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

• Published date: 01 October 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231175162
• Author: Steven Blok,M. W. van Buuren,H. J. M. Fenger
• Date: 01 October 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

The Public Value of Citizens’Initiatives:

Evidence from a Dutch Municipality

Steven Blok

1

, M. W. van Buuren

1

, and H. J. M. Fenger

1

Abstract

Active citizens who take initiative are generally regarded as desirable. However, the precise reasons whycitizens ’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 pro-

cess-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 subse-

quent 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 pro-

cesses (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 organiza-

tions 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 citizen-

ship is approached by governments to provide a solution to

different kinds of societal puzzles. These range from provid-

ing 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).

1

Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University

Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Steven Blok, Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus

University Rotterdam, Postbus 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Email: blok@essb.eur.nl

Article

American Review of Public Administration

2023, Vol. 53(7-8) 263–279

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/02750740231175162

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

The specif‌ic ideas about the public value that citizens’initia-

tives 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 problem-

atic. Governments may expect too much of citizens’initia-

tives, even demanding too much of them, resulting in

disappointment by both initiators and governments. Or gov-

ernments 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 differ-

ence 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 percep-

tion 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 pro-

viding three lenses that provide a perspective on why citi-

zens’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 pri-

marily known through Moore’s book Creating Public Value

(1995). But public value is a complicated concept for at least

two reasons. The f‌irstreasonisthatMoore’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 used

1

, is a pro-

found 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’initia-

tives valuable. The premise on which the public value dis-

course 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 citi-

zens’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 ser-

vices 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 them-

selves). 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 over-

come 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’

264 American Review of Public Administration 53(7-8)