Excercising your Right to Challenge: An analysis of influence on citizen satisfaction

(1)

EXCERCISING YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE:

AN ANALYSIS OF INFLUENCE ON CITIZEN SATISFACTION

A Master’s Thesis OCTOBER 2020

by

ROWAN OKCUOGLU

Institute of Public Administration ………..

Universiteit Leiden Den Haag

(2)

Abstract

This thesis examines the factors that influence the level of satisfaction with public service providers indicated by Dutch citizens exercising their Right to Challenge, and the extent to which they do so. It proposed a comprehensive theoretical model of these factors and their effects both on each other and on citizen satisfaction. Through use of a web-based survey, data is gathered which is then analyzed using statistical analysis. The analysis compares the findings of this survey with previous academic research on the subject and shows that the theoretical model of this thesis only partially holds after analysis. This thesis demonstrates the need for further research into the Right to Challenge as a form of co-production. Keywords: Satisfaction; Citizen; Right to Challenge; co-production; survey.

(3)

Introduction

A typical citizen’s experience with the Right to Challenge

This thesis concerns the satisfaction with public service providers as indicated by Dutch citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge (RtC). The RtC is the latest practical application of co-production as it relates to the field of Public Administration. The instance of research on this subject has increased over the last decades, but not as it relates to the practice of citizens’ Right to Challenge in The Netherlands. The RtC is best introduced by discussing an example of its use. In the city of Amsterdam, the district of Zuid-Oost had the lowest rate of waste separation in all of The Netherlands (RecyQ, 2017). A local resident decided he wanted to improve this situation and challenged the local municipality for the right to become the provider of the public service of waste separation management. The municipality decided to allow him to take the responsibility from the municipality and try it himself. Together with a team, he improved the public service by providing waste separation pick-up services, making an app that residents can use to track their CO2 reduction owing to waste separation, et cetera. All this was done with the help and resources of the municipality, previously reserved for the municipality’s own waste separation services, but now in the hands of citizens.

This process was not smooth however, as the citizens involved spoke of a long and difficult process, where they felt unheard by the responsible public officials. Perhaps more significant is that they only attributed their eventual success to finally meeting one enthusiastic public official within the municipality who was the catalyst for bringing the process to completion (De Koster, 2018). This example is not the only one of its kind, as other examples can be found of difficulties that influenced the way that citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge feel about the public service provider they co-produce with. Difficulties that influence this opinion range from the complex transfer of legal responsibility for the provision of a public service to citizens (Brandsen, Steen, & Verschuere, 2018, pp. 138-139), to a lack of guidance on requirements surrounding the RtC (Timmer, 2019), and to the way that the right is codified (De Koster, 2019). A case such as the waste separation management in Amsterdam mentioned above is a segue to a wider debate in the field of Public Administration. This debate involves the effects of citizen involvement in provision of public services and forms a major new frontier of research.

Different approaches, similar problems

The Right to Challenge as it is implemented in The Netherlands is a government policy that aims to empower citizens by allowing them to challenge public service providers. If a citizen has ideas to improve certain public services, they have the right by law to petition the government to allow them to provide the public service themselves. This novel idea has so far only been implemented by two governments: that of the United Kingdom, and the government of The Netherlands.

In an effort to further democratize local policymaking, increase citizen involvement, and reduce financial costs, the United Kingdom adopted the ‘Community Right to Challenge’ in the Localism Act 2011 (UK Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2012). The UK government sees it as a novel way of decentralizing political power and giving communities more influence over the world around them (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012). This law defined the RtC as the right of citizens to halt tender procedures in order to be able to make a serious offer themselves. When they

(6)

5 succeed, citizens use the budget and other governmental support previously allocated to a public service provider in order to provide the service themselves. The goal of this policy was to divert power away from the central government, and towards regular citizens.

This important first step for the RtC has not been without its obstacles, however. A recent study by the Centre for Public Impact noted that, while commitment to the policy was high, public impact was rather low (Rose, 2018). By December 2014, only 50 bids had been submitted by citizens in all of the UK. Of those 50 bids, seven were accepted, and only three were actually awarded to these citizen groups. As no stipulations were made to ensure citizen awareness of the new law, neither was the process made simple and understandable. Community organizations complained about the ‘overly bureaucratic process’ requiring substantial knowledge and resources. Only 44 percent of people felt that local public service providers were responsive to the concerns of local residents. The report concluded that the lack of use of the RtC undermined the stated goals of the policy. This indicates that UK citizens appear to make little use of this right, stating hardships such as a lack of guidance and low accessibility (Rose, 2018). These and other issues are indicative of many citizens’ growing dissatisfaction with the responsible public service providers. A revision of the law or even any further inquiry and research into the matter has thus far not taken place, and even the UK government appears to have lost interest in researching the effects of this new law. Overall, putting the RtC into law and practice in the UK appears unsuccessful in achieving its stated goal, and left citizens dissatisfied with the way it has been implemented.

Despite this, various Dutch municipalities followed suit and started experimenting with their own implementation of the RtC over the next few years. Some municipalities took the creation of RtC policy upon themselves, co-producing various RtC initiatives alongside citizens. In 2017, the Dutch government also bound itself to the implementation of the RtC in the new government’s coalition agreement (Rutte, Buma, Pechtold, & Segers, 2017). They sought to expand upon the British model by actively encouraging citizens that wanted to take responsibility for public service provision (Boogaard, Driessen, & Den Ouden, 2019, p. 2860). The goal of this policy is to empower Dutch citizens who want to change the design and outcome of public services (Ollongren, 2018). While the coalition agreement did unofficially bind the government to achieve this stated goal, no official law obliges municipalities to enforce this policy. There is an ongoing public debate in The Netherlands concerning the value of putting the RtC into law. While a proposed law by the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations is in the works, it has not been approved by parliament yet. Concerns about the complexity of laws that have to be adhered to form the main obstacle for official inclusion of the RtC into Dutch law (Niels, 2020). By 2018, 12,4 percent of all Dutch municipalities had of their own volition enabled the practice of the RtC through regulation (Van den Bongaardt, 2018, p. 13). Of these, most were municipalities outside of the ‘Randstad’ agglomeration of the country’s most populous cities (Van den Bongaardt, 2018).

Some success stories followed these measures. Examples can be found where the RtC was successfully exercised. A citizen in the city of Gouda has taken over the municipality’s responsibility of cleaning the canals (Van Velzen, 2019), residents of a neighborhood in The Hague cleaned and improved local parks and playgrounds (Janssen, 2020), and a park of rare lilacs is now being maintained by local residents in Aalsmeer (Van den Bosch, 2020). These successful conclusions to the process of citizens exercising their RtC indicate the value that such a policy can have. The RtC is considered to be a novel way of allowing

(7)

6 citizen input when public service providers failed to achieve the outcome that local residents want (Aan de slag met de Omgevingswet, n.d.). The Dutch Right to Challenge thus offers citizens the chance to take the initiative and become responsible for providing public services in certain areas.

The Right to Challenge in a conceptual context

When analyzing the RtC through an academic lens, several considerations as to conceptual context have to be made. The RtC is a new concept that builds upon the wealth of Public Administration literature on

co-production. Citizens have near daily interactions with public service providers. They experience many aspects of public service delivery whenever they have their garbage collected, see roadwork being done, report a crime to a police officer, etc. They may thus logically have their own opinion about how these services are provided. Being allowed to not only provide feedback but also enact changes in public service provision is inherent to many modern democracies (Pestoff, 2006). This is often facilitated by policy that enables a collaboration between the citizens that experience the outcomes of public service provision, and the public officials that design and provide the service. They make better use of the other side’s knowledge and resources in order to improve public services. This in turn improves citizen satisfaction with these public service providers (Alford & Yates, 2016). This type of collaborative effort is what is known in contemporary academic literature as co-production (Loeffler & Bovaird, 2016, p. 1006).

The RtC is considered a new and more direct way to achieve the commonly stated goals of co-production, such as cutting costs, increasing citizen engagement and improving public service provision. It gives citizens the right to directly challenge local authorities on the provision of public services. If citizens are dissatisfied with the way their (local) public services are provided, they can petition the government to let them take on the responsibility themselves. They come up with ideas for improving a public service, which are evaluated by the public officials. If the plan is approved, they take up the position previously occupied by public officials who provided that public service. The responsibility for the public service then lies with the citizen. Public officials then take on the role of supervisor and support the citizens in their efforts. Important to note is that the public officials previously responsible for the public service do maintain the power to take their responsibilities back if something goes wrong. As long as the citizen adheres to the agreement, they are allowed to continue with their responsibilities without interference from public officials. They are also required to offer the citizens support if they require it. (Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten, n.d.).

The definitions of these two concepts do not appear to be in conflict with each other. Following the definitions above, it can be said that the RtC is simply a form of co-production like many others. They have the same goals and similar methods. The case of waste separation in Amsterdam is a prime example of co-production, while it also calls itself an example of the RtC. The only major difference between the two concepts lies in the roles of the actors involved. With some co-production schemes, the role of citizens is limited to giving advice to public officials. With the RtC, the citizen is involved to a comparatively extreme extent, being that they become the actor solely responsible for providing a public service in a certain area. As this is a new form of co-production, it has been given the label of the RtC. Whether or not the RtC can actually be academically considered to be the same (or a similar) concept remains to be seen, as no empirical research exists that explores this apparent conceptual connection.

(8)

7 Challenges surrounding co-production and Right to Challenge literature

The experiences that citizens have with the co-production process differ wildly.There are reports of people happily carrying out their tasks after successfully going through the RtC process (e.g. Van den Bosch, 2020; Koops, 2019; Omroep West, 2020). There are however just as many other reports that highlight some of the issues that citizens have with the process (e.g. De Koster, 2019; Timmer, 2019; Scholfield, 2013). Co-production literature has provided insight into citizen satisfaction with public service providers when co-production is used to shape service delivery. While most authors agree that citizens become more satisfied with public service providers when co-production takes place (e.g. Voorberg, et al., 2015b), a few disagree (e.g. Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). More empirical evidence is necessary to provide insight into this relationship, so that the findings of other authors are further substantiated.

Researchers that study this relationship often want to find out more about the actors that influence this relationship. Studies have found that this relationship is influenced by several different factors, from the level of information available to co-producing citizens (Lindenmeier, et al., 2019) to the degree to which they feel in control of the process (Pacheco, et al., 2013). Other studies do look at citizen satisfaction, but focus on the satisfaction of citizens with the process and not with the service provider itself (Furenes, Gjerald, & Øgaard, 2018). What has so far not been done is an empirical study that combines the different factors that have been found to influence citizen satisfaction with public service providers within the context of the RtC. By combining these, the theory behind this research could be made more integral and holistic. This is a gap in academic research that deserves to be addressed.

There is also a desperate need for research into the Right to Challenge as a concept. First, because it appears that roughly half (51%) of co-production research has been done on co-production types that identify the citizen as a co-implementer, with citizens as co-designer taking up another quarter (25%) and research on co-production where the citizen is an initiator being little researched (14%). The rest of the studies considered are types of research that don’t adhere to this particular typology (Voorberg, et al., 2015a, p. 1339). Research on the RtC would add to the academic knowledge on co-production where the citizen is the initiator. The second reason is that the RtC is established as a form of co-production through academic theory, while empirical evidence that backs this concept is sparse. If this thesis shows that the same notions and theory that apply to co-production also apply to the RtC, this idea is further substantiated. Third and last, the actual research on the RtC that has been done so far is mostly concerned with other aspects of the process. These range from the difficulties facing public servants (e.g. Jones & Ormston, 2014), to the implementation and feasibility challenges faced by local government institutions (e.g. Gemeenteraad Tilburg, n.d.), and the legal issues surrounding the RtC in The Netherlands (Den Ouden, Boogaard, & Driessen, 2019). The roles of citizens and satisfaction in this process have thus far mostly been ignored, while they require more academic attention according to some authors (e.g. Fledderus, 2015). The research question, data collection and data analysis

Empirical research on variables influencing Dutch citizen’s satisfaction with public service providers within the context of the RtC can be used to address these gaps in academic literature and expand upon the academic knowledge of the RtC in general. This thesis presents the key findings of the first survey that aims to fill in these gaps of knowledge. As such, the goal of this study is to fill in this gap in academic knowledge by gathering data on Dutch citizens practicing their RtC. Many questions surrounding the

(9)

8 factors influencing the satisfaction of citizens with public service providers are considered in this thesis. This study ultimately attempts to answer the following research question: ‘What factors influence to what

extent the level of satisfaction with public service providers indicated by Dutch citizens exercising their Right to Challenge?’

The factors mentioned in the research question above are several variables that academic research has found to be influential on the relationship between co-production and citizen satisfaction with public service providers. These variables are:

- The level of information available to citizens during the process, their perceived person-organization fit with the public service provider, and the perceived service quality of the public services delivered by public service providers (Lindenmeier, et al., 2019).

- Their perceived control during the process (Pacheco, et al., 2013).

- Their citizen-public official relationship (a variable based on research by Campbell, et al. (2000), Fledderus (2015), and Bendapudi & Leone (2003))

In this thesis, the research question is answered by analyzing the factors influencing the satisfaction with public service providers indicated by Dutch citizens that have practiced their Right to Challenge with these organizations. This is done using a questionnaire. Using a deductive approach, the findings are analyzed using statistical analysis in order to explain the relationship between several variables and the satisfaction that citizens exercising their RtC experience. Based off expectations that follow from contemporary academic literature, eight hypotheses are formed: one for each proposed effect in the conceptual framework. These hypotheses are then tested by surveying citizens that have exercised their Right to Challenge and analyzing their answers afterwards. Several different categories of questions are used in order to aggregate data that adhere to the same relevant variable. The data is analyzed in three steps. First, several validity and reliability checks are performed. These checks include a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, in order to confirm the theoretical model that is based off previous research. Second, descriptive statistics and a correlation analysis are performed in order to determine the direction and magnitude of any found relationships between variables. Third, multiple regression analyses of the data are performed, including a moderated regression. The results of all three steps are supplemented by entirely non-generalizable but useful background information provided by unstructured interviews with two of the respondents. While these interviews are of course unvalidated and unreliable, they help provide insight into the answers given by respondents. Using this approach, the raw data is then analyzed so that the hypotheses can be proven or disproven. Additionally, the results are compared to those of previous research. Conclusions about the results are then discussed.

Academic and practical relevance

By answering the research question, valuable insight is provided into the satisfaction of co-producing citizens with public service providers. Current discourse on the subject raises questions about how empirical evidence compares to the claims most often made about co-production, and indicates the need for further research (Loeffler & Bovaird, 2016). There is a low amount of research available on the effect of co-production on citizen satisfaction, and on the factors that influence this relationship. Additionally, some of the research used has become dated in the fast-developing academic field of co-production research. Not only that, but no research done thus far has been able to create such a comprehensive conceptual model as this thesis attempts. The novelty of studying the interaction between the influential

(10)

9 variables provides and interesting avenue of research. This thesis will also either add to or subtract from the idea that the same assumptions hold true for the RtC as for the concept of co-production. For all these reasons, this thesis will attempt to provide the most holistic and integral research providing evidence of the factors influencing citizen satisfaction with public service providers who allow co-production of their services.

Besides this, the RtC has only come into practice starting in the UK in 2012. Research on the RtC as a practical application of citizen engagement and co-production is still in its infancy. Even rarer is research that uses empirical evidence of the experiences of citizens that have practiced co-production. The case of the application of the RtC as done in The Netherlands has not been researched before. Public Administration academics are paying increasing attention to the issues and benefits of co-production schemes.As more and more co-production schemes mature, newer data is becoming available in bigger amounts. The RtC, as one of these schemes, requires more insight. Fledderus (2015) agrees, as he calls for further studies on how the division in responsibility between service providing public officials and citizens affect satisfaction. Research on the RtC, which forms one extreme end of this division, can fill in this gap in knowledge. Because of the scope of this thesis, a focus is put upon the citizen side of the process. More specifically, on the (dis)satisfaction with public service providers that citizens experience when exercising their RtC. A valuable addition is thus made to the academic understanding of co-production and its realization as the Right to Challenge in The Netherlands.

Increasing the academic understanding of citizen satisfaction with public service providers by looking at the RtC in the Netherlands logically also provides knowledge of practical relevance. First, public servants of the municipalities involved can use the knowledge gained form this thesis in order to better shape their RtC policy. Any obstacles in the process of helping citizens practice their RtC that cause dissatisfaction can be identified and remedied with a policy reform. The knowledge gained from this thesis is specific enough to provide value, as the analysis separates the effect into five distinct variables. The Dutch government wants to strengthen local democracy by adding a right of participation in the implementation and evaluating said policy (Ollongren, 2018). The current government seems determined to fulfil its ambitions for the Right to Challenge (Overheid.nl, n.d.). Such an undertaking should not be done without fitting research into the effect that the implementation of the RtC has on the satisfaction of citizens that are already making active use of it. Otherwise, there is a very real danger that academic knowledge on the effects of RtC policy will be outpaced by the real-world application of the theory. Without empirically researching the RtC, the (potential) effects of non-empirically substantiated RtC policy are not known. This thesis provides helpful information when making policy allowing citizens to carry out and evaluate municipal public services.

Public servants are not the only ones that can benefit from the results of this thesis. Active citizens themselves can use the outcomes in order to identify obstacles to their practicing their RtC. The analysis provided by this thesis will give them the possibility to substantiate claims of aspects of the process that are lacking, and perhaps helps provide them with solutions. In this way, this thesis can possibly help expedite the process of citizens practicing their Right to Challenge or change their municipality’s policy on the RtC.

(11)

10 Brief outline of contents

This thesis starts out with an exploration of existing theory that explains the academic context in which the RtC was developed. In order to form hypotheses relevant to this thesis, theory on co-production and the RtC will be discussed. Starting with a breakdown of the relevant research done so far, the concepts of citizen participation, co-production and the Right to Challenge shall be explained. A reflection on the real-life application of the RtC in the UK and The Netherlands will provide insight into commonly occurring issues. Then, key aspects of the co-production process will be addressed in order to identify the variables that are relevant to their satisfaction with public service providers. Hypotheses are then formed as to the relationships between these variables. The gap in current academic knowledge will simultaneously be discussed. Following that, the research design is explained in detail, including the main deductive research technique. The chosen method of data collection (online questionnaires), and the method of analysis are expanded upon. The data is analyzed using the statistical program Stata (version 16). Checks are performed in order to ensure data validity and reliability. Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables are touched upon. Multiple and moderating regression analyses provides further insight into the relationships between the variables. Non-generalizable but useful background information provided by unstructured interviews with two of the respondents is used to help analyze the findings. Then, the rejection or affirmation of the research hypotheses are discussed alongside contemporary academic theory. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the variables that influence citizen satisfaction with public service providers who co-produce, and the theoretical and practical implications of the research are considered. Limitations to this study and possible future avenues of research are also discussed.

(12)

11

Theory

Involving citizens in public services and policy

Despite the Right to Challenge being a relatively recent practical application, the idea of allowing citizens to be more involved in government provision of services has been around for many years (Ostrom, 1990). Like any scientific discourse, academic ideas on citizen involvement have evolved over time. Until about the early 1980’s, academic literature on the subject had mainly been focused on the provider of the service (Bovaird, 2007, pp. 846-847). While researchers mostly did consider the end goal of public service provision to be the satisfaction of citizens, their studies still approached any problems and solutions from the perspective of the public institution providing the service (e.g. Jones & Gessaman, 1974, pp. 937-943). A first shift in discourse came with the rise of New Public Management as an approach to running public services. New Public Management saw citizens as central to public service provision, encouraging service providers to be more responsive to the needs of the public (Hood, 1991). At the turn of the 21st_century, governments struggled with the growing strains on society and welfare state policies due to ageing populations, immigration and financial crises. In order to combat these issues, policymakers and researchers alike increasingly asked the help of their citizens in public service delivery and policymaking efforts (Bovaird, 2007).

In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, the concept of citizen engagement thus came to the forefront of public debate. Citizen engagement is a very broad term that is used by many different authors to mean many different things. Some authors use it very broadly to mean the identification and addressal of any issue of public concern through both individual and collective action (Adler, 2005, p. 239). Others use a more specific definition. One such specific definition sees citizen engagement as community service, and emphasizes a citizen’s duty to participate (alone or in concert with others) in voluntary service in order to improve one’s local community (Adler, 2005, p. 238). In both cases, the government is the initiator. While this definition best embodies co-production as it is implemented in The Netherlands, it falls short in that it sees citizen engagement as a duty of every citizen. In the context of this thesis, citizen engagement is not a duty but a right, to be exercised at will by citizens. In this way, citizen engagement can for example be a program where communities see that local parks are full of garbage, and voluntarily clean those parks up alongside their neighbors.

When governments enable citizens to be involved in improving public services of their own volition, we instead speak of citizen participation. Citizen participation is the measure of political activity that a citizen or group of citizens has. It is an indication of how involved a citizen, community or society is when it comes to addressing the concerns of the public without being asked to do so by the government. Burke (1968, p. 287) already mentioned the rationale behind citizen participation: giving citizens a voice in decisions affecting them. Interest in citizen participation as a more direct and empowering form of governance has known its highs and lows but has over the last two decades again come to the forefront of public administration discourse. It seems that the more practical application of the theory has increased exponentially. Policies like participatory budgeting have spread across the globe to thousands of municipalities (Poletta, 2016, pp. 231-233). These and other such schemes are often enacted under the banner of the term co-production.

(13)

12 Co-production literature

Co-production can be considered an evolved form of citizen participation. Pronounced a “redefinition of

traditional service delivery patterns” (Jeffrey & England, 1983, p. 59), co-production is an approach that aims to cut costs, increase citizen engagement and improve public service provision. Citizens and public servants, together, would work on improving the system. The idea behind co-production is that citizens can provide a unique viewpoint on the development, practice, and evaluation of public policy. Especially when the policies are made by local authorities close to them. One of the earliest examples of the discourse on co-production concerned subject matter such as neighborhood watch schemes (Jeffrey & England, 1983). During these first developments in co-production literature, nearly all activities by citizens that were related to public service delivery was called an example of co-production. This even constituted behavior such as refraining from littering or writing an application for assistance (Jeffrey & England, 1983, p. 60). Later authors have clarified the concept of co-production, spawning multiple new definitions. Brandsen and Pestoff (2006) strictly demarcate co-production from related concepts by only considering co-production to be an arrangement where citizens produce public services on their own, without collaboration with the government. Collaborating with the state would then entail co-management and participating in the planning and delivery of public services only would be co-governance. Other authors more broadly consider any collaborative process aimed at improving public services to be co-production, as long as both citizens and public servants work together.

The definition that is used in this thesis is one offered by Loeffler and Bovaird (2016). They state that user and community co-production is defined as “public services, service users and communities making better

use of each other’s assets and resources to achieve better outcomes or improved efficiency” (p. 1006). This

definition encapsulates the fact that co-production always involves a working relationship between public service providers and the community they serve. The reasons given by politicians and other proponents for promoting co-production policies vary in much the same way as the myriad definitions do. The main drivers of co-production as mentioned by Loeffler & Bovaird (2016, pp. 1011-1014) can be generalized as follows:

- Changing the outcome of public services, when they are not to the satisfaction of citizens. - Reducing service costs, as an austerity measure.

- Furthering the democratization of public service provision, giving citizens direct access to more aspects of policy and its practice.

Through co-production, policymakers also hope to improve the outcomes of public service provision by applying citizen’s knowledge, resources, ideas etc. This follows from co-production schemes asking citizens to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public services, as citizens may have perspectives and insights that are different from those of public officials. When successful, co-production leads to public service provision that better conforms to the wishes of citizens. They are empowered, through increased citizen engagement and inclusion (Loeffler & Bovaird, 2016, p. 1008). One example of this type of collaboration is the co-production of healthcare policies, where patients help improve upon their own care (McMullin & Needham, 2018). A second example is the provision of water and waste services, where citizen cooperatives in India coordinate with municipalities to help households retain and reuse rainwater (Ranzato & Moretto, 2018, pp. 186-187).

(14)

13 The Right to Challenge in academic context

Having considered the umbrella term of co-production, the Right to Challenge can now be placed in its theoretical context. Very little academic research has been done on the RtC as both a concept of public policy and of its practical applications. Usually a democratizing or austerity measure, co-production of policy and its implementation has been codified in some countries as the ‘Right to Challenge’. The RtC can be seen as both a form and real-life application of the concept of co-production. Academic discourse on the RtC is rare, but its implementation in both the United Kingdom and The Netherlands does provide direction. The RtC as a part of government policy means that citizens have the right to submit an application to the (local) government in order to take over the provision of a public service (Gemeente Delft, n.d.). Whether that is waste management, elderly care, park maintenance, or other services, citizens are allowed to try and improve them. The RtC allows citizens to carry out a service all by themselves. This happens when- and wherever citizens identify the possibility of improvement. Ultimately, if a citizen or community has the ambition and drive to change the planning, delivery and/or evaluation of a public service, they can apply to do it themselves (righttochallenge.nl, 2020).

The RtC seems to clearly be just another kind of co-production scheme like many others. To further substantiate this, Voorberg et al. (2015a) identified three types of co-production that differ in their degree of citizen involvement. The first type sees the citizen as a co-implementer of public services. The second type involves citizens as co-designers of public service provision. The third and also the relevant type sees citizen as initiators of changing public service provision. Here, the citizen both designs and helps provide a public service of their own volition, without being invited by the government to do so (Voorberg, et al.,2015a, pp. 1339-1340). When citizens practice their RtC, they conform to this notion, taking the initiative to change the design of their local public services by becoming the service providers themselves through petitioning their local government.

The RtC is a form of co-production where the dynamic of the working relationship between citizens and public officials changes. With other schemes that can fall under any of the three types mentioned above, citizens and public officials work together in order to shape public service provision. This can mean anything from helping the municipality pick out garbage pick-up spots when asked to do so, to addressing local youth on the street alongside social workers. With the RtC, the citizen becomes the dominant actor, working by themselves or alongside other volunteering citizens to provide a public service. The public official is only there to help in case of emergencies. Additionally, citizens and public officials work towards improving public services in both the case of co-production and the RtC. The difference with the RtC is that public officials are there mostly for support, in the background. They provide knowledge when asked, and provide oversight in case things go wrong, but do not do any of the design or delivery of the public service. So, the RtC is a form of co-production where citizens initiate design changes in public services and then enact their own policy as it relates to the changed public service provision, and where the relationship between service provider and citizen is changed.

The main goal of this thesis is to provide novel and valuable insights into the most involved form of co-production as it exists today: the Right to Challenge. Not only is there still a lack of empirical research that substantiates the main claims as to the benefits of co-production (Loeffler & Bovaird, 2016), no academic research into the implementation of the RtC in The Netherlands has been done as of yet. Therefore, most of the theory in this thesis draws from co-production literature and assumes that the same concepts and

(15)

14 issues apply to the RtC. The RtC should still however be considered as practically separate from co-production, because it is a more involved form of it. So, because all instances of the RtC are in fact a form of co-production, the same assumptions and concepts that are used in co-production research are also relevant for this thesis. This thesis can help confirm this notion by providing an empirical base to substantiate this theory.

Citizen satisfaction with public service providers

One of the main focuses of academic research on co-production is whether varying forms of co-production have been successful in achieving their stated goals. For the RtC in The Netherlands, the main goal is to change the way a public service provider operates, when this is not to the satisfaction of citizens. The stated way to achieve this is through allowing citizens to become responsible for the public service and its outcomes (Ollongren, 2018). Research has shown that citizen satisfaction with a public service provider is a good indicator of success in achieving its goals (Jaspers & Steen, 2019). A lot of studies have been done on the relationship between co-production and satisfaction. Research shows that citizens who are the most satisfied with public services are actually the least likely to co-produce them (Bovaird, et al., 2014, p.17). This is hypothesized to be because people that are satisfied with public services tend to want to change less about them than people who are dissatisfied with public services. Alford and Yates (2016) confounded this with findings that indicated that citizens from neighborhoods with vexing issues surrounding public services are more likely to get involved with public service provision (p. 234).

In that same study, they concluded that co-production positively influences satisfaction with local service providers (Alford & Yates, 2016, p. 242). Co-production can possibly remedy dissatisfaction by improving the opinion of citizens that decide to co-produce a public service (Pestoff, 2006, p. 507). This trend continues, as most authors agree that co-production leads to increased satisfaction with public services. As academic research on marketing has shown, satisfaction with services is an indicator of satisfaction with the service provider. Users who have a positive impression of a provider’s services talk highly of the responsible organization as well (Ganiyu, et al., 2012, p.17). Also, a positive user evaluation of services leads to higher overall satisfaction with the respective service provider (Montoya-Weiss, et al., 2003). In a comparative case study of seven EU-countries, Voorberg, et al. (2015b) found that end users of a service indicated increased satisfaction with that service after co-production initiatives were implemented. In this study, experts and other stakeholders found that co-production increases citizen satisfaction with public services, but that this mainly held true for the citizens that actually participated in the co-production process (pp.72-74). Based on the previously mentioned marketing research (Ganiyu, et al., 2012; Montoya-Weiss, et al., 2003) this could also reflect well on the public service provider that is responsible for these services. So, for the RtC, this could mean that specifically those citizens who exercised their RtC would experience increased satisfaction with the public service organization they are challenging. Several other authors have found further evidence of factors that influence the positive effect of co-production on citizen satisfaction, further substantiating this claim (e.g. Lindenmeier, et al., 2019; Pacheco, et al., 2013; Furenes, et al., 2018).

Some authors have, however, found possible negative effect of co-production on satisfaction. These studies mainly base their findings off of a psychological phenomenon called self-serving bias (SSB). This is a concept from the field of psychology. The SSB is the tendency that people have to exaggerate their own

(16)

15 contribution to a collaborative process when it is successful and diminish their own role in the process when it is unsuccessful. They find that co-production tends to lead to lowered satisfaction with public service providers regardless of the outcome of the co-production process (Fledderus, 2015; Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). Overall, it appears that most academic research does find a positive relationship between co-production and satisfaction with public service providers.

Citizen satisfaction and influential variables

Knowing of the effect of co-production on citizen satisfaction, what then are the variables that bring about this positive effect that is so desirable to governments? In order to answer this question, we again look to academic literature. Some authors have taken a closer look at the mechanisms and factors behind the effect of co-production on satisfaction with public service providers. In order to better understand and apply this effect, these authors looked into the variables that influence end user satisfaction in public service co-production.

One landmark study that sought to provide answers looked into the effects of co-production on client satisfaction (Lindenmeier, et al., 2019). Using data from an online survey of parents with children in day-care, they created a conceptual model and provided empirical evidence of the positive effect of co-production on client satisfaction. They found that higher degrees of co-co-production did indeed lead to higher satisfaction with the associated public service provider. This effect was found to be mediated by three variables: level of information, person-organization fit, and structural quality. The effects of person-organization fit and structural quality are in turn found to be mediators of the effect of level of information on satisfaction as well (pp. 15-16).

The first variable whose contribution to satisfaction with public service organizations is scrutinized is the level of information that is available to co-producing citizens. The negative effect of information asymmetry in co-production is known: “Co-production, unlike strictly professional services, requires an even or relatively even distribution of information among the parties involved” (Vamstad, 2012, p. 1183). Citizens are presumed to have knowledge of public services that public officials don’t because they are the end users of the service. They experience shortcomings of the service first-hand and can give account of the outcomes of the public service design from their unique perspective (Loeffler & Bovaird, 2016, p. 1008). Parallel to this, citizens who co-produce logically require knowledge of both the public service provider and the co-production process in order to be more effective. Therefore, with the RtC process, the level of information must also be crucial to the satisfaction of citizens with the public service provider. Increased exchange of information reduces information asymmetry and enables citizens to better exert their control over public officials (Lindenmeier, et al., 2019, pp. 8-9). This increases the likelihood of a successful outcome of the RtC process. Although Lindenmeier et al. (2019) consider level of information to be a mediating variable in the relationship between co-production and satisfaction, this thesis assumes that this variable has a direct effect on citizen satisfaction based on the research mentioned above. This study assumes that citizens that feel that citizens who did not receive the level of information they needed are less satisfied with the public service provider as a result. Based on the proposed effect of the level of information on citizen satisfaction with a public service, hypothesis H1 reads as follows:

(17)

16

H1: The level of information available to citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge has a positive effect

on their satisfaction with the associated public service provider.

Kristof (1996) supplied a succinct definition of person-organization fit. It is the compatibility between public service providers and co-producing citizens. This compatibility consists of the degree to which clients share similar fundamental characteristics with an organization, and by the degree to which the needs of clients are met by this organization. If a person feels that there is high goal- or value congruence between a citizen and a public service organization, they experience an improved perceived person-organization fit. Similarly, if a person feels that an person-organization is able to meet their needs, there is also a better perceived person-organization fit (pp.5-6). Increased person-organization fit in turn leads to increased satisfaction with the organization (pp. 25-28). Lindenmeier et al. (2019) not only substantiate these findings with their own, similar results, but expand upon previous research.

Based on norm crystallization theory, they found evidence of an effect of the level of information on person-organization fit. This theory states that a higher level of information among clients leads to a spread of organizational values to clients. This leads to an intensified tie to the organization and its organizational culture. That, in turn, leads to increased citizen satisfaction with the organization (pp. 6-7). They provide evidence of the notion that this effect is also present in the co-production process (pp. 12-16). This fits especially well with the situation of the RtC in The Netherlands, as citizens in essence become members of public service organizations through the RtC process. They work with the public officials of that organization, perform the same tasks as them, and are thus proposed to have an increased perceived person-organization fit. This in turn potentially leads to increased citizen satisfaction with that public service organization. This relationship is, however, dependent on the level of information available to citizens. Again, Lindenmeier et al. (2019) considered perceived person-organization fit to be a mediating variable in the relationship between co-production and satisfaction, but this thesis assumes that this variable has a direct effect on citizen satisfaction. Based on these proposed effects, hypotheses H2a and H2b read as follows:

H2a: The perceived degree of person-organization fit of citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge has

a positive effect on their satisfaction with the associated public service provider.

H2b: Citizens’ perceived person-organization fit strengthens the positive effect of the level of information

available to citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge on their satisfaction with the associated public service provider.

Lindenmeier et al. (2019) also found that client satisfaction with co-producing public service organizations is dependent on perceived service quality. Research has shown that increased perceived service quality leads to increased satisfaction (Cronin & Taylor, 1992, p. 64), and that perceived service quality is best defined as the end user’s attitude towards organizational performance. Mizrahi et al. (2010) suggest that these attitudes are best measured in areas such as transparancy, responsiveness, public image, quality of personell, and innovation (p. 275). If these are rated highly, perceived service quality is higher as well. For the RtC, when a citizen has a negative opinion of the performance of a public service organization their satisfaction with that organization will be lower than when they have a positive opinion of their

(18)

17 performance. Based on this effect, a positive effect of the level of information on the perceived service quality is assumed in this thesis.

Adding to this, Miller’s (2002) findings use agency theory to explain that a higher level of information available to clients enables them to have more influence over design and outcome decisions. Seeing as citizens have unique information on public services available to them, they have a more clear overview of possible design improvements (Loeffler & Bovaird, 2016, p. 1008). This can be seen as one of the key reasons for co-production and RtC implementation, while also enabling citizens to steer the process in their favored direction (Miller, 2002). Lindenmeier et al. (2019) used this theory and found that with co-production, co-producing citizens are indeed able to apply the resources of a public service organization in a way that is more preferable to them. This in turn allows them to better address any aspects of the service that they had negative opinions of, thus making them more satisfied with the organization as well. (pp. 6-7).

With the RtC process, citizens are granted the opportunity to shape public service design and are solely responsible for performing the tasks of the organization in a certain area. An increased level of information would enable them to shape the public service provider in a way that addresses aspects that negatively influence perceived service quality, as they are more aware of possible improvements that can be made. This leads to increased citizen satisfaction with the public service they themselves partially designed. So, this thesis assumes a mediating effect of the perceived service quality on the relationship between level of information and citizen satisfaction. Once more, while Lindenmeier et al. (2019) considered perceived service quality to be a mediating variable in the relationship between co-production and satisfaction, this thesis proposes that it has a direct effect on citizen satisfaction. Based on the proposed effects of both level of information and perceived service quality on citizen satisfaction, hypothesis H3a and H3b are formed:

H3a: The perceived service quality of a public service indicated by citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge has a positive effect on the satisfaction with the associated public service provider.

H3b: Citizens’ perceived quality of a public service strengthens the positive effect of the level of information

available to citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge on their satisfaction with the associated public service provider.

A variable not considered by Lindenmeier et al., (2019) that nevertheless would fit perfectly within their model is the variable of perceived control. There is ample research that has found a positive effect of co-production on perceived control, and of perceived control on satisfaction. Chang (2008) found that when clients are offered more choices when influencing the way a service operates, they experience increased satisfaction through increased perceived control (p. 326). Pacheco et al. (2013) have studied the effect that a person’s perceived control has on their satisfaction with organizations whose services they co-produce. Based on a thorough literature review and surveys, they found evidence that co-production indeed leads to increased perceived control, which in turn positively effects satisfaction. This is because offering a person increased decisional control (giving them more power over decision-making) makes them more satisfied with the outcome. Similar to Lindenmeier et al. (2019), they looked into the effect of the

(19)

18 level of information on perceived control and found that the level of information available to clients increases perceived control as well. The better a person is informed before exercising their control during a co-production process, the more satisfied they feel afterwards about the organization (Pacheco, et al., 2013). These findings seem to indicate that a person exercising their RtC will be more satisfied with a public service organization if they feel more in control. They feel more in control both when they are given greater decision-making power and when they have more information. This thesis therefore assumes that increased perceived control leads to increased satisfaction with public service providers who co-produce via the RtC, mediated by the level of information available to co-producing citizens. Based on these proposed effects, the two hypotheses H4a and H4b are formed:

H4a: The degree of perceived control indicated by citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge has a positive effect on the satisfaction with the associated public service provider.

H4b: Citizens’ perceived control strengthens the positive effect of the level of information available to citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge on their satisfaction with the associated public service provider.

There is one final variable considered in this thesis that has been found to have an effect on satisfaction with public service providers that co-produce. It is the relationship between a client and public service provider. In this thesis, this variable is called perceived citizen-public official relationship. This aspect of co-production has received much attention in the field of marketing, but also has possible applications to civic co-production theory. Bendapudi and Leone (2003) for example found that successful co-production could actually also lead to a decrease in satisfaction with an organization. Even if the outcome of a service is improved through co-production, its introduction can potentially lead to decreased satisfaction. This is because users who co-produce a service are subject to the self-serving bias. The self-serving bias is a psychological effect whereby people who work together with others tend to either assign more or less responsibility to themselves and others based on outcome. When the outcome is more positive, they claim more responsibility than their partners. When the outcome is more negative, they claim less responsibility for the outcome, blaming others they collaborated with (pp. 15-18).

The degree to which a person is subject to the self-serving bias is directly dependent upon their relationship with the public officials of the organization they co-produce with. Bendapudi & Leone (2003) claim that a closer relationship between citizens and public officials who participate in the co-production progress indicate higher satisfaction afterwards. Citizens are more moderate in the responsibility they claim to have for either success or failure of the process when they are closer with their collaborating public officials (p. 26). This is apparently corroborated by Campbell et al.’s (2000) experiments on the self-serving bias and friendship. They found that closer friends have less of a tendency to decrease or inflate their own contributions for the outcome of a process. Fledderus (2015) performed a similar study but applied it to civic co-production schemes. He confirmed the findings of Bendapudi & Leone (2003), also finding that co-production can lead to higher satisfaction when there is a good working relationship between citizens and service organizations. The same could possibly go for citizens who exercise their RtC. If they enjoyed a close relationship with the public officials they worked with, this could lead to a positive effect on satisfaction with the public service provider. This thesis therefore assumes that a closer perceived

(20)

19 citizen-public official relationship has a positive effect on citizen satisfaction. This leads us to the final hypothesis H5:

H5: The perceived citizen-public official relationship indicated by citizens who exercise their Right to Challenge has a positive effect on the satisfaction with the associated public service provider.

Conceptual framework and model

This thesis builds upon the available literature on co-production, the Right to Challenge, and satisfaction. This thesis assumes that there are several variables that positively influence citizen satisfaction with public service organizations when they co-produce by exercising their Right to Challenge. Based on previous studies on the subjects, several variables are assumed to have an effect on this citizen satisfaction. First, a citizen’s perceived control of the process, their person-organization fit, perceived service quality, and their relationship with the assigned public officials are all presumed to be explanatory variables. One final explanatory variable of citizen satisfaction, the level of information available to citizens, is presumed to have a positive effect on citizen satisfaction in a more complicated manner. This thesis also assumes that the effect of level of information on citizen satisfaction is partially mediated by the variables perceived control, person-organization fit, service quality and citizen-public official relationship. So first, this thesis hypothesizes that citizen satisfaction with public service organizations co-produced through the RtC is positively affected by the level of information, perceived control, person organization-fit, service quality and perceived citizen-public official relationship (see hypotheses H1, H2a, H3a, H4a, and H5). Second, this thesis assumes that perceived control, person organization-fit, and service quality are partial mediators of the effect of level of information on citizen satisfaction (mediational hypotheses H2b, H3b, H4b). All variables and hypotheses taken together form the conceptual framework of this thesis, with Figure 1 providing an overview.

(21)

20 Figure 1

Conceptual model of client satisfaction in RtC schemes in The Netherlands.

(22)

21

Research Design

As a preface, this thesis’ research design is based on both the research design of several papers mentioned in the theory of this thesis (e.g. Lindenmeier, et al., 2019; Fledderus, 2015; Bendapudi & Leone, 2003), as well as a guide on social research design by Bryman (2012). This thesis follows a cross-sectional design. Using an online web-based survey creation tool called Qualtrics, an online questionnaire is created. These questionnaires are then sent out to Dutch citizens who are identified as having participated in the RtC process. The respondents then complete the survey. This provides data, which is then analyzed using Stata, a statistical analysis program. After these steps, the findings of the analysis are considered, and conclusions are drawn.

The specific survey method utilizing a web-based online questionnaire was chosen because this method offers several advantages over other survey methods. First, because a quantitative research design fits the deductive reasoning of this thesis. It is a “research strategy that emphasizes quantification in the collection

and analysis of data” (Bryman, 2012, p. 35). This thesis begins with an exploration of theory and ends with

the testing of this theory to see if it holds up. It follows the norms and practices of the natural scientific model, and therefore assumes that social reality is both objective and quantifiable. This quantification is done by means of gathering measurable data. This is contrary to what inductive research aims to achieve: the generation of new theory (p. 36). Second, examining association between variables requires a systematic and standardized method for measuring variation between cases. Using quantitative methods, causality between variables can be tested for in a reliable and reproducible fashion (Bryman, 2012, p. 59). Therefore, a quantitative cross-sectional research design was chosen. Third, self-completion questionnaires require a less significant time investment for both the researcher and the respondents than a structured interview, possibly increasing the number of respondents. This is the first reason for choosing a self-completion questionnaire over a structured interview. Fourth, self-completion questionnaires reduce errors from interviewer effects (pp. 633-634). This is the second reason for choosing a self-completion questionnaire over a structured interview. Fifth and finally, a web-based design was chosen because of its low required effort and ease-of-use for respondents, and ease of processing data for the researcher (pp. 671-674).

Operationalization of variables

All parts of the conceptual model as seen in Figure 1 are measured with reflective measurement scales. In order to keep respondent fatigue to a minimum, multiple item 7-point Likert scales were used to measure the explanatory variables. Citizen Satisfaction was measured using a three-item continuous measurement scale anchored by the numerical values 1 to 10, as proposed by Fornell (1992). These items are questions that test the satisfaction of the respondent with the public service provider. The reason for this difference is that with client satisfaction, there would be a problem with skewness. This problem is handled by increasing the typical 5 or 7 point scales to 10 in order to allow respondents to make more precise discriminations (p. 13). Using a 10-point scale is also more akin to giving a score out of ten, a rating system which many Dutch people are familiar with. These question items are taken directly from Lindenmeier, et al. (2019), but now refer to public service providers instead of a day care.

(23)

22 The questions used to measure level of information, person-organization fit, service quality, perceived control, and citizen-public official relationship were adapted from the respective studies used for the conceptual framework (Lindenmeier, et al., 2019; Pacheco, et al., 2013; Fledderus, 2015; Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). As this thesis attempts to unite several different models of variables that influence citizen satisfaction with co-producing public service organizations, the measurement approaches of each of these papers are used. Only references to the cases analyzed in these articles were changed to references of public service providers and public officials. This means that as little of the wording was changed as possible. As all respondents to the questionnaire spoke Dutch as their first or second language, the questionnaire was translated to Dutch.

Like Lindenmeier et al. (2019) did, level of information and perceived person-organization fit are measured using four item 7-point Likert scales that provide responses to statements. The scale’s anchors are “completely disagree” and “completely agree”. Similarly adapted from this study, perceived service quality is instead measured utilizing six self-developed items based on the areas of interest mentioned by Mizrahi et al. (2010). For perceived service quality, respondents are asked how satisfied they are with several relevant aspects of the public service provider’s performance on a scale of 1 to 7, anchored by the responses “very satisfied” and “not satisfied at all”. Modified to fit with the RtC process research context, a five item 7-point scale was adapted from Pacheco et al. (2013) for measuring perceived control. Respondents are again asked to respond to statements, anchored by the responses “completely disagree” and “completely disagree”. Finally, the perceived citizen-respondent relationship was measured using a self-developed three item 7-point scale, adapted from Campbell et al. (2000). Respondents were once again asked to respond to statements anchored by the responses “completely disagree” and “completely disagree. These items measured the degree of perceived closeness, liking and likelihood of working together again in the future. In order to combat acquiescence which some respondents are prone to (Bryman, 2012, p. 227), some of the questions adapted from previous studies were changed to imply opposite stances. This way, these respondents were filtered out of the final dataset. Each question item is listed in Appendix A. As all respondents are Dutch citizens, the survey was written in Dutch, but the English translation is included in Appendix B.

Case selection and sample

This thesis is limited by the fact that key aspects of the total population of Dutch citizens who have exercised their Right to Challenge are not currently known. The Dutch government has not provided statistics on citizens exercising their RtC. The lack of previous research on Dutch citizens exercising their Right to Challenge ensures that no insight into the population considered in this thesis is given by academic research either. Similarly unknown is the amount of RtC project that have been initiated or even successfully completed. Regression analysis usually requires a random sample that is similar in demographic makeup to the whole population, so that inferences can be made about this population (DuMouchel & Duncan, 1983). Therefore, whether or not the findings of this thesis are generalizable to the whole population is not known. Due to this lack of information on the total population of Dutch citizens who have exercised their Right to Challenge, nonprobability sampling was employed. Bryman (2012) notes that nonprobability sampling is not necessarily preferable for statistical analysis but is still fairly acceptable when it is the only opportunity to gather relevant data about a previously (nearly) unresearched concept.

(24)

23 This is because it can provide a “springboard for further research or allow links to be forged with existing findings in an area” (p. 201).

In order to identify and contact possible respondents that fell within our population, several actions were performed. By scouring the websites of several national and local news organizations, articles that mentioned RtC schemes were selected. The citizens that participated in those schemes were then selected and contacted through e-mail. Additionally, potential respondents were found through contact with the departments responsible for citizen participation of several municipalities. Finally, potential respondents were found through contact with several citizen networks that support citizens seeking to exercise their RtC. All potential respondents were approached. These potential respondents were involved in many different RtC projects. Among others, these projects included a project in Rotterdam where citizens designed and renovated their own street (Kernteam Schepenstraat, n.d.), a project in The Hague where citizens became repsonsible for maintaining their local park (Dagblad 070, 2020), and several projects where citizens designed and maintained children’s playgrounds in their neighbourhoods. In all cases, citizens exercised their RtC in order to provide a public service previously provided by the municipality. The total amount of citizens approached was 136, with an excellent response rate of 82% (n=109). The amount of potential respondents that were approach could have possibly been larger in order to increase precision, but was limited by the amount of time available for the completion of this thesis. Regardless, while there is no true agreement as to the necessary amount of respondents required for survey analysis, recommendations mostly range from 10 to 25 times the amount of independent variables involved (Green, 1991). This thesis considers 5 independent variables, so a sample size of between 50 and 125 is recommended. Whether or not these respondents were representative of the whole population of Dutch citizens that have exercised their RtC cannot be inferred from this study, based on the sampling method used and the fact that the characteristics and amount of citizens in the total population is not known. Data collection

In order to verify the conceptual framework and test the hypotheses, an online questionnaire was conducted among Dutch citizens who have participated in the RtC process in order to co-produce a local public service. For the procedure of contacting respondents, several steps laid out by Bryman (2012, pp.674-676) were followed. In September of 2020, potential respondents were contacted through e-mails in which they were told why and how they had been contacted. Respondents were informed of both the purpose of the study and the persons who would be privy to this thesis’ findings. They were also assured that all results are anonymized and not shared with outside parties such as (employees of) the public service providers in question. Upon agreeing to participate in this study, they were sent another e-mail which provided them with all relevant information concerning the questionnaire and a link to the web survey. If a person had failed to respond after two weeks, they were sent another e-mail urging them again to fill out the questionnaire. In total, the amount of time available for potential respondents to fill out the questionnaire was three weeks due to time limitations surrounding this thesis. Ideally, more time for response would be allowed (including one more reminder) to further increase the response rate.

After a landing page informing the respondent of the nature of the survey and practical information, a 25-item questionnaire follows. Divided into six topics, the questions in 7-point Likert’s scale measured the

Excercising your Right to Challenge: An analysis of influence on citizen satisfaction