Suchergebnisse

Few studies of co-production in the form of co-governance focus on early involvement of citizens in the input stage of a policy process. What kinds of challenges and potentials does this form of co-production bring about when citizens, local councilors and public administrators collaborate to develop public policies? The empirical foundation for the article is a study of a Danish municipality, Albertslund, where six local councilors, six citizens and three public administrators participated in a formal committee with the purpose of developing a new municipal policy for citizen participation. The study concludes that citizens improve their democratic capabilities and trust in the political establishment in the municipality by participating in the committee. However, a condition for realizing the potentials is a willingness to collaborate in new and more interactive ways.

Få studier af samproduktion har fokus på borgernes tidlige inddragelse i inputfasen af et policyforløb. Men hvilke udfordringer og potentialer er der, når borgere, politikere og forvaltere samarbejder om nye måder at udvikle offentlig politik på? Artiklen tager afsæt i et studie af en samproduktionsproces med fokus på at udvikle en ny politik for borgerinddragelse i Albertslund kommune. Her deltog seks borgere, seks politikere inklusiv borgmesteren i et § 17, stk. 4-udvalg, understøttet af tre kommunalt ansatte, herunder kommunaldirektøren. Studiet viser, at processen i udvalget rummer store potentialer, idet at borgerne bliver styrket i deres demokratiske handlekraft og tillid til kommunen. Omvendt er udfordringen, at udbyttet af processen bliver en kort politik, der kritiseres for at være for overordnet og uden konkrete handlinger. Skal potentialerne ved borgernes tidlige inddragelse i samproduktion indfris, kræver det, at man er villig til at arbejde på nye måder.

Few studies of co-production in the form of co-governance focus on early involvement of citizens in the input stage of a policy process. What kinds of challenges and potentials does this form of co-production bring about when citizens, local councilors and public administrators collaborate to develop public policies? The empirical foundation for the article is a study of a Danish municipality, Albertslund, where six local councilors, six citizens and three public administrators participated in a formal committee with the purpose of developing a new municipal policy for citizen participation. The study concludes that citizens improve their democratic capabilities and trust in the political establishment in the municipality by participating in the committee. However, a condition for realizing the potentials is a willingness to collaborate in new and more interactive ways.

This article presents the variety of different active citizens and participants involved in a collaborative and participatory planning process within an urban regeneration project in Denmark. In much of the literature on planning and citizen participation citizens are often regarded as a homogenous group. This article argues that there are no `ordinary´ citizens, and claims that citizens are very different and participate in various ways. A criticism raised in relation to participatory processes is that these often tend to favour certain modes of communication based on an implicit ideal of the citizen as being resourceful, mastering political skills and know-how and time. However, many citizens do not `fit´ this stereotype, and thus there is a risk that many citizens are biased by the way the institutional settings for participation are designed. A characterization of active citizens in participatory processes could be useful for practitioners in order to be aware that their choices of techniques and involvement are part of shaping the nature of the participatory process and their overall inclusiveness and representativeness.

This article presents a theoretical and empirical contribution to the discussions of more inclusive and participatory modes of governing that are taking place in many western countries. It develops a critical evaluation framework for assessing the qualities and outcomes of citizens participating in collaborative planning processes. This is done by introducing the concepts of institutional capacity and empowerment that derives from different fields of literature, but that covers different perspectives when assessing citizen participation. Some of the central questions raised in the article are: What happens when citizens participate together? Does it produce consensus or conflicts? What are the outcome for the individual citizens and for the local community? What are the democratic effects? The empirical foundation for the article is a doctoral study of 49 citizens participating in a collaborative planning process in a urban environment in Denmark that focus on improving deprived urban neighbourhoods by mobilising networks.

There has been an upsurge in more participatory, interactive and citizen-oriented governance practices all around the world since the 1990s. What they all have in common is an emphasis on mobilising citizens and stakeholders affected, strengthening local communities, ensuring efficient planning solutions, and securing enhanced legitimacy for existing governing institutions. Conversely, we have witnessed a growing interest in designing frameworks for evaluating the democratic quality of these innovations, asking questions such as the extent to which they actually are enhancing the quality of democracy? This article juxtaposes seven recent evaluative frameworks developed by academics, which address the question of the democratic quality of these new democratic innovations. The article concludes that there are many overlaps between the different frameworks in terms of criteria with a mix of traditional and more participatory democratic norms at play. Furthermore, it also concludes these evaluative practices in many ways reflect the managerial search for accountability mechanisms in the public sector.

There has been an upsurge in more participatory, interactive and citizen-oriented governance practices all around the world since the 1990s. What they all have in common is an emphasis on mobilising citizens and stakeholders affected, strengthening local communities, ensuring efficient planning solutions, and securing enhanced legitimacy for existing governing institutions. Conversely, we have witnessed a growing interest in designing frameworks for evaluating the democratic quality of these innovations, asking questions such as the extent to which they actually are enhancing the quality of democracy? This article juxtaposes seven recent evaluative frameworks developed by academics, which address the question of the democratic quality of these new democratic innovations. The article concludes that there are many overlaps between the different frameworks in terms of criteria with a mix of traditional and more participatory democratic norms at play. Furthermore, it also concludes these evaluative practices in many ways reflect the managerial search for accountability mechanisms in the public sector ; There has been an upsurge in more participatory, interactive and citizen-oriented governance practices all around the world since the 1990s. What they all have in common is an emphasis on mobilising citizens and stakeholders affected, strengthening local communities, ensuring efficient planning solutions, and securing enhanced legitimacy for existing governing institutions. Conversely, we have witnessed a growing interest in designing frameworks for evaluating the democratic quality of these innovations, asking questions such as the extent to which they actually are enhancing the quality of democracy? This article juxtaposes seven recent evaluative frameworks developed by academics, which address the question of the democratic quality of these new democratic innovations. The article concludes that there are many overlaps between the different frameworks in terms of criteria with a mix of traditional and more participatory democratic norms at play. Furthermore, it also concludes these evaluative practices in many ways reflect the managerial search for accountability mechanisms in the public sector.

There has been an upsurge in more participatory, interactive and citizen-oriented governance practices all around the world since the 1990s. What they all have in common is an emphasis on mobilising citizens and stakeholders affected, strengthening local communities, ensuring efficient planning solutions, and securing enhanced legitimacy for existing governing institutions. Conversely, we have witnessed a growing interest in designing frameworks for evaluating the democratic quality of these innovations, asking questions such as the extent to which they actually are enhancing the quality of democracy? This article juxtaposes seven recent evaluative frameworks developed by academics, which address the question of the democratic quality of these new democratic innovations. The article concludes that there are many overlaps between the different frameworks in terms of criteria with a mix of traditional and more participatory democratic norms at play. Furthermore, it also concludes these evaluative practices in many ways reflect the managerial search for accountability mechanisms in the public sector.

Street-level bureaucrats (SLB) play a crucial role in ensuring better policy implementa- tion and generating trust between the system and citizens, according to the literature. In this article, we argue that Lipsky's distinction between public managers and SLB needs an update. Today, public managers are increasingly expected to work closely and directly with affected stakeholders in order to solve cross-cutting 'wicked problems'. Interactive and participative collaborative policy processes require public managers to move from back-office work to front-office work, in effect converting public managers into SLB. The key question raised is, thus: what kind of skills and capabilities do SLB need to engage in today's more interactive forms of public policy-making? And what are the implications for how universities educate these groups?' Drawing on a study of 32 urban professionals who work on the frontline in deprived neighbourhoods, we scrutinise the challenges and dilemmas that professionals face in their work with interactive processes. By distinguishing between 'academic specialists' and 'academic generalists', we are able to pinpoint and differentiate between skills needed for each of these groups in order to secure transparent processes that abide by the rule of law and support well-functioning local communities and, more broadly, the skills needed to secure democracy and econom- ic efficiency.

Nyere implementeringsforskning viser, at samspillet mellem frontmedarbejdere og målgruppen har stor betydning for, i hvilken grad en politik bliver implementeret. Derfor har frontforvalternes evne til både at sikre faglige hensyn såvel som at facilitere involverende processer stor betydning, når der skal samarbejdes med borgerne. På trods af den stigende interesse for samskabelse og interaktive processer fokuserer relativt få studier på, hvad der sker i praksis, når der skal opbygges tillid og medieres mellem konfliktende interesser. I denne artikel ser vi nærmere på, hvordan frontforvalterne oplever og håndterer konflikter i processer med samskabelse. Teoretisk trækker vi på teorier om forvalterroller og konflikt, og empirisk bygger artiklen på et studie af 16 frontmedarbejdere i byfornyelsesindsatser i Malmø og København, der er kendetegnet ved aktiv borgerinvolvering.

According to recent studies in implementation research, the quality of the interplay between front-line staff and target groups, affects the degree to which policy is implemented. Therefore, the ability of front-line workers to balance between ensuring professional knowledge and at the same time facilitate inclusive processes is of great importance in co-production processes with citizens. Despite the growing interest in co-production and interactive processes, there are relatively few studies that focus on what happens in practice when front-line staff aims to build trust and coordinate action between conflicting interests. In this article, we investigate how front-line workers experience and handle conflicts through their work in co-production processes. Theoretically, we employ theories of street-level bureaucracy and conflict resolution. Empirically, we draw on a study of 16 front-line managers in urban renewal efforts in Malmö and Copenhagen, characterized by active involvement of citizens.

Street-level bureaucrats (SLB) are, according to the literature, assigned a crucial role providing better policy implementation and generating trust between the system and the citizens. In this article, we argue that Lipsky's division between public managers and SLB needs an update. Today more public managers are expected to work closely and directly with affected stakeholders in order to solve cross-cutting 'wicked problems'. More interactive and participative collaborative policy processes increasingly require public managers to move from back-office work to front-office work, in effect converting public managers to SLB. The key question raised is thus: What kind of skills and capabilities of SLB are needed in more interactive forms of public policy making? And what are the consequences for how the universities educate these groups?' Drawing on a study of 32 urban professionals that work in the frontline in deprived neighbourhoods, we scrutinize what challenges and dilemmas the professionals face in their work with interactive processes. By differing between 'academic specialists' and 'academic generalists' we are capable to pinpoint more precisely which skills are needed for each of these groups in order to secure transparent processes that keep the rule of law and that support well-functioning local communities – or in more broad terms: skills needed to secure democracy and economic efficiency. ; Street-level bureaucrats (SLB) play a crucial role in ensuring better policy implementa- tion and generating trust between the system and citizens, according to the literature. In this article, we argue that Lipsky's distinction between public managers and SLB needs an update. Today, public managers are increasingly expected to work closely and directly with affected stakeholders in order to solve cross-cutting 'wicked problems'. Interactive and participative collaborative policy processes require public managers to move from back-office work to front-office work, in effect converting public managers into SLB. The key question raised is, thus: what kind of skills and capabilities do SLB need to engage in today's more interactive forms of public policy-making? And what are the implications for how universities educate these groups?' Drawing on a study of 32 urban professionals who work on the frontline in deprived neighbourhoods, we scrutinise the challenges and dilemmas that professionals face in their work with interactive processes. By distinguishing between 'academic specialists' and 'academic generalists', we are able to pinpoint and differentiate between skills needed for each of these groups in order to secure transparent processes that abide by the rule of law and support well-functioning local communities and, more broadly, the skills needed to secure democracy and econom- ic efficiency.

Street-level bureaucrats (SLB) play a crucial role in ensuring better policy implementa- tion and generating trust between the system and citizens, according to the literature. In this article, we argue that Lipsky's distinction between public managers and SLB needs an update. Today, public managers are increasingly expected to work closely and directly with affected stakeholders in order to solve cross-cutting 'wicked problems'. Interactive and participative collaborative policy processes require public managers to move from back-office work to front-office work, in effect converting public managers into SLB. The key question raised is, thus: what kind of skills and capabilities do SLB need to engage in today's more interactive forms of public policy-making? And what are the implications for how universities educate these groups?' Drawing on a study of 32 urban professionals who work on the frontline in deprived neighbourhoods, we scrutinise the challenges and dilemmas that professionals face in their work with interactive processes. By distinguishing between 'academic specialists' and 'academic generalists', we are able to pinpoint and differentiate between skills needed for each of these groups in order to secure transparent processes that abide by the rule of law and support well-functioning local communities and, more broadly, the skills needed to secure democracy and econom- ic efficiency.

Collaborative innovation networks are increasingly used as vehicles for fostering innovative policy solutions. However, scholars have noted that the extent to which collaborative networks can actually contribute to the development of innovative policy solutions depends on how they are managed. Empirical research on the management of collaborative policy innovation processes is, however, scarce. Therefore, we review in this article a case to add new insights to the causal link between collaboration, management, and innovation. Specifically, we examine the management strategies which helped a Flemish administrative network to develop a radical new Spatial Planning Policy Plan. This study shows that the best way to manage collaborative innovation networks is not to press directly for results, but take the time to invest in relationship-building and together agree on a planning and clear process steps. Such a management approach allows actors to get to know each other and from thereon expand, with more background and appreciation for the others' goals, behaviors, and intentions, their group activities concerning the formulation of a radical and innovative policy plan.