Governments increasingly experiment with participation in policy-making, in an attempt to create more responsiveness and trust among citizens. Despite the abundance of literature on participatory policy-making, the attitude towards this of the organisations implementing public policy has seldom been studied. This article addresses public service organisations (PSOs) operating in a mixed-form market, and studies their attitude towards different participatory policy-making modes. We assume their attitude is dependent on their level of publicness, operationalised by legal status and integrative publicness. Our results show that, overall, PSOs prefer participation by sectoral organisations, and client participation in policy-making, compared to other policy-making modes. These results can partly be explained by PSOs’ publicness. We conclude that the often-cited advantages of citizen participation in policy-making are not (yet) appreciated by all PSOs: for PSOs as the implementers of policies the perspective of clients in policy making is most important.
AndrewsRBoyneGAWalkerRM (2011) Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: a review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(suppl_3): i301–i319.
2.
BaiocchiG.GanuzaE. (2017) Popular democracy: The paradox of participation. Stanford University Press.
3.
BattilanaJDoradoS (2010) Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal53(6): 1419–1440.
4.
BellTRogalewskiA (2022) Who pays the price for the commodification of care?Brussels Times, 11 March 2022.
5.
BloodgoodEATremblay-BoireJPrakashA (2014) National styles of NGO regulation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly43(4): 716–736.
6.
BodeI (2006a) Co-governance within networks and the non-profit–for-profit divide: a cross-cultural perspective on the evolution of domiciliary elderly care. Public Management Review8(4): 551–566.
7.
BodeI (2006b) Disorganized welfare mixes: voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy16(4): 346–359.
8.
BodeIBrandsenT (2014) State–third sector partnerships: a short overview of key issues in the debate. Public Management Review16(8): 1055–1066.
9.
BovairdT (2007) Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review67(5): 846–860.
10.
BozemanBBretschneiderS (1994) The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: a test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory4(2): 197–224.
11.
BozemanBMoultonS (2011) Integrative publicness: a framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(suppl_3): i363–i380.
12.
BrandsenTVan de DonkWPuttersK (2005) Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. Intl Journal of Public Administration28(9-10): 749–765.
13.
BrownMB (2006) Survey article: citizen panels and the concept of representation. The Journal of Political Philosophy14(2): 203–225.
14.
BrowneWP (1990) Organized interests and their issue niches: a search for pluralism in a policy domain. The Journal of Politics52(2): 477–509.
15.
BurnsTRCarsonM (2002) European Union, neo-corporatist, and pluralist governance arrangements: lobbying and policy-making patterns in a comparative perspective. International Journal of Regulation and Governance2(2): 129–175.
16.
CallahanK (2007) Citizen participation: models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration30(11): 1179–1196.
17.
CaluwaertsDReuchampsM (2015) Strengthening democracy through bottom-up deliberation: an assessment of the internal legitimacy of the G1000 project. Acta Politica50: 151–170.
18.
CarréB.SuykensB.VerschuereB. (2021) Balancing legitimacy in a context of nonprofit-business hybridity: The case of the Flemish wellbeing and social economy sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations32(5): 944–963.
19.
ChletsosMSaitiA (2019) For-profit versus not-for-profit hospitals and public hospitals. In: Strategic Management and Economics in Health Care. Springer, pp. 129–149.
20.
ChoiDLeeKeon-HHurH (2021) Examining the impact of control and ownership on social enterprises’ public value creation using integrative publicness theory. Public Management Review23(5): 710–730.
ConsidineM (2003) Governance and competition: the role of non-profit organisations in the delivery of public services. Australian Journal of Political Science38(1): 63–77.
23.
DaltonRJ (1996) Democracy and its citizens: patterns of political change.
24.
DavisJAMarinoLDAaronJR, et al. (2011) An examination of entrepreneurial orientation, environmental scanning, and market strategies of nonprofit and for-profit nursing home administrators. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly40(1): 197–211.
25.
De CorteJ.ArysL.RooseR. (2021) Making the iceberg visible again: Service delivering experiences as a lever for NPOs’ advocacy under a third-party government regime. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations1–10.
26.
DenhardtJVDenhardtRB (2007) The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Expanded edition. ME Sharpe.
27.
DiefenbachT (2009) New public management in public sector organizations: the dark sides of managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Administration87(4): 892–909.
28.
EikenberryA. M.KluverJ. D. (2004) The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?Public administration review64(2): 132–140.
29.
ElstubSEscobarO (2019a) Defining and typologising democratic innovations. In: Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 11–31.
30.
ElstubSEscobarO (2019c) Introduction: the field of democratic innovation. In: ElstubSEscobarO (eds) Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
31.
EnticottGBoyneGAWalkerRM (2009) The use of multiple informants in public administration research: data aggregation using organizational echelons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19(2): 229–253.
32.
FelteniusD.WideJ. (2019) Business as usual? Civil society organizations in a marketized Swedish welfare state. Journal of Civil Society15(3): 230–248.
33.
FledderusJBrandsenTHoninghME (2015) User co-production of public service delivery: an uncertainty approach. Public Policy and Administration30(2): 145–164.
34.
FraussenBBeyersJ (2016) Who’s in and who’s out?: explaining access to policymakers in Belgium. Acta Politica51(2): 214–236.
35.
FredrikssonMTritterJQ (2017) Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters. Sociology of Health & Illness39(1): 95–111.
36.
FungA (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review66: 66–75.
37.
FungA (2015) Putting the public back into governance: the challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review75: 513.
GanuzaENezHMoralesE (2014) The struggle for a voice: tensions between associations and citizens in participatory budgeting. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(6): 2274–2291.
41.
GeorgeBPandeySK (2017) We know the Yin—but where is the Yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship. Review of Public Personnel Administration37(2): 245–270.
42.
GoldbergSBächtigerA (2023) Catching the ‘deliberative wave’? How (disaffected) citizens assess deliberative citizen forums. British Journal of Political Science53(1): 239–247.
43.
HäikiöL (2010) The diversity of citizenship and democracy in local public management reform. Public Management Review12(3): 363–384.
44.
HelmSTAnderssonFO (2010) Beyond taxonomy: an empirical validation of social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management and Leadership20(3): 259–276.
45.
HendriksC. (2002) Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: roles, tensions and incentives. Australian Journal of Public Administration61(1): 64–75.
46.
HendriksCM (2006) When the forum meets interest politics: strategic uses of public deliberation. Politics & Society34(4): 571–602.
47.
HendriksC (2019) Advocates: interest groups, civil society organisations and democratic innovation. In: ElstubSEscobarO (eds) Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
48.
HendriksF (2021) Key values for democratic governance innovation: two traditions and a synthesis. Public Administration100(4): 803–820.
49.
HendriksFWagenaarC (2023) The deliberative referendum: an idea whose time has come?Administration & Society55(3): 569–590.
50.
HodgeS (2005) Participation, discourse and power: a case study in service user involvement. Critical Social Policy25(2): 164–179.
51.
HustinxLVerschuereBDe CorteJ (2014) Organisational hybridity in a post-corporatist welfare mix: the case of the third sector in Belgium. Journal of Social Policy43(2): 391–411.
52.
HwangHPowellWW (2009) The rationalization of charity: the influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly54(2): 268–298.
53.
JungT (2010) Citizens, co-producers, customers, clients, captives? A critical review of consumerism and public services. Public Management Review12(3): 439–446.
54.
JuniusNMatthieuJCaluwaertsD (2020) Is it interests, ideas or institutions? Explaining elected representatives' positions toward democratic innovations in 15 European countries. Frontiers in Political Science9: 584439.
55.
KnutsenW. L. (2013) Value as a self-sustaining mechanism: Why some nonprofit organizations are different from and similar to private and public organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly42(5): 985–1005.
56.
KrickE (2022) Citizen experts in participatory governance: democratic and epistemic assets of service user involvement, local knowledge and citizen science. Current Sociology70(7): 994–1012.
57.
LarsonRB (2019) Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research61(5): 534–547.
58.
LeeJKimS (2018) Citizens’ e-participation on agenda setting in local governance: do individual social capital and e-participation management matter?Public Management Review20(6): 873–895.
59.
MaierFMeyerMSteinbereithnerM (2016) Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: a systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly45(1): 64–86.
60.
MazzeiMTeasdaleSCalòF, et al. (2020) Co-production and the third sector: conceptualising different approaches to service user involvement. Public Management Review22(9): 1265–1283.
61.
MigchelbrinkKVan de WalleS (2022a) Serving multiple masters? Public managers’ role perceptions in participatory budgeting. Administration & Society54(3): 339–365.
62.
MigchelbrinkKVan de WalleS (2022b) A systematic review of the literature on determinants of public managers' attitudes toward public participation. Local Government Studies48(1): 1–22.
63.
MooreMH (2000) Managing for value: organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly29(1_suppl): 183–204.
64.
MosleyJE (2011) Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: what tactical choices reveal about the policy advocacy of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly40(3): 435–457.
65.
MoultonS (2009) Putting together the publicness puzzle: a framework for realized publicness. Public Administration Review69(5): 889–900.
66.
OsborneSP (2018) From Public Service-Dominant Logic to Public Service Logic: Are Public Service Organizations Capable of Co-Production and Value Co-Creation?Taylor & Francis.
67.
OsborneSPRadnorZNasiG (2012) A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration43(2): 135–158.
68.
ParkinsonJ (2004) Why deliberate? The encounter between deliberation and new public managers. Public Administration82(2): 377–395.
69.
ParradoSReynaersA-MRamaJ (2022) The impact of publicness on the performance of professional services: do private sector organizations perform better?Public Policy and Administration37(4): 431–456.
70.
PatemanC (2012) Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics10(1): 7–19.
71.
PerryJLRaineyHG (1988) The public-private distinction in organization theory: a critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review13(2): 182–201.
72.
PestoffV (2018) Co-production at the crossroads of public administration regimes. In: BrandsenTSteenTVerschuereB (eds) Co-production and co-creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge.
73.
RaineyHGBackoffRWLevineCH (1976) Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review36(2): 233–244.
74.
“Residential elderly care decree 15 February 2019” (2019) Flemish Government.
75.
SalamonL. M. (1995) Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. JHU Press.
76.
SalamonL. M.ToeplerS. (2015) Government–nonprofit cooperation: Anomaly or necessity?VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations26(6): 2155–2177.
77.
SawardM (2006) The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory5: 297–318.
78.
SinghSDarwishTKPotočnikK (2016) Measuring organizational performance: a case for subjective measures. British Journal of Management27(1): 214–224.
79.
SmithG (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press.
80.
SuykensBDe RynckFVerschuereB (2019) Nonprofit organizations in between the nonprofit and market spheres: shifting goals, governance and management?Nonprofit Management and Leadership29(4): 623–636.
81.
SuykensB.HvenmarkJ.HungC.VerschuereB. (2025) Looking Under the Hood Challenges and Remedies for Cross‐Country Surveying of Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership.
82.
SuykensBMeyfroodtKDesmidtS (2022) Does performance-based accountability impact how non-profit directors perceive organizational performance? Insights from rational planning. Public Management Review24(9): 1355–1382.
83.
Van den BoschKWilleméP (2014) De maatschappelijke betekenis van de gezondheidszorg. Federaal Planbureau.
84.
Van der HeijdenJ.Ten HeuvelhofE. (2012) The mechanics of virtue: lessons on public participation from implementing the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands. Environmental Policy and Governance22(3): 177–188.
85.
VerschuereB (2009) The role of public agencies in the policy making process: rhetoric versus reality. Public Policy and Administration24(1): 23–46.
86.
VerschuereBDe CorteJ (2014) The impact of public resource dependence on the autonomy of NPOs in their strategic decision making. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly43(2): 293–313.
87.
VerschuereBHermansK (2020) Welzijn in Vlaanderen: beleid, bestuurlijke organisatie en uitdagingen. die Keure.
88.
VerschuereBMorayNDecramerA (2012) Commercial, non‐profit and governmental residential elderly care in Flanders: differences in client selection and efficiency?International Journal of Social Welfare21(4): 384–392.
89.
WarrenME (2001) Democracy and Association. Princeton University Press.
90.
WillemsJFaulkLBoenigkS (2021) Reputation shocks and recovery in public-serving organizations: the moderating effect of mission valence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31(2): 311–327.
91.
YangKCallahanK (2007) Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review67(2): 249–264.
92.
YoungDR (2000) Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly29(1): 149–172.
93.
Zorg en Welzijn Repertorium WZCs (2022) edited by Flemish Government.
