• No results found

Helping people to help people

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Helping people to help people"

Copied!
53
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Helping people to help people

Bob Bakker – 12388378

Who Cares? The politics of welfare state decline

Supervisor: Dr. Imrat Verhoeven

Second reader: Dr. Benno Netelenbos

August 2019

(2)

2 Abstract

This empirical research investigates how ‘social brokers’, relatively new front-line workers in the Dutch welfare state, manage responsibilities between citizens, themselves and local authorities. For the execution of this research, eleven of these professionals have been interviewed. The findings indicated that responsibilities among these actors are shifted and managed in various subtle ways, that cannot be identified merely by analyzing them from a macro-level of analysis.

(3)

3 Voor mam

(4)

4

Table of content Page number

1. Introduction 5

2. Theoretical framework 11

1. Introduction 11

2. ‘Manufacturing’ civil society 12

3. Active citizenship: liberating or disciplining? 13

4. Towards a neoliberal communitarianism 13

5. The responsabilization paradox 14

6. Investigating the responsabilization paradox 16

7. Professionals and the activating welfare state 17

7.1 Front-line work and the responsabilization paradox 20

8. Conclusion 22

3. Research design 23

1. Introduction 23

2. Case selection, data collection and ethical considerations 23

3. Data-analysis 26

4. Weaknesses, pitfalls and research quality 28

4. Analysis 30

1. Introduction 30

2. Responsibility and citizens’ initiatives 34

3. The objectives of social brokerage 37

4. Relationship between local authorities and the social brokers 41 5. Embedded professionalism and volunteer responsabilization 44

5. Conclusion 47

(5)

5 1. Introduction

In the late nineteen-seventies, the new-born Dutch welfare state faced a two-headed crisis. Criticism of its supposed bureaucratic paternalism was on the rise, while an increasing amount of citizens became dependent on its facilities and government tax revenues declined. The ‘interventionist’ approach of the classic welfare state professionals was subject of heavy criticism as well: instead of helping people, professionals made them dependent on welfare state facilities, critics argued (Noordegraaf, 2016, p. 784). In the continuing decades, the combination of economic and ideological neediness led to the emergence of what some have described as a ‘New’ or Third Way welfare state, in which the government – supposedly –

steers rather than rows (Grootegoed, 2013, p. 12). This development, also frequently referred

to as a shift from government to governance, presupposes a retreating state, a line of reasoning that has been expressed, not in the least, by governments themselves. Whether the notion of the state transferring responsibilities that used to be organized centrally is entirely accurate, however, has been the topic of scholarly debate over the last decades. Scholars critical of the ‘decentralized’ and ‘steering’ state, like Durant (2000, p. 80) speak of a re-articulation of central responsibilities, and a development towards a ‘neo-administrative state’ in this regard. The Dutch sociologist Willem Trommel (2009) stresses that governments have responded to a decline in grip on late modern society – due to globalization, technological innovation and cultural differentiation – by becoming increasingly greedy. Instead of acknowledging the loss of their ability to manufacture society and pushing off influence, it is his observation that the states’ appetite for control has radically grown. Central responsibilities may be masked, but have ultimately increased (Bannink and Ossewaarde, 2012). Not in the least, this greedy governance is characterized by the government’s attempts to engage citizens in the public cause (Trommel, 2009, p. 15). Enhancing citizen’s engagement is often viewed as an important characteristic of welfare state reforms. Janet Newman and Evelien Tonkens (2011, p. 9), for example, write that states have become increasingly concerned with activating their citizens, trough invitation, cajoling and sometimes coercion. The ideal, active citizen is not dependent of welfare state facilities, and is willing to take on a wide range of responsibilities. Newman and Tonkens suggest that – in line with the critique on interventionist professionals – active citizenship has developed as a response to the growing demand for individual choice and autonomy. The authors also see, however, that governments try to activate as many citizens as possible for the aim of pursuing policy objectives, and that there is only a fine line between the right or the duty to participate.

(6)

6 In this regard, active citizenship would be a way ‘to discipline, rather than liberate and empower, citizens’ (Newman and Tonkens, 2011, p. 10). Authors like Ringo Ossewaarde (2007) and Andrea Muehlebach (2010) are more fond of the latter, critical notions of activating welfare regimes. Ossewaarde emphasizes that in the activating welfare state, the social contract between states and citizens has altered. Citizens are no longer defined in legal terms, Ossewaarde writes, ‘but by their active cooperation in the realization of national policy objectives’ (p. 491). Muehlebach, among others, calls this the shift towards moral citizenship that is taking place in neoliberal welfare regimes. Whereas neoliberalism is often associated with a lack of morality, Muehlebach (2010, p. 6) describes the political system as morally authoritarian and righteously non-recipient to dependent and non-self-providing inhabitants. To an increasing extent, the state requires citizens to provide for themselves and their environment, a process that was coined by Evelien Tonkens (2011) as the responsabilization of citizenship. Tonkens, in a reasoning that is similar to Trommel’s work on greedy governance, observes an important discrepancy in this shift. Whereas the importance of individual responsabilization continues to be emphasized, passive, inactive and problematic cases face increasing attention from the state and professionals in the public domain. Tonkens therefore speaks of a ‘co-occurrence of responsabilization and de-responsabilization’ (2011, p. 59). She observes that more and more, vulnerable citizens are in fact treated as irresponsible and unfit to manage their own lives, which is a remarkable addition – and contradiction – to the widely shared thesis on citizen responsabilization. She calls this the

responsabilization-paradox of the activating welfare state, a concept that I will deepen out

further throughout this thesis.

As already briefly indicated, criticism on the traditional welfare stat was not in the least aimed at the performance of its front-line soldiers: professionals. Self-providing citizens require a different attitude of the state and professionals in the public domain, and the professionals’ traditional, paternalist approach should become a thing of the past for good1.

Tonkens (2011, p. 47) even labels the years after the nineteen-seventies ‘anti-professional’. Patients’ organizations identified professionals in the health and social domain as the main obstacles on the road towards autonomy and freedom, Tonkens writes. In the current activating welfare state, therefore, the role of professionals has changed. Coming from a position of mostly executing their tasks on an individual level, their role is often more

1

In her work, Tonkens (2011) emphasizes that this critique not only came from citizens and the state, but that professionals themselves largely supported the view. From the nineteen seventies onwards, ‘professionals criticized themselves and their colleagues for being paternalistic and authoritarian’, she writes (2011, p. 47).

(7)

7 embedded in working together with relatively new faces in welfare state organization, such as volunteers (Verhoeven and Van Bochove, 2018; Noordegraaf, 2016; Eliasoph, 2011). Volunteers have taken over some of the tasks formerly assigned to professionals, requiring the latter group to act as a connector between citizens and volunteers. Professionals do not only take part in supporting the increasingly responsible volunteers, they should also guide citizens on their way to self-reliance and boost this process, instead of making them dependent on the welfare state’s facilities (Oude Vrielink, Sterrenberg and Koper, 2014). In order to accomplish this objective, the activating welfare state also constitutes new types of professionals in the public sphere, attuned to the wants and needs of the social and political order. In the Netherlands, various breeds of professionals have popped up: front-line workers, neighborhood-directors, participation-brokers, all of them devoted to enhancing participation, independency and self-reliance. Oude Vrielink et al. (2014, p. 32) describe their role as follows: ‘Starting from the client or family, integral, preventive and participation-driven.’ Whereas the old professional would solve problems for the citizen, its modern counterpart is concerned with enabling the citizen to dissipate issues by taking initiative, relying on volunteers or addressing their personal networks.

In various municipalities throughout the Netherlands, a group of these ‘new’ professionals are called social brokers (In Dutch: sociaal makelaars), who will form the core of this research. These front-line workers were first officially introduced in the city of Utrecht in 2010, and after that time in a divergent group of other municipalities as well. Their job description shows important similarities between with the way in which the ‘new’ professionals in the public sphere ought to act, and the goals that the activating welfare state has set for them. It is their job, very briefly summarized, to strengthen social cohesion and improve wellbeing, stimulate citizen’s initiatives and improve citizen’s self-reliance (Mekaar Utrecht, 2014; DOCK, 2016; Gouda municipality, 2018). Social brokers ought to improve these things predominantly trough so-called informal provisions, in contrast to the more expensive and custom-made care provisions (In Dutch: maatwerkvoorzieningen). This means that first and foremost, social brokers help people to take care of their own problems, make them more independent and stimulate participation, active citizenship and social cohesion. On the website of a social brokerage organization in the Dutch region de Zaanstreek, their role was poignantly described as ‘helping people to help people that need help’ (Present Zaanstreek, 2019). Some examples of how this works in practice are: social brokers making sure a neighbor takes out an old lady’s trash every week, ‘matching’ a retired Dutch teacher with an asylum seeker that requires language assistance or setting up social activities for

(8)

8 lonely elderly in possession of a mobility scooter. The idea here, is that these people are helped by informal care networks, making them self-reliant and independent of formal welfare state facilities.

Clearly, there is common ground to be found when one is looking at social brokers and some of the theoretical concepts that have been named throughout the introduction to this master’s thesis. Given the tasks they have been assigned to, social brokers aspire to be ambassadors of the objectives the activating welfare state wishes to accomplish. This makes them a fit group to study some of the dynamics within the modern welfare state, in which many developments seem to be unclear or ambiguous. It strives to grant citizens more autonomy, choice and responsibility for their own wellbeing, but as indicated earlier on, it is not clear how and whether this works out in practice. For its aim of putting the responsabilization aspirations of the welfare state into practice, social brokerage is an interesting profession of investigation. These professionals, who were previously seen as important obstacles to reaching citizen idependence and choice, are now in part responsible for boosting the process. At the same time, however, there are voices rising about the state taking responsibility away from – especially vulnerable – citizens. Tonkens and Newman (2011) write that citizens can be either invited, convinced or coerced to participate and become more self-reliant. The concept of responsabilization seems Janus-faced, and a researcher may have to investigate its practical execution to come to conclusions. To do otherwise, and overlook the implementation by professionals such as the social broker, may provide an incomplete view of citizen responsabilization in the activating welfare state2. In this research, I will try to circumvent theoretical determinism by interviewing social brokers and asking them about the character, daily practice, and difficulties of their work as a professional in the modern day welfare state. As ambassadors of the divergent welfare state developments, their takes on citizen responsibility and modern day professionalism help to gain a broader understanding of the activating welfare state. In this research, the following research question will be leading:

How do social brokers in Dutch municipalities manage citizens’ responsibilities for care and wellbeing between themselves, local government and citizens?

2

Various scholars have written about the drawbacks of confusing government policies or theoretical notions on welfare state developments with what is happening on the individual level of analysis. Prior (2009 , p. 23), for example, writes that professionals and citizens always maintain a certain degree of counter-agency, which influences the actual policy outcome and therefore should be included in every policy analysis.

(9)

9 Studying social brokerage in the context of the supposed increase in citizen responsibility is valuable, both scientifically and societally speaking. Firstly, academic literature indicates that there are various processes at work in the activating welfare state. Despite the large body of literature on the activating, neoliberal welfare system, most of the concepts are highly contested and ambiguous. An example of this might be participation, which is seen by some observers as the summum of choice and autonomy, and by others as a way to coerce citizens into taking responsibility. Theories on the steering state, greedy governance, the moralization of citizenship, the development of professionalism, all have dominant objections, nuances and even anti-theses. Not all of them are inherently related, but they do share a common denominator: the shifting of responsibility between the state, professionals and the citizen. At least in part, all developments that have been named in throughout the introduction have something to do with the questions: who is granted new responsibilities, which actors want to transfer responsibilities, whose responsibilities are taken away and trough which ways? All of these questions are the topic of scientific debates. The goal of this research is not to answer all of them exhaustively and on a macro-level of analysis, but to provide insights in how these processes may work in practice, in interactions between professionals, citizens and local government officials. Social brokers are a relevant group of professionals when it comes to studying the shifting responsibilities because they are self-proclaimed ambassadors of the activating welfare state in the Netherlands, once indicated by King Willem Alexander as the

Participation Society (Handreiking Gouda, 2018, p. 5-6). Every day, they are concerned with

helping vulnerable people while trying not to take on responsibility for their wellbeing themselves. As indicated before, their profession is a relatively new face in the Dutch welfare system. Their number has clearly been on the rise in the last couple of years, as now tens of municipalities employ – mostly via local wellbeing or care-organizations – social brokers. The relevance of this research, thus, also lies in the insights it provides in social brokerage as a profession and a mean that municipalities use in the execution of their social policies. By the time of writing, only one academic article has come out discussing the profession. This concerned a policy evaluation in the municipality of Utrecht by Machielse, Kampen, Van Heijst, Postma and Winnubst (2015). This research, in which I have spoken to eleven social brokers in five municipalities, will therefore provide insight in a scarcely investigated topic. Before continuing with the theoretical framework, I will provide a short outline of the rest of this thesis. In the theoretical section, various scholars and academic debates will be displayed. From ideological alterations, changed understandings of citizenship, developments with regards to professionalism: debates, flaws and overviews on these activating w elfare

(10)

10 state-topics will all be discussed here. Thereafter, in the research design, I will elaborate on

how I am (and was) planning on formulating an answer to the research question presented

above. Here, I will provide insight in the selection of cases, the weaknesses of the research and the ways through which the obtained data has been analyzed. In the fourth chapter, the analysis, the most important findings will be presented. Some of them will be descriptive in order to deepen out the understandings of social brokerage, whereas some findings will be explicitly linked to the relevant theories of the theoretical framework. During the conclusion to this thesis, I will present the most important analyses once more and discuss their scientific and societal implications.

(11)

11 2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Introduction: From neoliberalism to citizen responsabilization

The modernization of welfare states throughout Europe has been accompanied by an extension of responsibility for individuals, carers, families and communities (Newman and Tonkens, 2011, p. 9). Janet Newman and Evelien Tonkens write that in fact, greater responsibility for individuals and communities is one of the pillars on which the new welfare order is based. In the Netherlands autonomy and self-reliance have become increasingly important, already since the heyday of neoliberalism during the eighties and nineties of the previous century. At that time, full-fledged citizenship was understood primarily in economic terms – citizen’s would be granted autonomy and choice on the market, and thereby the responsibility to maximize their own utility (Verhoeven, 2016, p. 126). It was only after the rise of the economic, neoliberal era, that citizenship became a concept that gained significant moral connotations. The neoliberalist shift, as some authors describe it, ‘gradually gained a

communitarian3 twist’ (Tonkens, 2011, p. 55, emphasis added). Public norms and values became important, as well as caring for oneself and one’s community. As in the neoliberalist era, governments’ and professionals’ interventions in people’s lives were negatively appreciated. Now, however, the government called upon citizens and civil society to fill the gaps that it had left behind, by urging these actors to take on more responsibility (Brandsen, Trommel and Verschuere, 2017). Whereas at first this was interpreted as a victory on behalf of individual freedom, it did not take long until the new responsibilities became to be seen as

duties (Tonkens, 2011, p. 50). The Dutch government increasingly relied on all citizens, not

only those that make use of welfare state-services, for the execution of policy objectives. In the conclusion of their book, Newman and Tonkens (2011, p. 181) characterize the Dutch responsabilization process as ‘creating a responsible society.’ Rather counter-intuitively, the political philosophy of communitarianism obtained an influential position within naturally

3

The political philosophy of communitarianism, that puts emphasis on the building of mutual norms and values, will be further elaborated on in the upcoming parts of the theoretical framework.

(12)

12 individualist neoliberal regimes. Or, as Andrea Muehlenbach (2012, p. 20) phrases it: ‘this is

a neoliberal order rising under the sign of brotherly love.’ This ideological background of the shift towards the activating welfare state, in which the understanding of what it means to be a good citizen has changed, will be deepened out further throughout the theoretical framework of this thesis. Before the section on the altered definition of a ‘good citizen’, I will discuss work that reflects on the relationship between the activating welfare state and its civil society, that is required to fill some of the gaps of the retreating state. Further on in the theoretical framework, I will display some of the views on the altered nature of professionalism in the activating welfare state. In the conclusion to this chapter, I will summarize the most important views once more and connect them by identifying some of the bottom lines in the theory.

2.2 ‘Manufacturing’ civil society

To an important extent, ‘activating’ welfare states are characterized by their aspirations to engage their citizenries in civil society. Activating welfare states urge citizens to be active, come up with citizens’ initiatives and self-organize, Brandsen, Trommel and Verschuere (2017) write. The state-civil society relationship that this attitude results in, the authors argue, is historically unique. Traditionally, civil society is regarded a self-regulating entity that is explicitly safeguarded from the states’ interference4. Contemporary governments, however,

impose certain requirements on civil society, that is turning into an actor that can deliver certain public services, such as care and education.5 Activating regimes purposefully shift responsibilities to civil society, implying that the latter actor’s activities must be ‘redirected towards the policy objectives of government’ (Brandsen et al., 2017, p. 678). Civil society is believed to provide a better alternative to traditional welfare state and market arrangements, and therefore governments are eager to stimulate the development towards more responsibility for service delivery. This shift may be well-intentioned, but is not without risk: the ambition of ‘manufacturing’ or ‘revitalizing’ civil society raises multiple potential issues, Brandsen et al. note. Can something that is inherently built bottom up – such as civil society structures and organizations – be created or ‘stimulated’ by means of top-down, state interference? The answer to this question, according to Brandsen et al., depends on whether

4

Brandsen et al. (2017, p. 677), drawing on the work of Edwards (2007, p. 7), ascribe this notion of civil society to the thought of Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote that civil society should be a ‘self-regulating universe of voluntary associations committed to the be protected from intrusion by the state on rights and freedoms.’

5

The development that governments no longer hold a monopoly-position when it comes to the delivery of public services, is also frequently referred to as a shift from public administration towards public governance. As the states’ responsibilities expanded rapidly during the development of the welfare state, it had to increasingly rely on external resources such as citizens and firms for the execution of public services. See Brandsen et al. (2017, p. 681-682).

(13)

13 the state can manage to strike ‘a delicate balance between encouragement and restraint’ (2017, p. 676). States are at risk of taking control over civil society-based actions such as citizens’ initiatives, hereby undoing the spontaneous and autonomous character of such projects.

In the upcoming part of the theoretical framework, I will outline another important shift that came along with the development of the activating welfare state. Not only state-civil society relationships have altered: according to various authors, the shift towards active citizenship has led to a different understanding of what it means to be a (good) citizen.

2.3 Active citizenship: liberating or disciplining?

The notion that the changing nature of the government and the welfare state has been accompanied by a changed understanding of citizenship, is widespread in academic literature. Newman and Tonkens (2011) write that the modernization of welfare state governance swirls around a remaking of citizenship by governments. ‘Citizen’ has obtained a clear moral connotation (Schinkel and Van Houdt, 2010; Muehlenbach, 2012; Verhoeven, Verplanke and Kampen, 2013). The Good Citizen is self-providing, independent and actively contributes to the wellbeing of his community, while dependency and passivity have become characterized as detrimental features (Grootegoed, 2013). Tonkens (2011) writes that in the nineteen-sixties and seventies, the shift towards active citizenship was accompanied by a growing appetite for individual autonomy and discretion – citizens would be liberated from state paternalism and enabled to make their own choices. By the nineties, it became clear that these non-committal responsibilities had become duties. Therefore, authors like Schinkel and Van Houdt (2010) have come to conclude that active citizenship is a strategy through which states try to discipline, rather than liberate, their inhabitants. They see a distinction emerging between the Good citizen and his ‘inactive’ counterpart. Individual freedom, the authors stress, is equated with taking responsibility for yourself, your community and society as a whole. This notion of individual responsibility is a tool that governments use to try and ‘govern trough freedom’ (Schinkel and Van Houdt, 2010, p. 13). The authors base their analysis of the altered relationship between the state and its citizenry in the modern welfare state on the work on

governmentality by the French philosopher Michel Foucault. Appealing to the neoliberal

individual ethics of individual responsibility and participation is a strategy that states use to improve the governability of their populations – a way to make them intrinsically willing to realize the set policy objectives. The end-result, Schinkel and Van Houdt observe, is

(14)

14 communitarianism. In the following paragraph, I will elaborate further on the ideas of the latter political philosophy and its origins in the Netherlands.

2.4 Towards a neoliberal communitarianism

The political philosophy of communitarianism has gained increasing attention from Dutch scholars and politicians since the mid-nineties. The communitarian movement came as a response to the concerns about individualization and the supposed fading of widely endorsed

norms and values in Dutch society. It put great faith in the citizenry to rearticulate the mutual

beliefs that were considered lost, while the state only suited a modest and ‘stimulating’ role. When the Christian-democratic Balkendende-administration came into power in 2002, it openly drew upon the work of the intellectual front man of communitarianism, the American sociologist Amitai Etzioni. Etzioni’s book The New Golden Rule (1996), the prime minister declared, even ‘lay on his bedside table’ (Tegenlicht, 2004). During his years in office, Balkenende frequently emphasized that the citizens were responsible for the reestablishment of civil society and the accompanying norms and values – fully in line with the communitarian ideology. Balkenende insisted on not formulating the norms and values that needed resurrection himself, acknowledging that there is a fine line between too much state involvement and a ‘naturally’ developing society.

When we take the work of Schinkel and Van Houdt (2010) on neoliberal communitarianism – and Trommel (2009) on greedy governance – into account, however, the communitarian promise seems to have remained unredeemed. In fact, it is thei r explicit observation that the encouraging of coalitions between citizens means that these have not emerged naturally – but that their existence is the result of attempts by the state to strengthen the social tissue of society trough making citizens active. This is why despite its emphasis on individual responsibility, neoliberal communitarianism is interpreted as an example of greedy governance. Does the state really make citizens more responsible or, as Trommel and Schinkel and Van Houdt argue, is stimulating civil society and communities a far-reaching interference in the lives of citizens? In her work, Evelien Tonkens (2011) puts her finger on this responsabilization paradox within the modern day welfare state, the concept that will be the topic of the upcoming section.

2.5 The responsabilization paradox

Tonkens (2011) writes that among Dutch policymakers, active citizenship is an influential and popular concept. In the Netherlands, it is expected no less than to provide answers to

(15)

15 problems that arise with ‘globalization, individualism and democratization’, she writes (2011, p. 45). The notion that individuals became less embedded in their communities, as Robert Putnam (2001) argued for the United States, has been widely acknowledged since the nineteen-nineties. The state’s interest in communitarianism, however, created a dilemma – to develop, communities must be both left alone and actively ‘stimulated’. According to Tonkens (2011, p. 55), the Dutch government foresaw these possible pitfalls and stated, in the policy document Different government (2003), that ‘the most important and probably the most difficult task for the government will be tempering its own ambitions’. In his work Greedy

Governance (2009), Willem Trommel concludes that the state has not succeeded in its

ambition to remain modest. Trommel is critical about the structure of the ‘newborn’ communitarianism, with ‘front-line workers’ and ‘neighborhood-directors’ at the heart. He finds the approach ‘orchestrated from above, while neglecting social diversity in an attempt to create a new civil society from a uniform perspective’ (2009, p. 18). Whereas the Dutch government continuously stresses the responsibility that citizens and communities themselves bare, Trommel considers the approach as explicitly interventionist, and therefore an example of greedy governance. Evelien Tonkens does not take the same position in her work, but identifies where these different understandings of the political and social reality come from. She emphasizes that nor the paternalist greedy governance, nor the transfer of responsibilities to the citizenry provides a clear picture. In fact, she writes, we are witnessing a

responsabilization paradox: a ‘co-occurrence of responsabilization and de-responsabilization’

(2011, p. 59). Whereas the importance of individual responsabilization continues to be emphasized, passive, inactive and problematic cases face increasing attention from social workers. Tonkens summarizes the paradox as follows:

On the one hand, politicians and policymakers expect citizens to be responsible and treat them as if they already are responsible, arguing that to do otherwise would be paternalistic. On the other hand, citizens are treated as irresponsible and not capable of being left alone to do their own thing, and therefore responsibility is taken away from them. (Tonkens, 2011, p. 61). In the citation above, it seems that the responsabilization paradox hinges on a mixture of ideals that can be found in neoliberalism and communitarianism: whereas the former condemns paternalism and celebrates citizen’s autonomy and choice, the latter emphasizes that government stimulation is necessary when one ought to revitalize civil society. In work that expresses a line of reasoning that is similar to Tonkens’ paradox, Anna Schonewille (2013) indicates that a tradeoff between (de)responsabilization may be at play in the daily

(16)

16 practice of the work of welfare state professionals. Welfare workers in local municipalities seem to face a similar paradox every day, as they try to activate people trough intervening in their personal life, without affecting their autonomy. This is a challenging occupation, Schonewille argues, as the ‘act of activation does imply the interference of the state or professional in the lives of citizens’ (2013, p. 64). Other than Tonkens, Schonewille coins the apparent contradiction she observes the ‘intervention-autonomy’ paradox. Whether one of the two sides of the paradox takes the upper hand, Schonewille writes, is dependent on the approach taken on by the professional in question. She writes that it is nonsensical to argue that either intervention or autonomy is dominant, a line of reasoning that is similar to that of Tonkens and others. Authors like Noordegraaf (2016) and Tonkens and Newman (2011) have therefore warned for determinism in analyses of processes in the activating welfare state. Outcomes seem context dependent, requiring empirical research to provide insights on the dynamics of paradoxes such as those named above. In the upcoming section, therefore, I will discuss theory that stresses the importance of implementation: by looking at policy or theory alone, one is unlikely to reveal what goes on in practice.

2.6 Investigating the responsabilization paradox

Because it is tempting to investigate whether one side of the paradox is the best reflection of what is really going on, Tonkens and Newman (2011) warn for determinism in this regard. In the conclusion of their book, they argue: ‘We cannot simply view responsibility as something devolved from the state onto citizens: citizens are already responsible, and are tied into complex relationships of mutual responsibility, dependence and care’, the authors (2011, p. 180) write. Oude Vrielink and Verhoeven (2011) add that the number of citizens’ initiatives, sometimes seen as an indication for the American term ‘civil society’, has not spontaneously increased as much as sometimes assumed. They have always existed, in many different forms. Also not all moves towards responsabilization can be put ‘under the heading of communitarianism’, and Newman and Tonkens write that critical analyses of neoliberal communitarianism are characterized by high levels of abstraction (2011, p. 184-5). Work similar to that of Schinkel and Van Houdt (2010) and Trommel (2009) often does not address exactly how responsibilities are shared between the state and the citizen, and merely observe that there is a shift from one actor to the other on the macro-level of analysis. Additionally, Newman and Tonkens write that active citizenship may work emancipatory, and potentially has great upsides. The authors sum up that encouraging active citizenship may ‘open up new spaces of collective agency’, ‘offer nuanced means of engaging diverse publics, taking

(17)

17 account of different interests’ and ‘connect citizens more purposively to the institutions they encounter in a plural polity’ (2011, p. 198). Active citizenship should not only be distrusted, nor should it be treated as a holy grail. The concept is Janus-faced, and whether it provides positive or negative outcomes is highly dependent on the contexts in which it is implemented (Newman and Tonkens, 2011). Analyses on the macro-level, such as discourse analysis and policy analysis, have pitfalls because they have a hard time taking the implementation contexts into account. This is especially problematic because ever since the classical work of Pressman and Wildavsky (1984), we know that there often is a discrepancy between policy on paper and policy in practice. In the book Subversive Citizens (2009), David Prior recognizes that this discrepancy is at risk of being underexposed in macro-level analyses of government techniques and strategies with the supposed aim of ‘disciplining’ their citizens. Prior writes that merely drawing on such theories is insufficient when one seeks to understand what happens in the delivery of public services, particularly at the point where relations of power are exercised in encounters between officials and citizens’ (2009, p. 18). He does not deny the neoliberal shift that can be observed in welfare state policy, but emphasizes that the more traditional solutions have remained influential in shaping the values and practices of staff and the experiences of citizens. Discursive constructions in policy documents shape and constrain encounters between professionals and citizens, but do not determine the policy outcomes. Prior writes that professionals’ and citizens’ counter-agency always plays a role, and therefore the everyday practice should be included when a certain policy is evaluated. He concludes: ‘What actually happens is contingent on the interaction of structural elements (strategies and technologies) and cultural elements (the agency of practitioners and citizens)’ (Prior, 2009, p. 23). Taking Prior’s work into account, theoretical, macro-level analyses – of which the work of Schinkel and Van Houdt (2010) and Trommel (2009) might be examples – are at risk of telling only half the story. It makes clear that when one attempts to understand the responsabilization paradox, only performing a theoretical or policy analysis (or only investigating the practical context) is likely to be insufficient. As the former influences the latter and vice versa, both should be taken into account, Prior argues. Because interactions between professionals and citizens are important for understanding the responsabilization paradox, the upcoming section will be on professionalism in the activating welfare state.

2.7 Professionals and the activating welfare state

As indicated in the introduction to this theoretical framework, the activating welfare state requires a different attitude of professionals in the public domain. Social brokers are a part of

(18)

18 this group and therefore encounter the alterations that accompany the development towards a more activating welfare regime. Over the last decades, a wide variety of – sometimes contradictory – analyses regarding the changing nature of professionalism have been published. In this part of the theoretical framework, I will provide an overview of the different stances on the issue of professionalism from the rise of neoliberalism and New Public

Management (NPM) towards the development of the activating welfare state.

During the late nineteen-seventies, public and intellectual morals towards the legitimacy of professional power began to change. Professionals, like the overall post-war welfare state in Western Europe, were increasingly characterized as overly powerful and paternalist. Duyvendak, Knijn and Kremer (2006) write that as new models of governance have been intentionally6 limiting the discretionary space of professionals, their position

vis-à-vis consumers and state policies has severely weakened. Even though the state is often

understood to be ‘retreating’, numerous scholars have emphasized that it’s appetite for control and monitoring had not decreased. In fact, local governments – that have gained influence and responsibilities over recent years – want to know what is going on at the level of implementation and hold professional accountable for the outcome of their efforts. Duyvendak et al. observe that voices that activating welfare states were increasingly limiting the discretionary space of professionals are on the rise, due to governance structures that aligned with NPM. These structures, that found their origination during the neoliberal era in the nineteen eighties and nineties, are known for their emphasis on output mechanisms and the control of achievements (Van Putten, 2015; Frissen, 2013)7. The increased pressure on their work forces professionals to take an extending amount of managerial and bureaucratic standards into account, hereby altering the content of their job and decreasing their motivation (Duyvendak et al., 2006). According to Margo Trappenburg (2006), New Public Management and its’ focus on output and accountability is even leading to ‘social neurosis’ among professionals, who are constantly worried about not living up to the bureaucratic standards that are imposed on them. The emphasis on accountability, in other words, may have ‘gone along with re-bureaucratization’ (Duyvendak et al., 2006, p. 10). A supposedly retreating state may sound appealing to professionals, but a substantial body of academic literature stresses

6

Duyvendak et al. (2006) emphasize that this was an orchestrated plan to limit the discretion of the

professionals. Noordegraaf (2006, p. 186) even speaks of a ‘neo-liberal attack’ on professional powers in this regard, especially in health care, welfare and other social domains.

7

It is important to stress here that New Public Management (NPM) is not primarily a product of the activating welfare state, but rather of the rise of neoliberalist governance structures. The rise of activating welfare regimes in the years after the turn of the century, however, do not mean that NPM has ceased to exist. Authors like Van Putten (2015, p. 78) note that to a large extent, the principles of NPM (decentralization, output control) are still dominantly present in the current welfare state.

(19)

19 that in fact some aspects of the process have further constrained their discretion. However, governments’ increasing emphasis on accountability is not the only process that limits the authority of professionals. Due to marketization and contractualization, the time they are able to spend on clients has declined, Duyvendak et al. (2006) point out in their article. The authors summarize that the ‘New Professional’ has lost discretionary space in comparison to users and consumers, who have been granted voice and exit options, and the state, that puts ever more emphasis on accountability for professionals and forces them to live up to bureaucratic standards (2006, p. 7). These threats for professionalism under the influence of neoliberalism and NPM was coined by Clarke and Newman (1997) as deprofessionalization.

Other scholars, however, present different or even opposing views regarding the issue. Even though deprofessionalization may be seen as the more popular stance, or starting point in the literature on professionalism in activating welfare regimes, it is sur ely not ‘the last word’ (Duyvendak et al., 2006, p. 8). Noordegraaf (2006, p. 186), for instance, also identifies developments towards (cost-)control, efficiency and marketization – a shift ought to turn health care organizations into ‘normal, integrated companies’ with a ‘businesslike and market-oriented approach’. This means that due to the rise of managerialism, professionals – from being unquestioned experts with a significant degree of authority – become more like ‘normal employees’ (Noordegraaf, 2016, p. 787). Noordegraaf, however, notes that this dichotomy between managers and professionals has several drawbacks. In his 2006 article, he distinguishes between professionals, executives and managers, who are often working within the same organizational structure. To an increasing extent, he argues, executives and managers are becoming professionals as well, hereby copying the classical logics of professionalism. Under the influence of new managerial styles an increasing amount of executives and managers – Noordegraaf repeatedly uses welfare, health care and social workers as an example – these workers also perceive themselves as professionals. Professionalism in the activating welfare state, Noordegraaf adds, is to an increasing extent ‘connective’ (2016, 802). This type of professionalism characterized by ‘embedded control’, meaning that front-line workers have to cooperate with other kinds of professionals and, importantly in the activating welfare state, volunteers. Verhoeven and Van Bochove (2018) pose that this is not necessarily a threat to professionalism, but that it may merely be an alteration. The consequences for professionalism, these authors write, are highly dependent on the implementation of the ‘embedded’, ‘connective’ roles by professionals themselves. Noordegraaf agrees to the thesis that professionalism is not necessarily under threat. In fact, it

(20)

20 is his observation that larger parts of the workforce become professionalized. He therefore also identifies a development towards what he calls reprofessionalization, in addition to the

frequently stressed deprofessionalization.

Despite the fact that Noordegraaf comes up with an alternative to the deprofessionalization-thesis, he warns for determinism in analyses of the changing nature of professionalism in neoliberal, activating welfare regimes. ‘The rough sketch of de-professionalising or proletarianizing experts on the one hand, and professionalizing managers and executives on the other, presents a simple, unrealistic zero-sum analysis’, he writes (2006, p. 189). In practice, classical professionals such as experts and specialists maintain relatively autonomous and powerful, Noordegraaf writes. In their work, Duyvendak, Knijn en Kremer (2006) make a similar, critical point about the ideas of large ideological and societal shifts that affects professionals in general.

Changes in ideologies and predominant logics are never fully reflected in professional practices because ideological changes tend to bounce back since people in practice can stick to traditions, professionals can intentionally refuse to adapt to the new morals, and so on. Professionals are not only passive objects of change; they themselves play a role in defining professionalism. (Duyvendak et al., 2006, p. 8).

This citation on the importance of professional practices shows important similarities to Lipsky’s classic work on ‘street-level bureaucracy’. With their mechanisms and strategies to cope with policy changes, professional practices remain an important aspect of the polic y making process (Durose, 2011). Whereas the role of the classic street-level bureaucrat has changed as well – as I will elaborate further on in the upcoming section – professional coping mechanisms have not disappeared. As the theses on embedded professionalism indicate, the implementation of welfare-state policies is a shared task in active citizenship regimes (Verhoeven and Van Bochove, 2019, p. 788-89). Rather than the disappearance of coping by professionals, the new situation of embedded control has opened up the space for alternative coping mechanisms to emerge. This means, according to scholars like Noordegraaf and Duyvendak et al., that it is still nonsensical to see developments of professionalism through the lens of policy only. Substantive changes are certainly happening, but these do not mean that coping and counter-agency mechanisms have ceased to exist, nor can they explain what goes on at the level of implementation.

(21)

21 Lipsky’s observations regarding the implementation of policies by the street-level bureaucrat were made during far more hierarchical welfare state bureaucracies, as Verhoeven and Van Bochove (2019) write. The coping mechanisms of these professionals were primarily concerned with protecting their own discretion vis-à-vis the state and other external or internal powers that jeopardized it. In the current, activating regimes, however, welfare state -responsibilities are in any case shared between multiple actors outside of the realm of professionalism, such as volunteers and citizens. Therefore, Verhoeven and Van Bochove indicate, the current street-level bureaucrat (or front-line worker) has quite a different range of tasks. ‘Front-line workers are expected to read a situation, improvise, reflect on an action, and engage in very context-sensitive forms of community empowerment’, the authors write (2019, p. 788). Their view is supported by other literature on front-line work and professionalism in activating welfare regimes. In their work on practitioners in the public sphere, Van Hulst, De Graaf and Van den Brink (2011, p. 128) include an elaborate description of front-line workers. According to the authors, the term refers to the ‘situated agents’ that have to both 1) deliver policy objectives and 2) build networks and relationships with the community. The second part of their jobs sets them apart from conventional street-level bureaucrats, that do not have to put the same amount of emphasis on their relationships with the local community (Van der Hulst et al., 2011). In an article by Hartman and Tops (2009, p. 199) on front-line workers in large Dutch cities, the authors stress that it concerns ‘tailor-made work’, organized from the ground up. In order to empower citizens and communities, the ability to ‘read a situation, improvise and reflect on action’ is required of front-line workers (Tonkens and Verhoeven, 2019, p. 14). As mentioned in divergent scholarly work, front-line workers have an enabling and empowering role when it comes to civic engagement, and citizens’ initiatives in particular. Opposed to bottom-up orchestrated civic action and top-down citizen participation, initiatives are a mixture of both – they are examples of ‘blended action in which civic engagement and governmental support coincide’ (Tonkens and Verhoeven, 2019, p. 3). In their article on unequal participation in citizens’ initiatives, Tonkens and Verhoeven name a few examples of the purposes that these types of civic engagement can serve.

Citizens’ initiatives can promote social aims such as forging connections between different cultural groups, or developing community gardens, or political aims, such as promoting ethnic diversity in schools or combating gentrification (Tonkens and Verhoeven, 2019, p. 3).

One of the main tasks of front-line workers, then, is to stimulate citizens to start these kind of initiatives. During an experiment in deprived neighborhoods within the municipality of

(22)

22 Amsterdam between 2008-2011, Tonkens and Verhoeven write, the professionals reached out to citizens on various occasions. They approached people in local contexts and organized gatherings for people to get acquainted with the possibilities of citizens’ initiatives, feed them ideas and provide information on budgets. Many of the initiatives had the objective of combatting isolation and strengthening the social tissue of these communities. These goals seem to serve purposes that are similar to those formulated within the political philosophy of communitarianism. When we connect the literature on front-line work to the responsabilization paradox, then, these are the professionals that fulfill the stimulating role in this regard – they enable initiatives that improve the strength of civil society, and empower communities.

2.8 Conclusion

The theoretical framework above consists of three key components. Firstly, it contains a description of the ideological shifts – from the traditional welfare state, to neoliberalism, to neoliberalist communitarianism – that according to various authors have taken place during the development of the welfare states during the last decades. These shifts have had various consequences, especially for the ways in which concepts like citizenship and civil society have come to be perceived.

Secondly, the work of authors with various interpretations of the consequences of these developments have been discussed. Many of these views have showed to be contradictory, which brings to the light that many of the processes at work may be ambiguous. This is particularly the case when it comes to responsabilization, as authors like Tonkens (2011) and Schonewille (2013) observe a co-occurrence of interventionism and emphasis on citizens’ autonomy. Similarly contracting work has been discussed with regards to the position of professionals in the activating welfare state. Whereas some authors point towards the ongoing dominance of NPM-oriented output-mechanisms, others have indicated that the activating welfare state’s embedded professionalism is not necessarily a threat to

professionals’ authority.

Thirdly, various authors have emphasized that one should be cautious when determining which one of the observed developments is really going on. Determinism is to be avoided, as the micro-level of analysis and the phase of implementation are often crucial. Theoretical analyses, authors like Prior (2009) have written, can therefore not have the final say. Empirical research, that reveals the complexities and dynamics on the implementation level need to deepen out our understanding of these activating welfare state dynamics. The

(23)

23 empirical research that has been carried out for this thesis is attempting just that. How it aims to do that, will be described in the upcoming section on research design.

3 Research Design

3.1 Introduction

In this section it will be clarified how I am planning on formulating an answer to the research question as posed in the introduction. The chapter on research design will – informed by literature on methodology – provide information on the practicalities of this research, such as case selection, data collection and data-analysis.

3.2 Case selection, data collection and ethical considerations

The conducted interviews have taken place in five municipalities throughout the Netherlands. To be precise, I have interviewed three social brokers in Gouda, three in Westland, two in Cranendonck, two in Haarlemmermeer and one in Oegstgeest. The interviews were semi-structured, meaning that there was a specific set of questions prepared in advance, but also room for the conversation to develop in ways that seemed interesting (Bryman, 2012, p. 472). I have asked the interviewees on a variety of topics, and attempted to make most of the prepared questions reflect the theoretical notions that are displayed in the theoretical framework. This happened implicitly – asking direct questions like ‘how do you responsabilize vulnerable citizens?’ was avoided. Rather, I asked about the tasks and responsibilities of the brokers themselves, the challenges they faced, their collaboration with civil servants and politicians and their thoughts on the activating welfare state in general. Some questions were asked to all interviewees, whereas others were context-specific, as they were derived from local policy documents or the employers’ websites.

The municipalities where the brokers were employed started working with them in different years, also meaning that there was a wide variety in terms of experience among the professionals that I have spoken to. Up to a certain extent, social brokers are concerned with

(24)

24 the same issues and face similar professional challenges when it comes to responsabilization8. However, some of them had slightly different positions within the municipalities, or within the teams they were operating in. In both Gouda and Westland, I have interviewed two regular social brokers plus one broker who was in a more managerial or coordinating position. This meant, for example, that they did not predominantly operate in specific neighborhoods or small villages, but worked more on a municipality-wide basis. In Gouda and Westland, they were more in contact with local government officials and politicians about the achievements of the social brokers, and discussed the content and challenges of the job. In the other municipalities the regular social brokers had more contacts with politicians and civil servants, partly because of the smaller size of the teams or differing job descriptions. Of course not only the tasks of the brokers were often different, there is also a great variety in the municipalities from which they were operating. To provide a little more background information on the municipalities of choice, an overview:

Table 1

Municipality Inhabitants Total number of brokers (interviewed) Gouda 72.338 5 (3) Westland 106.752 13 (3) Cranendonck 20.436 2 (2) Haarlemmermeer 146.808 7 (2) Oegstgeest 23.810 1 (1)

As one sees in the table above, demographic details differ greatly among the municipalities. Haarlemmermeer and Westland have the largest populations, but are merged municipalities and consist of a larger number of smaller and larger cities and towns. Cranendonck is also an agglomeration of six different towns, whereas the municipality of Oegstgeest consists of one, larger town. Gouda is the largest city in the research sample, with a population of around 70,000 people. As one looks at the socio-economic details between these municipalities, additionally, great variety can be observed. The percentage of households on welfare, for example, differs from 2,7 percent in Westland to 5,4 percent in Gouda (Waarstaatjegemeente, 2019). Another example is yearly household income, varying from 49,000 (Oegstgeest) to

8

(25)

25 36,000 euros (Gouda) on average (Waarstaatjegemeente, 2014). Details like these shape the content of the job of social brokers, and the themes they devote their attention to. In the analysis-section, it will become clearer exactly how socio-economic and demographic differences shape the daily routines of social brokers.

Most of the interviews were set up by reaching out to the local wellbeing-organizations the brokers work for, or getting in touch with them directly. Because brokers explicitly aspire to be visible and easily accessible to citizens, reaching out to them was often not difficult. Most of the people I reached out to were happy to participate in the research, sometimes offering to set up meetings with colleagues. Email-addresses were often to be found online, especially those of the brokers who are active in smaller communities. Upfront, I aspired to conduct interviews in the municipalities of Utrecht and Gouda. Both these municipalities have experience with social brokerage for multiple years, and have published various documents on their ideas about the content of the job (Handreiking Gouda, 2018; Uitgangspunten sociaal makelaarschap Utrecht, 2017). Gouda’s Handreiking (helping hand) on social brokerage is an elaborate guide for other middle-sized cities that consider making use of social broking in their communities, as not every Dutch municipality has become acquainted with the profession yet. It displays the approach to social brokerage that Gouda conducts. Interviews with brokers in other municipalities learned that Gouda and Utrecht are seen as exemplary cases, and that other local governments sometimes examine the approaches in these cities in preparation to setting up their own social brokerage program9. The influential position that Utrecht and Gouda hold when it comes to social brokerage was the main incentive to try and gain access in these municipalities. According to the work of Alan Bryman (2012, p. 418) on sampling in qualitative research, this approach is an example of

purposive sampling. Because of the experience that social brokers or managers of brokerage

organizations have in Utrecht and Gouda, it seemed wise to reach out to them first, as these professional insights are beneficial in the process of answering the research question. Given the policy documents that I had read, I suspected that the most knowhow on the fundaments of social brokerage was to be found in these municipalities. Unfortunately and despite various attempts, however, I was not able to make an appointment with social brokers in the municipality of Utrecht. In Gouda I was granted access to the field, which opened up possibilities to get in touch with brokers in other municipalities. At first, I was planning on researching Utrecht an Gouda only. When Utrecht turned out to be unwilling to cooperate,

9

This was the case in Oegstgeest, were the program had started only a few months ago, and where the approach was in part based on the fundaments that Gouda’s Handreiking provides.

(26)

26 however, it was necessary to cover other municipalities in order to get a firm empirical basis for my research. Partly via the brokers I had met in Gouda, I was able to reach out to brokers in other municipalities, an approach that Bryman labels snowball sampling (2012, p. 424). This approach was also applied during the rest of the research, as many of the brokers knew colleagues in other municipalities and were willing to provide me with their email-addresses. The last approach that I used is somewhat more opportunistic: browsing the internet for municipalities or organizations that employ social brokers. Sending them emails and making phone calls also resulted in gathering some of the respondents.

In the process of making appointments with these professionals, I requested to speak to the managers within the team of social brokers. I suspected that professionals in a more managerial position could provide me with different insights about the brokers’ collaboration with local governments (civil servants and politicians), the coming about of social brokerage in these municipalities and were more concerned with the policies behind the brokerage programs. In the two cases where there was a manager – in Gouda and in Westland – these requests were granted, and proved to generate valuable information. Therefore, albeit to a limited extent, I have also made use of purposive sampling within the municipalities of choice.

In total, I have conducted 11 semi-structured, face-to-face interviews10 with social brokers in the five municipalities mentioned above. The interviews lasted between 35 minutes and one hour, and were recorded to be transcribed afterwards. All quotes from interviewees will be displayed without displaying their names, but only with reference of the municipality in which they are operating and a respondent code (R1, R2, and so forth). Interviewees did not demand anonymity in advance, nor did they reject talking about certain issues. Some topics, however, were explicitly labelled ‘politically sensitive’ by the interviewees, for example when an answer concerned problems in the collaboration with civil servants or politicians. In such cases, the choice was made not to quote the respondents directly. Social brokerage programs are often evaluated by local authorities and had in some cases started off only recently, making the programs a target for political or governmental review. In some cases a topic list or questionnaire was appreciated and sent to the interviewees in advance.

3.3 Data-analysis

Performing the interviews for this research resulted in almost nine hours of audio material. As soon as the footage was transcribed, the analysis of the qualitative material began. Opposed to

10

(27)

27 the analysis of quantitative data, there are no strict rules – except from a few general guidelines – for analyzing and interpreting data that is gathered as a result of qualitative research. According to Bryman, the two most commonly used research strategies in qualitative research are analytic induction – which is aimed at testing theoretically driven hypotheses – and grounded theory. This approach, developed by Glaser and Straus (1967), is far from unambiguous. It consists of multiple features and tools, often used apart from each other by researchers. One of the analytical tools that has its origin in grounded theory, Bryman writes, is coding. It is also the most important analytical tool that I have used during my data-analysis. According to Bryman:

Coding is one of the most central processes in grounded theory. It entails reviewing transcripts and/or field notes and giving labels (names) to component parts that seem to be of potential theoretical significance and/or that appear to be particularly salient within the social worlds of those being studied. (Bryman, 2012, p. 568).

When taking the definition displayed above into account, coding is a way to both 1) organize the collected data and 2) start with an analysis. This twofold function is reflected in the different stages of the coding process. During the first step, open coding, the researcher breaks down the data, compares and conceptualizes it before creating different categories (Strauss and Corbin (1990, cited in Bryman, 2012). Within the context of this master thesis, this means that a remark by a social broker like: ‘I think it is a good development [the ‘participation society’]. You can just keep on consuming, of course, but look at what you can do yourself’ (Gouda, R1) was labelled Positive remark on participation society. The founders of the grounded theory-approach emphasized that the researcher should keep an open mind towards his material, meaning that there may be no theoretical grounds for open coding. Bulmer (1997), however, is skeptical about whether this instruction is feasible. He wrote that making theory-neutral observations may be more than challenging to researchers that have a broad understanding of the theoretical contexts of the material. In addition, he asked himself whether theory-neutral observations as advocated by grounded theory-advocates are desirable. It was his conviction that a partly theoretically aware coding may enrich, rather than blur, the researchers’ observation11

.

The phase of open coding results in an large amount of different codes and labels. During the next stage of the coding process, axial coding, the material is put back together by making connections between the categories that were created. Practically, this means that the

11

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

L14 44 Grijsbruin-geel, gevlekt, vrij los, zandig pakket, duidelijke aflijning, met weinig baksteen, mortel en kalkzandsteen 1 bodemfragment ongeglazuurd rood aardewerk,

The research therefore submits that reading 2 Samuel 11:1-27 in the context of the theology of the Deuteronomistic History raises an awareness and understanding of why patriarchy,

Therefore this research focused on creating an objective and subjective contrast measure to answer the question how contrast influences the relation between

This apparent contradiction seems to suggest that many effects of advertising and brand management are automatic and go unnoticed; consumers may simply not always be

Specifically how these firms are utilizing ceramic nanomaterials to develop the next generation platform product for industries that see the potential in advanced nanomaterials

Two group interviews and one interview with a total of seven older participants were held to find out what the experiences are with this intervention to fulfil the social needs of

Het tradi- tionalistisch-historistisch denkkader, zoals dat in Engeland voornamelijk bij auteurs uit de common law-traditie te vinden is (Coke bijvoorbeeld), maar dat ook in

As regards the relationship between the instruments under Chapter 1 of the Chw and the legal quality of decisions, again we distinguish between provisions relating to