begin van de 21e eeuw [The inept society: citizenship at the Dawn of the 21st century]. Amsterdam University Press.

36.

Hurenkamp

Tonkens

Duyvendak

J. W.

(2006). Wat burgers bezielt: een onderzoek naar burgerinitiatieven [What inspires citizens: a study of citizens’ initiatives]. Universiteit van Amsterdam/NICIS Kenniscentrum Grote steden.

37.

Igalla

Edelenbos

van Meerkerk

(2019). Citizens in action, what do they accomplish? A systematic literature review of citizen initiatives, their main characteristics, outcomes, and factors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(5), 1176–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00129-0

38.

Jørgensen

T. B.

Bozeman

(2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707300703

39.

Keane

Merkel

(2019). Civil society. In Merkel

Kollmorgen

Wagener

H. J.

(Eds.), The handbook of political, social, and economic transformation (pp. 390–398). Oxford University Press.

40.

Kleistra

(2019). Over Rousseau, goede burgers en de participatiesamenleving [About Rousseau, good citizens and the participation society]. Beleid en Maatschappij, 4(46), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.5553/BenM/138900692019046004002

41.

MacIntyre

(2011). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Bloomsbury.

42.

Mattijssen

T. J. M.

Buijs

A. E.

Elands

B. H. M.

Dam

R. I. v.

(2015). De betekenis van groene burgerinitiatieven; analyse van kenmerken en effecten van 264 initiatieven in Nederland [The significance of green citizens’ initiatives; analysis of characteristics and effects of 264 initiatives in the Netherlands]. Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu, Wageningen UR. WOt-rapport 127.

43.

McKeown

B. F.

Thomas

D. B.

(1988/2013). Q methodology (vol. 66). Sage Publications.

44.

Meynhardt

(2009). Public value inside: What is public value creation? Intl Journal of Public Administration, 32(3-4), 192–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732632

45.

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (2018). Kamerbrief plan van aanpak voor versterking lokale democratie en bestuur [Letter to parliament on an action plan for strengthening local democracy and governance]. Kamerstukken 2017/18 VII 34 775, nr. 69.

46.

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations [Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties] (2013). De Doe-Democratie. Kabinetsnota ter stimuleren van een vitale samenleving [The Do Democracy. Cabinet memorandum to stimulate a vital society]. Den Haag.

47.

Moore

M. H.

(1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.

48.

Movisie. (2011). Actief burgerschap. Een overzicht aan interventies [Active citizenship. An overview of interventions]. Movisie.

49.

Olson

(1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups .

50.

Ostrom

Gardner

Walker

(1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press.

51.

Overeem

Tholen

(2011). After managerialism: MacIntyre’s lessons for the study of public administration. Administration & Society, 43(7), 722–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711413728

52.

Prebble

(2018). Is “we” singular? The nature of public value. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016671427

53.

Putnam

R. D.

(2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

54.

Rhodes

R. A.

Wanna

(2007). The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00553.x

55.

Stephenson

(1953). The study of behavior; Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press.

56.

Stoker

(2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance? The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583

57.

Streeck

Schmitter

P. C.

(1985). Community, market, state-and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. European Sociological Review, 1(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036381

58.

Tonkens

(2006). De bal bij de burger [The ball is in the citizen’s court]. Oratie, Vossiuspers Amsterdam.

59.

Uitermark

(2015). Longing for Wikitopia: The study and politics of self-organisation. Urban Studies, 52(13), 2301–2312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015577334

60.

van Dam

Duineveld

During

(2015). Delineating active citizenship: The subjectification of citizens’ initiatives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2014.918502

61.

van der Torre

Douglas

‘t Hart

(2019). Werken aan publieke waarde: Leren van en voor gemeenten [Working on public value: Learning from and for local governments]. Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17258.36806

62.

van de Wijdeven

(2012). Doe-democratie: Over actief burgerschap in stadswijken [Do democracy: About active citizenship in urban districts]. Eburon Uitgeverij BV.

63.

van Rooij

van Wessel

Aarts

(2019). Over zelfredzame burgers gesproken [Talking about self-reliant citizens]. Beleid en Maatschappij, 4(46), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.5553/BenM/138900692019046004003

64.

van Straalen

F. M.

Witte

Buitelaar

(2017). Self-organisation in oosterwold, almere: Challenges with public goods and externalities. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 108(4), 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12267

65.

Verhoeven

Tonkens

(2013). Talking active citizenship: Framing welfare state reform in England and The Netherlands. Social Policy and Society, 12(3), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746413000158

66.

Vollan

(2008). Socio-ecological explanations for crowding-out effects from economic field experiments in Southern Africa. Ecological Economics, 67(4), 560–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.015

67.

Walzer

(1991). The civil society argument. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 94(1), 1–11.

68.

Watts

Stenner

(2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa