INNOVATIVE
TENURES
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON THE
POTENTIAL OF ZELFBEHEER AS A TOOL
FOR TENANT
EMPOWERMENT
MYRTHE BAAIJ 10212299
|
MASTER’S THESIS URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
|
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
|
AUTHOR
MYRTHE BAAIJ
10212299
myrthe.baaij@student.uva.nl
SUPERVISOR and FIRST READER
OANA DRUTA MSc
o.druta@uva.nl
Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen
SECOND READER
Dhr. Dr. CHRISTIAN LENNARTZ
c.lennartz@uva.nl
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
|
I would like to sincerely thank everyone that contributed to my thesis. First and foremost, I extent gratitude to my supervisor Oana Druta. Thank you for your feedback even in times when technology got the best of us. The skype sessions, e-mails and conversations helped me tremendously and gave me the confidence I needed to continue and finalise the thesis. I would also like to thank the participants of Pek-o-Bello and the professionals of the housing association and local government for sharing their experiences and stories with me. Last but not least I would like to thank my friends and family who helped me to get back on track and were always willing to help. Thanks for taking me to places in order for me to take my mind off things. Experience told me that Damien Rice is the best cure against stress.
ABSTRACT
|
The economic crisis of 2009 has caused cuts on public spending and increased the urge for civic participation. Against this background, this study focuses on new innovative tenures that resulted because of policy changes influenced by financial austerity. One innovative tenure tool that experienced increased attention is zelfbeheer. This exploratory study aims at the understanding of the benefits and risks of this particular tool for empowerment. For the purpose of this study, empowerment is defined as a process by which people gain increased control over their own lives by acting on topics that they perceive as important. Furthermore, empowerment focuses on the freedom to choose whether to own or not to own and to control or not to control (Sommerville, 1998).
It argued that in terms of self-esteem, perceived control, sense of community and residential satisfaction, zelfbeheer showed limited effects. Compared to other innovative tenures such as the Client’s Choice Programme (CCP) (Kleinhans & Elsinga, 2010) and homeownership promotion programmes, zelfbeheer proved to have no significant effect on empowerment. Flaws within the internal structure of the project and the cooperation of actors caused risks for the development of empowerment. This study identifies three internal risks that relate to: 1) poor organisational structure, 2) lack of skills and 3) lack of financial incentives. From an external perspective the risks regarding empowerment development relate to: 1) absence of mutual interest, 2) recentralisation, 3) complex policy spheres and 4) contradicting policy goals. The study concludes with a discussion on the limits of participation and recommendations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | ... 3
ABSTRACT | ... 4
CHAPTER 1 | RETHINKING PARTICIPATION ... 7
1.1 Problem statement ... 7
1.2 Research questions ... 8
1.3 Relevance ... 11
1.4 Thesis outline ... 11
CHAPTER 2 | INNOVATIVE TENURES AND EMPOWERMENT ... 12
2.1 Introduction ... 12
2.2 Empowerment as a theoretical concept ... 12
2.3 Housing-related empowerment ... 13
2.4 Homeownership promotion programmes ... 15
2.5 Zelfbeheer as a tool for empowerment ... 17
2.6 Potential risks ... 18 2.7 Summary ... 20 CHAPTER 3 | METHODOLOGY ... 21 3.1 Introduction ... 21 3.2 Strategy ... 21 3.3 Units of analysis ... 22
3.4 Design and case selection ... 22
3.5 Methods, operationalization, and coding ... 23
3.5.1. Document analysis ... 23
3.5.2. Observations ... 23
3.5.3. Sampling ... 23
3.5.4. Interview design ... 24
3.5.5. Data analysis and coding ... 25
3.6 Limitations and ethics ... 25
3.6.1. Empirical data and sample size ... 25
3.6.2. Transparency of the project ... 26
3.6.3. Position of researcher ... 26
3.7 Ethics... 27
CHAPTER 4 | THE ROOTS OF PARTICIPATION AND ZELFBEHEER ... 28
CHAPTER 5 | THE POTENTIAL OF ZELFBEHEER ... 32
5.1 Introduction ... 32
5.2 Pek-o-Bello ... 32
5.2.2. Neighbourhood enterprise model ... 33
5.2.3. The five core services ... 34
5.2.4. Structure of the project ... 34
5.3 The empirical study ... 35
5.4 A meaningful project ... 35
5.4.1. Self-esteem ... 36
5.4.2. Perceived control ... 37
5.4.3. Sense of community and residential satisfaction... 38
5.5 Vulnerable position of Pek-o-Bello – internal perspective ... 39
5.5.1. Wobbly organisational structure ... 39
5.5.2. Lack of skills... 41
5.5.4. Lack of financial incentive ... 42
5.6 Vulnerable position of Pek-o-Bello – external perspective... 43
5.6.1. No mutual interests ... 43
5.6.2. Preset frames ... 44
5.6.3. Measuring success ... 45
5.6.4. Contractor versus client based relationship ... 47
5.7. Summary ... 48
CHAPTER 6 | LIMITS OF PARTICIPATION ... 50
6.1 Introduction ... 50
6.2 To commit or not to commit ... 50
6.4 New lights on participation practices ... 52
CHAPTER 7 | ZELFBEHEER : EMPOWERING OR NOT ... 53
7.1 Introduction ... 53
7.2 Main findings ... 53
7.2.1. Individual and social benefits of zelfbeheer ... 53
7.2.2. Internal risks and flaws ... 54
7.2.3. External risks and flaws ... 55
7.2.4. Empowering or not ... 56
7.3 Recommendations ... 56
REFERENCES | ... 58
APENDIX A | INTERVIEW GUIDE PARTICIPANTS ... 62
APENDIX B | INTERVIEW GUIDE HOUSING ASSOCIATON... 66
APENDIX C | INTERVIEW GUIDE LOCAL OFFICIALS ... 69
CHAPTER 1
|
RETHINKING PARTICIPATION
1.1 Problem statement
The political environment of the social housing sector in the Netherlands is rapidly changing. On the one hand, there is a shift in the attitude of housing associations towards their tenants. For instance, in 2000 the Dutch Housing Memorandum launched a policy document in which a new vision on the Dutch housing market was described. One particular element of this policy paper defines the new role of the housing associations and it entails sharing responsibilities with tenants (Priemus, 2001). In 2009, the vision of the MVROM was formulated in a new law: the Consultation Act (de Overlegwet). In sum, housing associations are encouraged to empower tenants and to share more responsibilities with them.
On the other hand, other policies influence the direct work field of the housing associations. The new Housing Act (2015) has forced housing associations to limit their work field and primarily focus on their core business. That means providing enough affordable dwellings for the lower income groups (the DAEB-activities) (AEDES, 2015). Furthermore, the ‘landlord levy’ (verhuurderheffing) has increased the costs for housing associations to build these dwellings, while at the same time they aren’t allowed to regain this investment from the tenants they build the houses for.
This two-fold policy development has made housing associations rethink their activities. Innovative ideas to continue their work in such a way that tenants gain more responsibilities are needed. At the same time, the housing associations have to reduce their costs. A method that fits this new role of housing associations is ‘zelfbeheer’. Although not entirely new, this concept has gained increased attention over the past few years as a tool to improve tenant empowerment. Zelfbeheer is a very broad concept, but in short it includes any way in which a tenant (group) takes control over their residential area (dwelling, public spaces, direct environment) and gets something in return. In most cases, this means a reduction of service costs (Corpovenista, 2015). This deployment of tenants can possibly lead to a cost reduction for landlords in the long run, hence the benefits are reciprocal (Corpovenista, 2015). For the purpose of this thesis it is important to keep in mind that any zelfbeheer project consists of some sort of formal or informal partnership agreement between the associates involved. Furthermore, within any zelfbeheer project, multiple actors are involved such as residents, housing associations and the government. The results of the zelfbeheer projects are uncertain. Examples are few, mainly because housing associations are reluctant to operate on this level due to the time consuming nature of such projects. Moreover, many studies have focused on the social effects of home ownership as a process for empowerment. It is argued that home ownership influenced the feeling of
self-esteem of the former tenants (Balfour & Smith, 1996; Rohe & Stegman 1994; Kleinhans & Elsinga, 2010), the feeling of perceived control (Gruis, Elsinga, Wolters & Primus, 2005; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988), sense of community and residential satisfaction (Perkins & Long, 2002; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). Furthermore, zelfbeheer as an innovative tenure has only been studied from a financial perspective until now (Gruis et al, 2005).
Thus, little is known about the possible social benefits and risks from a tenant’s perspective in zelfbeheer schemes. The aim of this study is to address this gap in literature firstly by providing an in depth analysis on the possible individual and social benefits, and risks of one zelfbeheer case: Pek-o-Bello in the North of Amsterdam.
1.2 Research questions
The central aim of this research is to develop knowledge about the possible effects, benefits and risks of zelfbeheer projects starting with the in depth analysis of the implementation of one zelfbeheer project: Pek-o-Bello. The central question of this thesis is:
“What are the individual and social benefits of ‘zelfbeheer’ as a tool for empowerment and what are its risks?
The focus of this thesis is defined by former studies in empowerment related projects, so concepts such as self-esteem, perceived control, sense of community and residential satisfaction and potential risks and pitfalls will be addressed in the following sub questions:
1. “How does zelfbeheer influence the feeling of self-esteem of the tenants involved?” The first sub question focuses on the concept of self-esteem. Within this context, self-esteem is defined as “an individual’s personal judgment of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes that the individual holds toward himself” (Rohe & Stegman, 1994). Previous research on empowerment schemes for home ownership has shown that achieving home ownership is considered an indicator for success in the perception of former tenants and thus leads to an increasing feel of self-esteem.
The first proposition of this thesis regards self-esteem, and entails that zelfbeheer as another tool for empowerment has the potential to result in an increase feel of self-esteem. Although, with zelfbeheer, tenants do not physically own anything but in a way they regain their neighbourhood as they take over the work of former public services. This can potentially be perceived as a success and an achievement in the eyes of the tenants and therefore contributes
to their feeling of self-esteem. Moreover, zelfbeheer projects involve, to some extent, communication with other actors such as the local officials or the housing association. Zelfbeheer could enable the tenants to take part in discussions they otherwise would not have been part of.
At the same time, zelfbeheer could lead to some risks regarding self-esteem. Depending on the scope of the project, zelfbeheer could lead to a lot of work for the tenants. As expected, most of the work is done voluntarily, which makes zelfbeheer a rather vulnerable process. Hence, if tenants experience an overload of work they might have to return some of their gained control in handing over work to the original institutions. This could lead to a decrease of self-esteem.
2. “How does zelfbeheer contribute to enabling tenants to gain control over their lives and living environment?”
Perceived control is studied within the second sub question as an individual’s belief that they are largely in command of important life events rather than being subject to fate or the will of others (Rohe & Stegman, 1994). Again, in former studies this is examined from home ownership policies and enabling practices. It is stated that being a homeowner does influence the feeling of perceived control, for instance because they no longer depend on the landlord’s actions. However in this thesis it is expected that zelfbeheer also has the potential to positively contribute to this concept as it offers the possibility of modifying one’s environment and in particular the neighbourhood, which is the second proposition of this study. Being able to take control over the public green space could influence the tenant’s feeling of authority in such a way that it enables them to stamp their own personality on the environment.
Nonetheless, the potential to control depends to some extent on the cooperation with other actors such as local officials and the housing association. A risk for the development of control exists if the other actors are not completely willing to hand over activities (Foley & Martin, 2007). In other words, zelfbeheer could lead to recentralisation (Taylor, 2007), meaning that the government actors still decide the grounds, rules and frameworks on which the tenants can act.
3. “How does zelfbeheer influence the sense of community?”
The central concept of this third sub question relates to the sense of community. The three main dimensions of sense of community studied in this research are ties and friendships, support and belonging (Obst, Smith & Zinkiewicz, 2002). Previous studies found that participation projects, particularly in grassroots communities, positively contributed to the sense of community. It is thus expected that zelfbeheer projects could lead to the same effect because of the similarity in processes. Zelfbeheer offers the opportunity for tenants to be actively involved in their community: the neighbourhood. Taking care of green spaces for example, makes the neighbours
physically visible and could therefore potentially lead to an increase in social network in the neighbourhood and thus a contribution to its ties and friendships. This is framed as the third proposition of the thesis. Making more contact with local residents could influence the tenant’s perception on the neighbourhood as they might feel more at home, hence influencing the sense of belonging. Furthermore, zelfbeheer often involves a close collaboration with fellow neighbours, problems should be solved together, possibly leading towards an increasing perception of support. However, this particular aspect also comes with some risks as it might be difficult to work together. This could result in some internal conflicts within the group of participants and consequently influence the empowerment process.
4. “How does zelfbeheer contribute to the residential satisfaction of the tenants involved?” The spatial and physical elements of the empowerment process are discussed under the rubric of residential satisfaction in the fourth sub question. According to Grillo, Teixeira and Wilson (2010), residential satisfaction refers to an individual’s contentment with their environment from a physical perspective and their level of connectedness to their communities. However, for the purpose of this thesis, residential satisfaction will solely focus on the first dimension as the latter refers to sense of community. Again, it is proposed that zelfbeheer could contribute to residential satisfaction as, for example, cleaning the neighbourhood becomes more visible when employed by local residents.
However, there are some risks involved too. For example if the residents are not able to deliver the same quality as the professionals that did the work before them. This could lead to a decrease of residential satisfaction.
5. “What are the external risks of zelfbeheer?”
Finally, in the last sub question the potential risks of zelfbeheer from an external perspective are discussed. This means that within this sub question the focus lies on the cooperation of the actors and how this influences the empowerment process. As mentioned before, within zelfbeheer projects multiple actors are involved. According to Wagenaar (2007) and Taylor (2007), this cooperation could involve an unequal distribution of knowledge, in which the residents are in an unfavourable position when it comes to power distribution. Zelfbeheer is still an experimental instrument for citizen participation. It is thus expected that professionals are still struggling with the practical implementations as the participants of zelfbeheer are neither fully voluntary residents nor professionals. As Tonkens (2010) explains, within participation processes, professionals aim for the professionalisation of citizens, however what does that mean for
zelfbeheer as they operate in some sort of grey area? Thus, it is proposed that if not all actors agree on this element of professionalisation, it could have risks for the potential of empowerment. Furthermore, this experimental character of zelfbeheer also means that it could lead to difficulties within (local) policy implementation. As Foley and Martin (2010) state, empowerment among residents can only occur if there is a true dedication to bottom-up policy. However in the current economic state involving the withdrawal of state intervention and cuts on public spending, saving money is another important task of the (local) government. Since zelfbeheer is still trying to find its ways in terms of implementation, it might be possible that it is not the most economic favourable option. Therefore it is possible that due to financial incentives the commitment to bottom-up policy making – which involves citizen participation – is lacking which can potentially influence the potential of empowerment within the zelfbeheer project.
1.3 Relevance
Increasing the understanding of zelfbeheer is important for multiple reasons. First of all, little is known about this particular innovative participation scheme. From a scientific point of view the results of this study will help fill this gap in literature and increase the understanding of zelfbeheer as a tool for empowerment. Secondly, it is also societally relevant to get insights in the impact of these emerging participation and empowerment schemes. The withdrawal of the state has caused new challenges within civic state and it is important to know how all actors involved cope with these changing mechanisms. Stimulating citizens to actively participate in their residential environment has been formulated as a desirable practice. However, little is known about the effects on a social level. Therefore this study will contribute to the understanding of zelfbeheer from a tenants perspective.
1.4 Thesis outline
The overall structure of the study is as follows: the next chapter of this regards the theoretical framework, discussing empowerment as theoretical concept and its related projects, including possible benefits and risks. The third chapter – methodology – discusses the way in which this study has been conducted. To place zelfbeheer in a wider context and increase the understanding of zelfbeheer as a policy tool, relevant policy documents will be discussed in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter presents the findings of the study, starting with an extensive description of the case followed by the results of the interviews with participants of the project, the housing association and local officials. The sixth chapter reflect on the findings in light of empowerment and participation processes in general. This study ends with a summary of the main findings and concludes by giving suggestions for further research and the implementation of zelfbeheer from a policy perspective.
CHAPTER 2
|
INNOVATIVE TENURES AND EMPOWERMENT
2.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the existing literature on empowerment and how it has been put into practice in the past few years. In order to fully understand how zelfbeheer is framed as an empowerment related tool, the chapter is structured as follows. The first paragraph focuses on empowerment as a purely theoretical concept. How empowerment has been used in policy and practice, specifically in a housing context will be addressed in the second paragraph. The third paragraph emphasizes the relationship between empowerment and homeownership. The fourth section focuses on zelfbeheer as a new form of empowerment: how zelfbeheer is defined and how it has been put into practice. Finally, the potential risks in conducting these forms of empowerment processes are elaborated on.
2.2 Empowerment as a theoretical concept
In order to define what it means to be empowered, the idea of power itself must be discussed as it lies at the heart of the phenomenon. According to Dahl (1957), power is a relation and one that occurs specifically among people. Dahl identifies three dimensions of power, each of which represents a different degree of power. However, at the basis of every dimension the underlying idea is the following: “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do” (Dahl, 1957, p. 202). In other words, within power some sort of relation among different parties exists in which one of the parties dominates the other by overruling their interests. Power offers the opportunity to make others do what we want, despite their own demands and interests. However, this perception of power does not necessarily mean that having power equals it being fully distributed from one party to the other. Power should be understood as a change within the current structure.
Due to the contextual nature of empowerment, a common definition of the concept of empowerment is difficult (Page & Czuba, 1999). Empowerment is defined by the people who pursue it and the context involved. However, in general empowerment is perceived as a multidimensional social process that helps people gain control over their own lives. It is a process that fosters power in people which can be used in their own lives, their communities, and their society, by acting on issues that they perceive as important (Page & Czuba, 1999, p. 3-4). It is multidimensional in the sense that it takes place in psychological, economic or other social dimensions. Furthermore, people can be empowered both on the level of the individual as well within a group or even a community. Empowerment is considered a process because it only occurs within a relationship to others, as stated before, power cannot exist in isolation. According to
Page and Czuba (1999), there are two important conditions that must be met in order to employ empowerment. First of all, to become empowered, power must be able to make a change. If change does not occur, empowerment is not likely to be at play. Secondly, if power does not have the possibility to expand, again empowerment will not be achieved. This relates to a ‘shared’ definition of power, meaning that gaining power inherently strengthens the power of others rather than diminishing it.
In sum, empowerment first of all relates to the concept of power, which is considered as a relation among people in which there is an unequal distribution of interests. Furthermore, being empowered means that an individual, group or community gain control over their own lives by acting on topics that they perceive as important. Or as Sommerville (1998) puts it: “Empowerment is not to be equated with owning or controlling or managing as such, but rather with the gaining of the freedom to choose whether to own or not to own, to control or not to control, to manage or not to manage” (p. 254). The next paragraph explores empowerment from a policy perspective and describes how it has been implemented.
2.3 Housing-related empowerment
Empowerment as desired policy tool started gaining more attention in the early 60’s. Discussion on emancipation and civil rights aimed for the increase of power among the vulnerable citizens (Ajoulat, d’Hoore & Deccache, 2006). Empowerment then slowly shifted from a solely conceptual framework towards a policy paradigm and common ‘buzzword’ (Cornwall & Brock, 2005). Kleinhans and Elsinga’s (2010) definition of empowerment already leans more towards a policy implementation tool as they describe empowerment as a way to give disadvantaged or excluded citizens more control over their lives and hence enabling them to become more engaged citizens.
The concept of empowerment has been implemented in all kinds of policy issues, such as education (Glickman, 1990; Perkins, 1995). Institutional reforms on education frequently mentioned the importance of empowering minority students. The aim of these programmes was to change the relationship between teachers and minority students. Furthermore, they aimed for the empowerment of parents as they could influence their children’s achievements in school. Empowerment policies on health are also relatively common as well (Perkins, 1995), although these focus more on the empowerment of a community as a whole and aim for the strengthening of the community, for instance by providing information on topics such as abuse prevention. Empowerment in housing policy has been frequently employed. Sommerville (1998) for instance focuses specifically on housing-related empowerment and thus seeks for ways to empower people by increasing their control over their housing situation and residential environment. He distinguishes two forms of empowerment, top-down and bottom up, and
identifies four practical implementations in both processes. Examples of top-down related empowerment processes are: 1) sharing knowledge and providing information, education and training, 2) ascribing individual and collective rights, 3) providing resources and 4) transferring power of negotiation and decision-making. The four types of bottom-up housing-related empowerment practices are identified as: 1) emphasising informal and formal participation, 2) increasing rights from former top-down processes, 3) increasing assertiveness in access to resources necessary for participation and 4) increasing pressure for participation in decision-making processes (p. 241). The main difference between the two is that within top-down practices, the initiative lies with the landlord and bottom-up empowerment implementations are triggered by the tenants. What they all have in common is that emphasis lies on new forms of partnership between landlords and their tenants, involving increased interdependence. One particular example of these new forms of partnership is studied by Gruis et al. (2005). They focused on a Dutch case in which multiple innovative tenures were offered by a large housing association (WoonbronMaasoever): the Client’s Choice Programme (CCP). The underlying idea of the CCP was that giving the tenants freedom of choice could positively contribute to their feeling of control and thus empowerment. This does fit within Somerville’s theory that also promotes the freedom of choice as he believes this is the main trigger for empowerment. Within the CCP, WoonbronMaasoever offered tenants the choice between 1) a traditional rent contract, 2) a fixed rent contract, 3) a fixed rent increase contract, 4) socially-bound ownership and 5) ownership with buy-back option.
Bobbe and Reimerink (2006) explain how in the Dutch context, empowerment and public housing often include a focus on social capital. Development projects on vulnerable neighbourhoods for example emphasise the importance of social networks when aiming for an upgrade of the area. The underlying assumption in these policies is that an increasing in social network can uplift the neighbourhood by itself. This includes increasing the say of the residents in the same issues explained by Sommerville (1998). However, an important difference between the policy implementations as described by Sommerville and Bobbe and Reimerink is that the latter perceive the promotion of homeownership as the most purely tool for tenant empowerment while the former one is linked to issues of resident participation. “Empowerment to us means increasing the economic independency of our tenants and owning a home could contribute to this”, states one of the head members of a large housing association in Amsterdam (Bobbe & Reimerink, 2006, p. 9). This relationship between empowerment and homeownership will be further discussed in the next section.
2.4 Homeownership promotion programmes
Moving from rented housing to ownership is thus assumed to empower residents, partly because of a shift of power between the landlord and the tenant (Kleinhans & Elsinga, 2010). Many authors have written about the presumed benefits of owning a home in comparison to rented dwellings. In this perspective, homeownership is perceived as a particular empowerment tool. Homeownership could contribute to the level of empowerment for a number of reasons. First of all, multiple studies on the effects of homeownership argued that there is a relation between homeownership and the feeling of self-esteem. For example, Balfour and Smith (1996) looked at a lease-purchase programme – comparable to the fourth option of the CCP- and found that being able to participate in that programme increased the level of self-esteem of the tenants. Becoming a homeowner made them feel like they belonged to a different social class which contributed to their perception of self. However, according to Kleinhans and Elsinga, and Rohe and Stegman (1994), the relationship between empowerment processes and self-esteem is not that clear. Rohe and Stegman claim in their paper that becoming a homeowner does significantly increase life satisfaction, but not self-esteem per se. On the other hand, the condition of the unit bought, did affect the degree of self-esteem. The more satisfied with the dwelling, the higher was the level of self-esteem.
In the Netherlands, Kleinhans and Elsinga (2010) found that homeowners (either regular home buyers or social home buyers) scored lower on self-esteem than tenants. Kleinhans and Elsinga described a few possible explanations for this. First of all, the formerly rented homes are not in the higher segments of the owner market, but at the bottom. Secondly, and most importantly, buying a home in itself does not contribute to self-esteem. As they argue: “Those who decided to buy their home could be more aware of the consequences of their own choices and acts in general. Such reflectiveness may not necessarily make you happier or raise your self-esteem” (p.56).
Another frequently argued statement is that homeownership positively contributes to the perceived control of tenants (Gruis et al., 2005; Zimmerman and Rappaport, 1988). Both acknowledge that becoming a homeowner in comparison to being a tenant, increases the level of perceived control that households have over their lives. Nonetheless, Rohe and Stegman (1994) and Kleinhans and Elsinga (2010) claim that homeownership does not significantly relate to the (former) tenants perceived control over their life. In other words, an individual’s belief that they are largely in command of important life events rather than being subject to fate or the will of others (Rohe and Stegman, 1994) does not arise from the fact that the tenant bought a home. The existence of a class effect (socioeconomic differences) may explain why there is no relationship between empowerment and perceived control (Kleinhans and Elsinga, 2010). In sum,
those who experience more control over their life due to higher income and educational background are more likely to buy their rented home. Thus, buying a home in itself or actively participating in a tenant’s project (the empowerment process) does not increase the perception of control.
Third, other authors suggest that there is a relation between homeownership and sense of community. This is for instance stated in the article of Bobbe and Reimerink (2006). They describe how homeowners in comparison to renters actively participate in keeping the public space clean and neat because they are aware that this is important for property value. This increases their involvement in the neighbourhood and therefore the social capital of the area. However, other authors such as Chavis and Wandersman (1990) explain how homeownership does not contribute to the sense of community but that it is in fact the other way around. In other words, if people feel strongly attached to their neighbourhood they are more likely to consider buying their home. Although Chavis and Wandersman do acknowledge that the relationship between homeownership and sense of community is quite reciprocal, meaning that they influence each other.
In sum, there is clearly a lack of consensus over the benefits of innovative tenures in light of empowerment. Especially empowerment through homeownership stimulation programmes seems debatable. In the perspective of Balfour and Smith (1996), homeownership positively influences the feeling of self-esteem among former tenants. However, Kleinhans and Elsinga (2010) and Rohe and Stegman (1994) doubt this statement as they believe that homeownership has the potential to increase life satisfaction but not self-esteem per se. Furthermore, other authors such as Gruis et al. (2005) and Zimmerman and Rappaport (1998) claim that owning a home increases the feeling of control that someone has over their life. Yet, this statement is being criticized as well, as it is most likely related to a class effect (Rohe and Stegman, 1994; Kleinhans and Elsinga, 2010). Finally, as homeowners are aware of the fact that a clean and neat neighbourhood can contribute to the property value of their home, homeowners would be more likely to actively participate in their neighbourhood. In other words, homeownership contributed to the sense of community (Bobbe & Reimerik, 2006). According to Chavis and Wandersman (1990) homeownership does not contribute to sense of community, it is the other way around. Over the last few years, another innovative tenure that has been part of empowerment stimulating programmes as described in this paragraph has received increased attention: zelfbeheer. This new tool for tenant empowerment will be discussed in the next section
2.5 Zelfbeheer as a tool for empowerment
Zelfbeheer as a concept has recently been discussed in multiple policy documents that aim for more responsibilities among tenants. In the past few years, zelfbeheer has not only been developed as a desirable policy tool but most importantly as a tool for tenant empowerment. The fourth chapter will elaborate more on how this development has come about and what has contributed to it. For the purpose of this chapter it is important to understand the concept of zelfbeheer as such. However, zelfbeheer is never explicitly defined. Moreover, the definitions that do exist are rather vague. One of the first attempts to define zelfbeheer is carried out by Corpovenista. Corpovenista – a national knowledge platform for housing associations – defines zelfbeheer as an activity in which a group of tenants decides to take on more responsibilities in the management (beheer) of either their dwellings or other forms of property such as green and public space. Furthermore, Corpovenista distinguishes three levels of zelfbeheer, each referring to a different degree of cooperation between the tenants and landlords (housing associations): advice, supervision and self-management. The latter is the most drastic form of zelfbeheer as this result in a real shift of responsibilities. This could be perceived as an empowerment process through specific power transfer, meaning that management responsibilities are transferred from landlord to tenants (Sommerville, 1998).
The main reason for the lack of a common definition is the fact that zelfbeheer is highly context dependent. Each zelfbeheer project is different, meaning that it consists of some sort of agreement between the housing association and its tenants on a broad range of topics. However, when looking at the implementation of zelfbeheer, it involves a sharing of responsibilities in the residential areas (dwelling, public space, direct environment). In most cases this also means that the tenants get something in return which is most likely a reduction of the service costs. Apart from this financial incentive, the explanation for the increased desirability of this innovative tenure has to do with the belief that zelfbeheer positively contributes to the empowerment and self-reliance of tenants (Samenwerkingsafspraken Huurdersvereniging Amsterdam, AFWC en gemeente Amsterdam, 2015). Zelfbeheer is thus not explicitly defined as a tool for empowerment but in the practical implementation it is framed as such. Each programme or zelfbeheer project aims for a more equal shared basis of responsibilities and relation between the parties, which differs from the traditional notion in which the landlord takes care of the tenant in all possible aspects (Corpovenista).
What is more, zelfbeheer not only changes the current state of power but in a sense zelfbeheer also increases the level of ownership. This might seem odd, considering that it does not result in increased possessions or properties, in the literal sense. Pierce and Jussila (2010) however, argue that ownership is much more a collective reality, meaning that “a group of
individuals who consider themselves an ‘us’ can come to a shared mind-set as it pertains to a sense of ownership for some object that is material or immaterial in character” (p. 811). Hence, by reclaiming the public space and sharing more responsibilities (i.e. the neighbourhood) tenants increase the collective mental ownership.
In sum, searching for a common definition of zelfbeheer seems rather difficult. This has among other reasons to do with the fact that it has been implemented in specific contexts in specific ways. Nevertheless, any form of zelfbeheer consists of an agreement between tenant and landlord in which they share responsibilities over either their own dwelling or the residential surroundings. Zelfbeheer is thus a form of participation and a tool to empower tenants as well as an opportunity to step aside from the traditional tenant-landlord relation. Moreover zelfbeheer does to some extent increase the level of ownership, if ownership is considered a collective reality (Pierce & Jussila, 2010).
2.6 Potential risks
Any kind of empowerment related programme, project or tool whether it is a homeownership promotion programme or another innovative tenure such as zelfbeheer, comes with potential risks. Understanding these possible risks and drawbacks is important when researching the potentials as is the focus within this study. As explained earlier, within a zelfbeheer project (or any other empowerment related project) multiple actors are involved such as the residents, local officials and members of the housing associations. The vulnerability of certain projects lies in the relationship and cooperation among these actors. As Blakely (2010) argues: “The spread of participatory practices as an integral element of new modes of governance, does not necessarily lead to citizen empowerment”. Furthermore, she says that the more these projects become public policy, the less likely it is to empower citizens.
Multiple authors have identified some elements that they believe influence the potential of these projects. First of all, Wagenaar (2007) state that these projects operate in complex systems, by which he means that there are strong interactions among its elements. Understanding its parts alone is not enough. The neighbourhood in his perspective is a complex system and when a project focuses on one particular element of the neighbourhood, the others are automatically influenced as well. According to Wagenaar, understanding these complex interactions is what most policies lack. Knowledge of the experts is primarily aimed at the understanding of one particular element of the system, or the neighbourhood in this example. Wagenaar (2007) states that residents of the neighbourhood do not perceive their neighbourhood as a fragmented entity. A study of Wagenaar on a few participatory projects in the Netherlands showed that citizens are well aware of this complexity and as a result may have completely different thoughts on the
implementation. In order to successfully fulfil an empowerment related project such as zelfbeheer, Wagenaar claims that it is important to be aware of the view of the citizen on their neighbourhood.
The second risk within empowerment related policies refers to the unequal distribution of knowledge and instruments (Wagenaar, 2007 ; Taylor, 2007). According to Wagenaar, citizens within these multiple actor projects, perceives themselves as the ‘weakest party’. He describes how this lacking of necessary information can potentially influence their position in the system and the possibilities of communication and cooperation. Wagenaar states that it is important to share knowledge and instruments on an equal and transparent basis. Most importantly, he explains that in no situation information must be used to alienate the other party. Tonkens (2010) explains how citizen participation is often interpreted as citizens being quasi experts in which they are expected to have some professional skills. They are expected to have the certain knowledge and the government actors are not actively taking the role of facilitator in sharing this knowledge. This contributes to the unequal distribution of knowledge as the professionals do not perceive themselves as the ones to professionalise or inform the participants.
The third possible flaw relates to the commitment of all the involved parties in bottom-up initiatives. As stated before, empowerment means that a citizen gain increased control over their housing situation (Sommerville, 1998). In more abstract terms, empowerment results in an increase of autonomy and freedom of action among others (Hustinx, 2010). Besides the importance of transparency and equality as described in the previous paragraph, Foley and Martin (2010) describe the importance of mutual commitment to bottom-up policy making. Taylor (2007) explains this as the risks of ‘recentralisation’, by this he means that within participation and other empowerment processes, the “rules of the game continue to be largely framed by government actors” (p. 302). As Korczynski and Ott (2006) state, there is a risk that citizen involvement results in more structure and coordination. In practice this may lead to unrealistic demands on monitoring, framed by the government actors. Furthermore, without a real commitment to bottom-up initiatives, there is zero-tolerance for failure according to Foley and Martin. This prevents initiatives from developing into real and meaningful entities, they claim.
In sum, whether an empowerment related project is successful depends on the legitimacy and position of its actors. The resources – knowledge, information, instruments – have to be fairly distributed in order to gain trust and respect (Wagenaar, 2007; Taylor, 2007). Furthermore, real commitment to bottom-up initiatives, including acceptance of failures, contribute to the level of success of these projects (Foley and Martin, 2010; Taylor, 2007).
2.7 Summary
This chapter has laid a foundation for the understanding of zelfbeheer as a tool for tenant empowerment. Empowerment is in its basis related to the concept of power. Defining power in itself is difficult, but in any sort of power relation, a relation among different parties exists in which one of the two has more to say than the other. Empowerment is thus something that can be achieved, either individually or in a group in which a change of the current sphere of power exists. It is the freedom to choose, to own, to control or to manage (Sommerville, 1998). Empowerment has been implemented in a lot of difference policy practices, such as education, health and housing. The latter being the main focus of this study.
Within the housing sector, empowerment processes have been implemented through homeownership promotion programmes and innovative tenures such as the CCP (Kleinhans & Elsinga, 2010). Studies on these tools have tried to get insights in the effects of the programmes from a tenant’s perspective. To some extent a relation has been found between empowerment processes and self-esteem (Kleinhans & Elsinga), perceived control (Gruis et al, 2005; Rohe & Stegman, 1994 ; Kleinhans & Elsinga) and sense of community (Bobbe & Reimerink, 2006; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). The next chapter emphasizes the methodology used for this study and how the elements of the studies mentioned are conducted and implemented.
CHAPTER 3
|
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses in depth how this study has been implemented, by defining its strategy, design, units of analysis, sampling process, and methods of analysis. In order to assess the experiences of the tenants involved in the project, operationalization of the four dimensions of empowerment is needed. This section describes how these dimensions have been integrated in the research methods. Afterwards, the limitations and ethics of the research will be elaborated on in the sixth and seventh section.
Before diving in the methodology it is important to note that due to circumstances of the fieldwork, changes had to be made in order to complete the study. Explanation of these changes and the resulting adaptations will be briefly discussed in the final paragraph right after the limitations and ethics section.
3.2 Strategy
To be able to get insights into the subjective experiences of the tenants, this study adopts an interpretive epistemological position. This means that the focus lies on the subjective meaning of social action (Bryman, 2008). Furthermore this study tries to understand rather than explain the behaviour of the respondents in social action (zelfbeheer), which is also typical for the interpretivist approach. The main reason for this strategy lies in the fact that little is known and written about the topic in this specific context. Also, this study is exploratory in nature, as it focuses on a known concept (empowerment) within a new context (zelfbeheer). This approach made it possible to focus on the possible effects and risks as perceived by the actors involved in the zelfbeheer project.
Furthermore, this thesis consists of both deductive and inductive elements. On the one hand, this study is focused on existing theories and propositions on empowerment processes. However, the empowerment processes are related to different kinds of participation schemes such as homeownership. The sub questions as described in the first chapter focus on the dimensions within the existing theory and therefore this study tries to inquire to which extent these dimensions apply on zelfbeheer as a particular form of empowerment. However, since this study is exploratory in nature, the data received and analysed in the next chapter forms an important step in generating theory about these particular empowerment scheme. In other words, in analysing the data an inductive approach was used. This is characteristic of the iterative strategy: a weaving back and forth between data and theory (Bryman, 2008). This iterative strategy is
typical for qualitative research, in the sense that it provides a flexible way of collecting, analysing and interpreting data and information (Boodhoo, Purmessur, 2009).
3.3 Units of analysis
Considering the central research question, zelfbeheer, as a social artifact, is the central unit of analysis. During the fieldwork, Pek-o-Bello proved to be a more vulnerable project than it seemed at the start. The interviews with participants made it clear that the other actors such as the housing association and the government had a relatively large impact on the project. It turned out that a multitude of facets had contributed to the existing nature of the project, thus focusing on the participants alone did not suit the research as much as before. Thus in this perspective, zelfbeheer is studied as a product of social behavior, examined through empirical data and policy analysis.
3.4 Design and case selection
The research design being used is a case study. As George and Bennet (2004) describe, case studies have an exploratory purpose. In the case of zelfbeheer, it is not possible to test existing hypotheses regarding zelfbeheer and empowerment. The only available knowledge focuses on other empowerment schemes and their possible benefits and risks. Therefore this study has contributed to the generation of new hypotheses (the ‘logic of discovery’) (Bennet, 2004). The type of case studied in this thesis consists of some extreme and typical elements. The case is extreme (or unique) in the sense that – as will be further explained in the fifth chapter – Pek-o-Bello is the only zelfbeheer project in Amsterdam where tenants get paid by the housing association. Furthermore, unlike other projects it focuses on multiple themes and not just one. Another important aspect that will also be explained further is the fact that Pek-o-Bello arose out of the former tenant association in the Van der Pek neighbourhood, hence in this perspective it has a very unique history. However, despite these special circumstances, Pek-o-Bello remains an exemplification of a broader category of which it is a member: zelfbeheer projects, according to Bryman (2008) this is typical for a representative or typical case.
Furthermore, zelfbeheer is studied within its contextual sphere. This means that the implementation of the zelfbeheer initiative (Pek-o-Bello) is studied within its specific context and from all different angles: the participants, the local officials, the housing association and the policy contexts (either local and on a national level).
Based on the theory of Sommerville (1998), who identifies three forms of empowerment schemes, Pek-o-Bello was chosen as the central case. For the purpose of this thesis, a zelfbeheer case was chosen in which a real shift of power had occured – the radical scheme. The other two forms that Sommerville defines, comprehend a different degree of power distribution. Within
the conservative process, the balance of power remains unchanged and in the reformist process the negotition of power among the landlord and the tenant also remains the some however, they tend to place this relationship on a more equal basis. Thus, based on this theory it was expected that these last two schemes had the lowest potential to show real benefits. As Sommerville describes, “residents can be empowered most radically by conferring on them specific rights to make decisions over their own lives and by specific transfers of ownership and control (…) these changes should be seen as presenting opportunities for residents to achieve empowerment for themselves” (p. 254).
3.5 Methods, operationalization, and coding
This chapter will discuss the methods through which this study has been carried out, the type of sampling used, information on how the interviews have been conducted and the data analysis methods.
3.5.1. Document analysis
Within this thesis a policy analysis has been conducted to get a better grasp of the development that has stimulated zelfbeheer as a tool for tenant empowerment. For a more thorough understanding of zelfbeheer it was important to explain the emerging attention for zelfbeheer. The policy analysis started with a general description on the economic crisis and narrowed down towards smaller developments within the housing and health sector that lead to the need for civic participation.
3.5.2. Observations
Non-participant observation and unstructured observation have been used in order to record in as much detail as possible the behaviour of participants (Bryman, 2008). Through observation, attention has been given to body language and behaviour. During and after each interview, notes were taken to describe the observations in as much detail as possible. This increased the understanding of zelfbeheer as it is studied as a product of social behaviour.
3.5.3. Sampling
Purposive sampling was the main form of sampling used for this study. The sampling process started with contacting one of the key members of the project. In a sense this respondent served as a key informant and made it possible to get in contact with the other members of the Pek-o-Bello group. After reaching out to all the respondents based on accessibility, an element of convenience sampling, some other actors were selected for interviews purposefully to answer the
research question: the local officials and the housing association representatives. In other words this was a strategic attempt to interview other people who were of relevance to the research questions, this is typical for purposive sampling.
3.5.4. Interview design
The interviews that have been carried out were framed as semi-structured. This method was primarily chosen to obtain more detailed knowledge about the perception of all the actors involved on zelfbeheer. Another reason for the semi-structured design had to do with the exploratory nature of the thesis. This way of interviewing is quite flexible meaning that questions may not follow on exactly in the way outlined in the guide. Therefore the emphasis lies not on the actual facts of the events but on how the interviewee frames of understanding these issues and events: their attitudes.
The group of respondents can be roughly defined in two categories: participants of Pek-o-Bello and involved professionals. The purpose of the interviews in both groups slightly differed as the interviews with the participants focused on their attitudes towards the project, how they felt about being a part it, where the latter focused mainly on their attitudes towards zelfbeheer in general, to which extent Pek-o-Bello fits in this context and how it changed their work or contact with tenants. As the relationship between the participants and the housing association and the participants and local officials were different, two interview guides were set up. All three of them can be found in appendix A - C.
Concepts of former empowerment related projects formed the basis framework for the semi-structured interviews with the participants. However, questions were not directly related to either self-esteem, perceived control, sense of community or residential satisfaction. All questions emphasized in some way to the project. For instance participants were asked what they perceived as success and how they contributed to this. This offered the opportunity to get a grasp of what they felt as an achievement and if they played a part in this. Focusing on body language was therefore quite important as that made it easier to interpret the answers of the interviewees. During the interviews with the respondents, it became obvious that the relationship with the other actors was not always co-operative. This framed the aim for the interviews with the other actors as explained above. These interviews thus were merely focused at the reason for conflict between them and the participants by asking questions about their perception on Pek-o-Bello and how they did experience the cooperation.
Interviews were recorded, held and transcribed in Dutch. Further analysis however was conducted in English. The interview guide served as a global framework for asking questions. Furthermore, for each interview with the respondents an additional background form was set up
which involved information about age, education, income level, household formation and work. For all the interviews notes were taken that focused on the atmosphere of the interviews, body language of the respondent and difficulties in setting up the interviews.
3.5.5. Data analysis and coding
The results of the interviews were analysed by using a grounded theory framework. This means that themes emerged from the interviewee’s perspective. For coding and analysis of the interviews open, axial and selective coding (Bryman, 2008) has been primarily used. For coding of the transcripts, MAXQDA was used as coding programme. The first phase of coding has been done using open coding. Everything that somehow seemed of importance got labeled. After open coding, axial coding was used to re-code most of the data by making connections between categories and rename labels. As explained previously, segments within the interview all related to one of the four dimensions of empowerment as described in the literature review. However other categories seemed of importance too and this way of coding offered the potential to label them as well. Finally through selective coding the core categories were identified around which all other categories were integrated.
3.6 Limitations and ethics
The vulnerable state of the project resulted in some limitations on the quality of the findings and the ability to answer the research question properly. Limitations occurred due to the size of empirical data and the limited amount of research methods but because of the position of the researcher and the internal structure of the project as well.
3.6.1. Empirical data and sample size
One of the main limitations refers to the sampling size and amount of empirical data. Some readjustments had to be made which decreased the number of respondents. The initial goal was to reach out to 20 respondents and in the end it was only possible to get in contact with seven of which four were actual participants of Pek-o-Bello. Instead of conducting a survey and focus group interviews, this study conducted an exploratory case study in which through interviews, some kinds of observation and analysis of other documents it was manageable to understand the situation of this project. This made it still possible to reflect on the benefits and risks of zelfbeheer through the lens of the case study. However, it might be possible that some interesting perceptions of the other participants are left unnoticed.
There are multiple reasons why it was hard to reach out to the respondents. First of all because of personal circumstances within the group of participants, either because of their own
health or that of close relatives two of the eight participants were unable to be interviewed. Furthermore, because of the ad hoc nature of the project, two participants all of a sudden stopped, fortunately those participants had been interviewed before they decided to quit but both of them were unable to attend in the focus group for instance.
Another reason has to do with the fact that Pek-o-Bello had to deal with important deadlines regarding to their work of Pek-o-Bello. This meant that the respondents had a lot on their plate and therefore were reluctant to take part in the interviews even after multiple attends. Finally, the services that Pek-o-Bello delivers are not fully developed. So the ‘receivers’ were mainly people who needed some help on ad-hoc basis which had not much to do with the five programmes of Pek-o-Bello. To still be able to grasp a good understanding of the nature of the project I spoke to the other actors involved: the housing association and the local government.
3.6.2. Transparency of the project
The exact amount of participants in the project still remained unsure as the key informant was quite careful with handing over contact information of the respondents. The main reason for this has to do with the vulnerable nature, some participants became involved as they themselves received help from the project. However, as the key informant explained, those people were too vulnerable to talk with. Moreover, in the perspective of the informant, these participants were so little involved that they did not fully take part in the project yet.
3.6.3. Position of researcher
All the respondents, the participants as well as the professionals, were aware of the fact that I worked for an organisation that supported the project with professionalisation and organisation structure. For the participants this meant that they were quite open and direct in answering the questions. However there is a good chance that they kept some information for themselves as they might think I could use the information for work purpose. This personal position within the research might also have had some consequences for the contact with the professionals. Those respondents also might have hold back some information for the same reason as is the case with the participants.
3.7 Ethics
The records were kept confidential and findings are discussed as much anonymous as possible. However especially in qualitative research and with this particular case it is difficult to keep everything anonymous since it is such a small group. People who are familiar with the project might know from the result chapter who said what. In other words, it is impossible to entirely eliminate the possibility of identification. However, as the study focuses on the perceptions on events and not actual and factual happenings, this can’t do much harm to the participants. The participation of the respondents was voluntary; they could at any moment refuse to answer a question and were giving the opportunity to withdraw their data within two weeks after the interview. Moreover, before every interview the respondents were told about the purpose of the research and how the results would be used. This gave them another opportunity not to participate and withdraw their data.
CHAPTER 4
|
THE ROOTS OF PARTICIPATION AND ZELFBEHEER
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a panoramic view of changes in urban development strategies and policies. Attention will be given to relevant developments that have contributed to the increasing attention of empowerment related projects within an urban context. As stated before, housing associations are nowadays encouraged to empower tenants and to share more responsibilities. To explain this development, this chapter will give more insight on the two main policy platforms that have contributed to this change, the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the New Urban Policy (NUP) (Swyngedouw, Moulaert and Rodriguez, 2002), the relation between these two is shown in the figure below.
In 2000 the Dutch Housing Memorandum (Mensen, Wensen, Wonen) was published, providing new insights on individual freedom of choice for the citizen (Priemus, 2001). One of the core themes defined the increasing involvement of people in their housing and living environment. Interestingly, the memorandum mainly covers the classical involvement regimes. Participation is hardly mentioned, let alone empowerment. It describes the right of the citizen from a consumer perspective such as the right to own a home, the right to have a say in building processes, the right to own a good quality dwelling and the right to information. Furthermore, the position of low income households is frequently mentioned. From this perspective, the memorandum describes how the right to for example own a dwelling should be more equal within different economic and social classes. “People with low incomes should be able to choose between homeownership and a rented dwelling, between taking more or less responsibilities and risks and between more or less guarantees” (Nota Wonen, p. 135). In other words, involvement is described as a menu (Korcynski and Ott, 2006) framed and defined from top-down initiatives.
The economic crisis in 2009 that followed after the financial crisis of 2007 resulted in a massive decline on public spending (Lovering, 2010 ; Aalbers, 2013; Kickert, 2012). This crisis increased the need for a reformulation of civic involvement. Due to the financial crisis, a new economic policy arose with deregulation, spatial decentralisation and privatisation as its main components. As Kickert (2012) explains, in the 2010 coalition agreement called ‘Freedom and Responsibility’, huge savings were announced, up to roughly 10 billion euro within the public sector. In comparison to the time of the memorandum, this meant that citizen involvement had become a necessity in order to save the welfare state. This is stated clearly in the introduction of the coalition agreement: “The Netherlands can fight the crisis with strength. This cabinet believes in a government that only does what needs to be done, preferably close to the people. Only then can the government become an ally of the citizen again. This is the reason we cut in subsidies and why we decrease the managerial pressure through a clear allocation of responsibilities”
(Coalitionagreement VVD – CDA, p. 4). In the years that followed, ministries from education, health, justice and housing defined this new citizenship in the policy acts. For the purpose of this thesis the focus lies on the health and housing policy developments.
The Social Support Act (Wet Maatschappelijke ondersteuning – WMO) of 2007 defined the new role of the citizens in the health and social care area (Newman & Tonkens, 2011). The central aim of the WMO is to actively promote citizens to take care of their families and members of the communities. As Newman and Tonkens describe it, community participation became a duty. Volunteers on subjects such as care are perceived as the new norm of actively involved citizens. In the 2007 Wmo this is cited as follows: “Long lasting care that is not provided by professionals is being delivered from the direct social network of the one in need of care, the provision of care directly result from the social relations” (section 1. paragraph 1b Wmo 2007). Furthermore, this new acts also promotes the independency of the citizen: “Social Support consists of: the promotion of active citizenship and the independency of people with a handicap or chronical disease” (section 1. paragraph 15 Wmo 2007).
Moreover, the WMO shifts power from national level to the level (section 3. paragraph 1 Wmo 2007). In practice this means that the WMO prescribes general themes for the local governments on which they have to be active (section 3 paragraph 4 a Wmo 2007). This does not mean that individual service is guaranteed. Therefore, volunteers need to step in to fill these gaps. In the case of the Wmo, spatial decentralisation – a key component of the New Economic Policy – resulted in a replacement of universalist by targeted policies and a focus on the empowerment of the inhabitants of cities, two main concepts of the NUP (Andersen & Kempen, 2003)
Recently, in 2015, the Wmo has been reformulated. The main reason for which is to save money. The costs of the Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten (AWBZ – law for specific needs on medical care) in 2015 – started in 1986 as a collective, compulsory insurance – have been recurred up to 26 billion euros a year (Mulder, via de Correspondent). They plan to reduce these costs to ‘only’ 12 billion euros. This means another reformulation of civic involvement, defined as the new style of care and welfare. If a citizen calls for help, they first should think of the things they can do themselves (section 2.3.2. paragraph 4 a Wmo 2015). In other words, the citizen is now responsible for their own social network of ‘mantelzorgers’: voluntary care of relatives (section 2.3.2. paragraph 4 c Wmo 2015). Moreover, if someone receives help of any kind he can be asked to do something in return on a voluntary basis (section 2.3.2. paragraph 4 e Wmo 2015).
To sum it up, if a citizen call for help he will get in contact with the local government. Together they will set up a plan for his special needs. The first thing that must be done is to explain his personal needs in detail, the second step involves an examination of his social network
