The tension between social enterprises and municipalities

The tension between social enterprises and municipalities

Daphne Bressers Thesis research master in public administration and organizational science University of Utrecht Prof. Dr. Mark van Twist Prof. Dr. Steven Van de Walle 1

Foreword .................................................................................................................................... 4 1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Statement of the research/research problem ..................................................................... 8 1.3 Objective of the research .................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Scope of the research ........................................................................................................ 9 1.5 Research questions ........................................................................................................... 9

2. Conceptual and theoretical framework ................................................................................ 11 2.1 Social entrepreneurship .................................................................................................. 11 2.1.1 The concept of social entrepreneurship ................................................................... 11 2.1.2 Social entrepreneurs in the field of labor ................................................................ 12 2.1.3 History and development of social entrepreneurship .............................................. 14 2.2 The system of labor participation ................................................................................... 15 2.2.1 How the system is financed ..................................................................................... 15 2.2.2 How the system is organized ................................................................................... 16 2.2.3 Current and future changes in the social system ..................................................... 17 2. 3. Logics ........................................................................................................................... 18 2.3.1 Interacting logics ..................................................................................................... 18 2.3.2 What are logics? ...................................................................................................... 19 2.3.3 Logic of municipalities............................................................................................ 20 2.3.4 Logic of social entrepreneurs .................................................................................. 23 2.4 The intersection of municipalities and social entrepreneurs .......................................... 27 2.4.1 Where do social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet? ....................................... 27 2.4.2. Model of interaction ............................................................................................... 28 2.4.3. The model of interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities .......... 29 2.4.4 The potential tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities ................. 31 2.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 34 3. Methods ................................................................................................................................ 36 3.1 Research setting & methods ........................................................................................... 36 3.1.1 Competing logics..................................................................................................... 36 3.1.2 Qualitative research design ..................................................................................... 36 3.1.3 Research method ..................................................................................................... 38 3.1.4 Context of the research ............................................................................................ 38 2

3.2 Background interviews and information ........................................................................ 39 3.2.1 Background research concerning the social system ................................................ 39 3.2.2. Background conversations ..................................................................................... 39 3.3 Cases............................................................................................................................... 40 3.3.1 Case selection .......................................................................................................... 40 3.3.2 Case description ...................................................................................................... 41 3.4 Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 44 3.4.1 Coding process ........................................................................................................ 44 3.4.2 Reliability and validity ........................................................................................... 46 4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 47 4.1 Economic area ................................................................................................................ 47 4.1.1 Where do social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet in economic terms? ......... 47 4.1.2 Logics of municipalities .......................................................................................... 47 4.1.3 Logics of social entrepreneurs ................................................................................. 51 4.1.4 The tension between municipalities and SE in economic terms ............................. 55 4.2 Legal area ....................................................................................................................... 56 4.2.1 Where do social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet in legal terms? ................ 56 4.2.2 Logics of municipalities .......................................................................................... 56 4.2.3. Logic of social entrepreneurs ................................................................................. 59 4.2.4 The tension between municipalities and SE in legal terms ..................................... 61 4.3 Communicative area ....................................................................................................... 62 4.3.1 Where do social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet in communicative terms? 62 4.3.2 Logic of municipalities............................................................................................ 62 4.3.3 Logic of social entrepreneurs .................................................................................. 64 4.3.4. The tension between municipalities and SE in communicative terms ................... 66 4.4. Conclusion: do social entrepreneurs and civil servants experience tension? ................ 68 5.

Conclusion and Discussion .............................................................................................. 71

6.

Reflections & limitations ................................................................................................. 75

7.

Future research ................................................................................................................. 76

3

Foreword

In January 2013 I started up my own company. With this company we sell ice-cream on festivals, markets and events in Rotterdam. To transport the ice-cream and the freezer we bought a Vespacar P2. This vehicle is highly unique on the Dutch roads and this led directly to problems in relation to the government. After we bought the car we contacted the state service for the Dutch Roads (RDW) to check whether the car needed an examination before it could enter the road. One technical advisor of RDW told us that the vehicle needed an examination because due to the size of the vehicle, the vehicle belongs the administrative category of ‘cars’. Another technical advisor told us that the vehicle did not need an examination, due to the engine capacity the vehicle was clearly a moped. Eventually, it did not become clear whether the vehicle is car or a moped and to what administrative category the vehicle belongs. After this, we sought for a covered parking place. In the centre of Rotterdam there were, according to the website of the municipality, many free parking places owned by the municipality. One can apply for a parking place by filling in an online application form. In one of the boxes it was required to fill in the sign of the car. For the Vespacar we did only have an insurance number, but not an official sign of the Dutch state. We called the municipality to see if we could fill in a separate form. Several civil servants discussed the issue and after five telephone calls they informed us that it was not possible to place a Vespacar in the garage because the parking places are only meant for car. This experience made me think about social enterprises, they are comparable to Vespacars. They are not a typical BV and not a typical foundation. They work in a hybrid world, in which economic and social values are combined. They are unique and do therefore not fit into the administrative systems of government and this could cause tension between government and entrepreneurs. Due to the existence of Vespacar from the year 1975 I also understand the existence of the controlling and regulating government. The Vespacar was eventually not examined by the RDW and therefore we now do not have a handbrake and the wipers do not always work. This could cause danger to the safety of ourselves and of other people. The government has an important role to protect the safety of all citizens in the Netherlands. In this research it was interesting to look more closely at the points of view of entrepreneurs and civil servants. 4

In the past half year I have been an intern at the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and at the same time I started my own company. This was an interesting experience that together with the research about the tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities taught me much about the functioning of public administration. In this research I was able to speak to many interesting people. I want to thank all the respondents that cooperated in this research. In addition I also want to thank the team citizenship at the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations for the time to conduct the research and for the feedback that was given on the research. I want to thank Prof. Dr. Mark van Twist for the support and the feedback during the entire research process. Also, I want to thank Prof. Dr. Steven Van de Walle for the feedback during the whole thesis trajectory. Finally, I want to thank my family for the support during my entire study career.

5

1.

Introduction

1.1 Background ICT companies that work with autistic people, restaurants that work with mentally disabled people, a brewery that works with psychiatric patients, a call center that works with blind people, a taxi service that works with ex-prisoners, a supermarket that works with physically disabled people, a bike repair service that works with patients in mental health care, art producers that work with long-term unemployed people, a fashion company that works with a group of multicultural unemployed women, cafes working with mentally disabled people, a bakery that works with people with a physical handicaps and production companies that work with deaf people. These companies are only a few examples out of the many entrepreneurial initiatives using the qualities of people with a certain distance to the regular labor market in their production processes. The employees learn a job in a regular and commercial company in which they are needed and of which the products and services are actually sold in a competitive market. An interesting example is Van Hulley, a company working with a group of unemployed women from different ethnic backgrounds that manufactures underwear from old blouses. These women learn a craft, learn the Dutch language, learn the basic principles required to maintain a job such as being on time, and produce a product that is sold in a commercial market. Another interesting example is Specialisterren, an ICT company that works with autistic people. These people receive certified education, learn how to function in an everyday company and perform tasks for companies such as the Rabobank and Hema. These enterprises thus combine social and economic goals and are known as social enterprises. Although social entrepreneurship is not a new phenomenon (Bornstein & Davis, 2010) , the development of social entrepreneurs can no longer be ignored in economic and social terms (Ridley- Duff & Bull, 2011; Bridge et al., 2009; Bonanni et al., 2012; Sampon, 2011; OECD, 1999), however, the academic literature in the field of social entrepreneurship is still limited (Nicholls, 2008; Mair & Mari, 2005). Social entrepreneurship is not stimulated by the government in a top-down manner, but is initiated bottom-up (Bornstein & Davis, 2010; Sampson, 2011). Entrepreneurs such as ‘De Prael’, a brewery that hires people with a background of receiving psychiatric treatment; ‘Broodje Apart’, a restaurant that hires mentally disabled people; or ‘De Verbinding’, a company that hires deaf people – all these organizations are concerning themselves with the labor participation of people with a so-called distance to the labor market. Such a bottom-up development is interesting in times in which the government tries to top-down stimulate the labor participation of people with a distance to the labor market (Letter to the cabinet, 27 th of June 2012). Social enterprises can be a solution for creating job opportunities for people with a distance to the labor market.

6

In a recent cabinet proposal, the Dutch cabinet designed a quota for the labor participation of people with a distance to the labor market. In the upcoming ten years, 125.000 jobs will be created for people with a disability. 100.000 of these jobs will be created in commercial companies and 25.000 jobs at the government. In addition, different laws on the labor participation of disabled people will be integrated into one law, the so-called law on participation (Letter to the cabinet, 27th of June 2013). This cabinet proposal will be in the second chamber by the end of 2013, and when the new law will be accepted it will commence at the 1st of January 2015. The government in the Netherlands thus wants to stimulate the labor participation of disabled people in regular companies. The government tries to stimulate these people to participate in society, to earn money and to develop their skills. In 2011, the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment commissioned a research conducted by TNO in which the barriers between social entrepreneurs in the field of labor experience and the government were indicated. Barriers such as non-existing legal forms for these entrepreneurs, difficulties in gaining permits, difficulties receiving subsidies, a difficult cooperation with public institutions such as the UVW and the political effect on the work of social entrepreneurs. In addition, TNO (2011) indicated that the government can also support social entrepreneurs by providing them information, giving out subsidies, creating a network and (politically) supporting the organization. It is interesting to notice that the government wants to stimulate the participation of people with a distance to the labor market, but on the other hand social enterprises that are initiated bottom-up still experience barriers in contact to government. Several authors point at the importance of the role of government in the succession of social enterprises (Korosec & Berman, 2006 & Shirir & Lerner, 2006; Hoogendoorn, 2011; Van Twist et al. 2012; Sampson, 2011), the barriers can cause tension that therefore can negatively influence the development of social enterprises. The tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities can be explained by the existence of competing logics. Social entrepreneurs and government act from different logics which in a moment of interaction come together. Municipalities act from the logics of the democracy (responsive government) the law (decent government) and efficiency and effectiveness (performing government) (Bovens et al.; 2012; Dryzak, J.S, 2001; Van der Wal, 2010). On the other hand, social entrepreneurs act from an entrepreneurial logic (running a company; economic goals), a social welfare-logic (creating social impact) and public sector logic (working in the social domain) (Nicholls, 2006; Bornstein &Davis, 2010; Dees, 2007). The different logics come together in for example the application for a subsidy and can cause tension, for example between the universal law of municipalities and the social entrepreneurs that perhaps do not fit into the policy- and regulation categories of the municipality. As mentioned before, several authors point at the importance of governance in the development of social entrepreneurship (Korosec & Berman, 2006; Sharir & Lerner, 2006; Hoogendoorn, 2011; Van Twist et al., 2012; Sampson; 2011), but no research has been conducted about the tension between social enterprises and municipalities. With 22 interviews with civil servants and social entrepreneurs this research will investigate whether social entrepreneurs and municipalities experience tension, and if so, whether this tension can be explained by the existence of different logics. It will do so by answering the following research question:

7

Do social entrepreneurs experience tension in contact with municipalities, and if so, how can the different logics explain this tension?

1.2 Statement of the research/research problem Due to the functioning of social entrepreneurs in the public domain, social entrepreneurs are more often confronted with government than commercial entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs act in the same area as the government, and government has indicated many rules to ensure the public values (Bozeman, 1993; Moore, 2013; Du Gay, 2005) that are connected to the social component of social entrepreneurs. Social enterprises operate in the social domain, but are not initiated by the government. They give content to the domain according to their own vision or passion, whether the idea would fit in the current and regular government policy is not always important. Social entrepreneurs often place themselves outside the standard procedures (Schulz et al., 2012). New companies in the public domain could raise all sorts of questions for the government. What if these companies do not fit into the standard rules and procedures (Rob, 2012; WRR, 2012)? What if a company works with public money? Do we need additional certificates and permits? What if a company is politically sensitive? (Schultz et al., 2012). And there are many other questions. The municipalities have to make decisions when the social enterprises decide to approach government. All starting social enterprises will meet the regulating, financing or producing government at one point in time (Schulz et al., 2012). Regulating institutions have a range of instruments to steer the behavior of subordinate groups. Often the distinction is used between law and procedures, financial steering and ‘softer’ forms of steering such as information, convincing or seducing other parties to do something (Majone, 1989; Bemelmans-Vicet et al., 1998; Bakker en van Waarden 1999). These three areas of law and procedures, finance and organizational suit the areas that non-academic research of umbrella organizations of social entrepreneurs indicated as the three areas in which government and social entrepreneurs meet (Greenwish, 2012; Social Entreprise NL, 2012):  Financial area (e.g. start-up capital, subsidy, housing)  Legal- procedural area (e.g. Law, permissions, certificates)  Communication area (e.g. Information, facilitating, advising, political support) In these three areas, the logic of government organizations meets the logic of the social entrepreneurs. Hannan (2007) defines logic in the domain of organizations as follows: ‘socially constructed rules, norms and beliefs constituting field membership, role identities and patterns of appropriate conduct that are transmitted through regulatory, normative and cognitive processes’ (p.12). Logics are thus more than rationalities and also imply the context of a person. At a moment of interaction the logic of municipality meets the logic of social entrepreneurs and when the logics compete this could lead to tension.

1.3 Objective of the research As mentioned before, the development of social entrepreneurs can no longer be ignored (Ridley- Duff & Bull, 2011; Bornstein & Davis, 2010, Bridge et al., 2009; Bonanni et al., 2012; Sampson, 2011; OECD, 1999). More and more citizens no longer wait until the 8

government will solve the problem, but will start their own initiatives (Nicholls, 2006; Bornstein & Davis, 2010). Government cannot solve every problem. Hoogendoorn (2011) argues: ‘governments are increasingly focusing on social entrepreneurs as a vehicle to address a range of social, ecological, and economic problems, such as generation employment for those with a distance to the labor market, providing social cohesion, regenerating deprived inner city areas, and recycling’ (p. 26). The importance of social enterprises is expected to increase in the Netherlands (Nota doedemocratie, 2013; WRR; 2012; RoB, 2012). Therefore, this research has three main objectives:  To give a better insight in the dealing of the government with new (bottom-up) initiatives in the public domain;  Government policy has an impact on the success of a social enterprise (Korosec & Berman, 2006; Sharir & Lerner, 2006), therefore, the possible tension that can be found in the relation between social entrepreneurs and government needs to be investigated;  To add to the limited academic literature in the field of social entrepreneurship.

1.4 Scope of the research In this research I will examine the conflicting logics between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. Both parties act in the social domain, but act according to another set of logics. Social entrepreneurs do appear in all sectors, like health care and (green) energy. The field of work seems highly relevant to investigate because the social entrepreneurs in this field work with employees that are concerned with governmental laws and payments (e.g WWB, Wajong). The social entrepreneurs in the field of labor thus have a clear tie to the government which requires them in most cases to interact with government. In addition the field of labor is interesting in current times of budget cuts and the aforementioned current developments in the law on participation. The system is changing which could have an effect on the interaction between the two parties. The governmental level of municipalities is appropriate to investigate in this research because social entrepreneurs act within one municipality and meet at this level the government in the legal, economic and communicative terms.

1.5 Research questions In this research I will answer the following research question: Do social entrepreneurs experience tension in contact with municipalities, and if so, how can the different logics explain this tension? Sub research questions:  

When and why do government and social entrepreneurs meet? How do social entrepreneurs and government relate in financial/economic terms? What underlying logics can be indicated? 9

   

How do social entrepreneurs and government relate in legal- procedural terms? What underlying logics can be indicated? How do social entrepreneurs and government relate in communicative terms? What underlying logics can be indicated? Do social entrepreneurs and municipalities experience tension? How can the tension between municipalities and social entrepreneurs be explained?

10

2. Conceptual and theoretical framework 2.1 Social entrepreneurship 2.1.1 The concept of social entrepreneurship In 1999, the OECD already pointed at the importance of social enterprises: ‘the past few years have witnessed the emergence and expansion of social enterprises (SE). This new type of enterprise and its political, economical and financial importance can no longer be underestimated’ (p. 8). Other authors also point out the importance of social entrepreneurship to make positive contributions to the economy in terms of innovation, productivity and growth (Carree and Thurik, 2010; Hoogendoorn, 2011). In the literature about social enterprises there are many definitions of social entrepreneurship. Some argue that there is no clear definition of the domain (Zahra et al., 2009; Mort et al., 2002). In general, social enterprises are concerned with three P’s, namely: People, Planet (environment/durability) and Prosperity (economy and financially) (Brabander et al., 2009). Social entrepreneurs appear in all different sectors, such as work reintegration, health care, energy, safety and sports. An example of a social enterprise is Granny’s finest. The founder of the company visited his grandma and noticed that several old women in the care centre were making scarves. One of the woman was making a scarf without a purpose; no one would eventually actually wear the scarf. The founder decided to start a company in which fashionable scarves are manufactured by ‘grandmas’. The scarves are sold in a store in Rotterdam, in a web shop and were also shown in the Amsterdam fashion week. Each Wednesday these grandmas come together to manufacture the scares that are designed by starting designers. These grandmas come together, meet new people and therefore are less lonely. In return the grandma’s are on a regular basis invited to go on a trip. This social enterprise thus clearly combines a several elements in one business model.

This wide range of social enterprises makes it difficult to define the concept and to define a common denominator in different countries. In general, social enterprises are businesses that are bottom-up initiated and combine a social goal with an economic goal. Alter (2007) gives a useful definition and defines social enterprises as: ‘Any business venture created for a social purpose- mitigating/ reducing a social problem or market failure, and to generate social value while operating with the financial discipline, innovation and determination of a private actor.’ (p. 12). This definition will be used in this research. I would like to add to this definition that social enterprises do not only solve market problems, but also generate social values where government failures can be found (Bozeman, 1983). Social entrepreneurs in general place the social impact/value above the economic value: social impact first (Bornstein & Davis, 2010). The social value of social entrepreneurs can become visible in the output (organic clothes that do not harm the environment), or the process (hiring disabled people to work in a restaurant), or both (hiring psychiatric patients to become a taxi driver in an electric car). Van 11

Twist et al.(2012) point at the differences between the concepts of ‘social entrepreneur’, ‘social enterprise’ and ‘social entrepreneurship’. Generally, an entrepreneur is the person that is involved in the activity, entrepreneurship is the activity and an enterprise is the organization. These three concepts are not necessarily the same; an entrepreneur can act for example without an enterprise. Social entrepreneurs highly differ in the amount of money they receive from the government for their company (Sireau, 2011, Alter, 2006; Bornstein & Davis, 2010; Krosenbrink, 201; Ridley- Duff & Bull, 2011). Some entrepreneurs are fully independent of government support, while others rely on subsidies. In chapter 2.2 I will elaborate more on these government provisions. Social entrepreneurs can exist in different legal forms. A social enterprise can be a foundation, but also be a BV. In the Netherlands social enterprises do not have a special legal form. In the Netherlands social entrepreneurs often have a ‘BV’ and a foundation (TNO, 2011). Roughly stated with the foundation (Ambi status) the company can accept money/gifts and with the BV one can earn money. In England and Italy there are special legal forms for social firms, and in Germany there is a different tax box for social entrepreneurs (Hoogendoorn, 2011). Social entrepreneurship is fundamentally different than ‘corporate social responsibility’. Large commercial companies can also have social aims, in which they support for example local communities in areas in which they operate. These companies have a social aim next to their commercial aim, but the primarily focus stays at the commercial side of the business (Bornstein, 2010). The social goal is in social enterprises the primary focus, this in contrast to commercial businesses that have a primary focus on generating economic value. In a social enterprise the founder or shareholders are not the only ones who profit from the value that is created in the enterprise. It also contributes to a bigger group in society or society as a whole. An example is brewery ‘The Prael’ in Amsterdam, where people with a psychiatric background can work. In this case not only the owner of the brewery profits from the company, but also the employees who are able to work and perhaps could use this experience for a job in the future. Social entrepreneurship is also different from civil initiatives (Alter, 2007; Mair & Marti, 2006; Robberts & Woods, 2005; Granados et al., 2011). A civil initiative could for example be when citizens living in the same street together decide to protect their street. These citizens could make appointments about on what day which person in the street will guard and protect the environment and properties of the neighborhood. This initiative differs from social entrepreneurship because it does not necessarily have a business model. In social enterprises there is money involved. Finally, they differ from public-private companies, because those are initiated by the government. Social entrepreneurs are bottom-up initiated. 2.1.2 Social entrepreneurs in the field of labor In this thesis I will focus on social entrepreneurs in the field of labour. Social enterprises concerned with the labour market are also known as social firms (Nicholls, 2006). The (social) value of these entrepreneurs can be found in the production process or services that an entrepreneur offers through the involvement of people with a distance to the labour market. People can have all sorts of distances to the labour market, but the similarity between these people is that in most cases they are unable or have difficulties in finding a regular job in a 12

regular company. This concerns a wide range of people, for example people that have been detained, people that have been unemployed for a long time, people with a mental or physical disability, and blind or deaf people. The social entrepreneurs start up a company in which the employees can learn a craft, learn to be social in contact with others and have the chance to fully participate and have value for the society. Among the social entrepreneurs in the field of labour there are many differences. The percentage of people that work in these companies with a distance to the labour market can vary between 25% - 75% (Smit et al., 2008). In addition these companies can differ in the employees they hire or are concerned with. I argue that the social enterprises concerned with the employment of people with a distance to the labour market can be divided into two categories. Kevin Robbie (2005) indicated the following spectrum that clearly points at these two categories:

Source: Kevin Robbie (2005) p. 7. On the right side of the spectrum social entrepreneurs can be found that are concerned with people that due to mental and physical disabilities in different gradations cannot fully work independently. In most cases these people have a day care program and there is a focus on care and accompaniment. A social entrepreneur can provide in the day care activities of these employees. On the left side of the spectrum social entrepreneurs can be found that are concerned with people that due to all sorts of causes experience a distance to the labour market. Some people are for example unemployed for a long time, others are blind or deaf. The difference with the social entrepreneurs on the right side of the spectrum is that the employees do not need day care and therefore can work relatively more independently. An interesting enterprise on the right side of the spectrum is the restaurant Broodje apart. The founder of the enterprise was involved in a car accident. After her recovery she was not able to find a job. With the money she received as a compensation for the accident she decided to start up her own company in which each person gets the opportunity to work. Broodje apart is now a well know restaurant in Schijndel. The restaurant works with a diverse group of people.Most of the employees have a mental or physical disability. The company provides in education, work experience and produces qualitative food for a commercial price. The company has extended in the last couple of years and now also has a gift shop in which the employees can develop a large diversity of skills. Most employees work on basis of daycare and the guidance in the company is paid with the PGB of the employees. An interesting example of a company on the left side of the spectrum is Taxi- E. The goal of the company is to maximize the comfort of the customer and to minimize the impact on the environment. The company has only electric cars. In addition the company has an aim to have a highly social policy with regard to employees. The company hires for example ex-prisoners who due to their background have difficulties finding a job. Taxi-E gives these employees the change to reintegrate in the society.

13

The group of employees in a company influences many aspects and structures of the business. In addition this also influences the contact with different governmental organizations. People on the right side of the spectrum often also need extra health care support. These persons are often concerned with arrangements of AWBZ (PGB) or Wajong. People close to the left side of the spectrum are more able to work independently and are often concerned with the arrangements of WW/WWB/Wajong/WSW. I will elaborate more on the structure of the social laws and social system in chapter 2.2. Although social entrepreneurs also have a mix of groups they work with, in this research I chose social entrepreneurs with a focus on the left side of the spectrum. I will define these entrepreneurs as follows: ‘Social entrepreneurs that work with a group of employees that has due to all sorts of reasons a distance to the labour market, but does not need health care support’ 2.1.3 History and development of social entrepreneurship Although social entrepreneurship recently receives much attention, it is not a new phenomenon. Examples of Florance Nightingale in the ninetieth century who build the first professional school for nurses and revolutionized hospital constructions show that entrepreneurship in the public domain is not new (Bornstein & Davis, 2010). Still with the changing role of the government in the 80’s, the recognition that the government is not able to solve every problem and the rising level of education accelerated this development (Bornstein & Davis, 2010; Hoogendoorn, 2011). Hoogendoorn (2011) points at the fact that social entrepreneurship is most prevalent in high income countries. The OECD (1999) argues that the development of social entrepreneurship can no longer be ignored for the phenomenon is growing throughout Europe. In the recent decade new support organizations for social entrepreneurs came up, such as the Skoll foundation and the Schwab foundation. Research centers and teaching programs for social entrepreneurs have been established, including universities as Harvard University (the social enterprise initiative at the Harvard Business School) and Oxford (the Skoll centre for social entrepreneurship). In addition the academic attention for social entrepreneurship has risen and resulted in articles and special issues in for example the Journal of World Business (Hoogendoorn, 2011). In the Netherlands the university Utrecht School of public administration and organizational science started courses on entrepreneurship and several platforms for social entrepreneurs have been established, such as the organization Social Enterprise NL. The development of social entrepreneurship is a part of a larger development, in which citizens seem to take more initiatives into their own hands (Bornstein & Davis, 2010). Van Twist et al. (2009) talk about the breach of trust of citizens towards the ability of politicians to solve all the economic, societal and individual problems. People do not longer wait for government to solve their problems, but come up with new solutions (Sampson, 2011). Ted van de Wijdeven (2012) recently confirmed this development in the book ‘Doe Democractie’ (Do-democracy). In political terms the subject of civil initiatives and citizenship received much attention in the United Kingdom with the line of argument of the Big Society, initiated by Cameron who was inspired by Philip Blond. In short Philip Blond argued that due to the 14

economic, democratic and social crisis in the United Kingdom, neither government nor the market can solve all problems. Citizens have to take initiative and change their environment (Blond, 2010). Also, in Scandinavia the development received much attention where the collaboration between government and society is emphasized (Siisianen & Blom, 2009). In the Netherlands this development receives attention with the growing number of support organizations for social entrepreneurship (e.g. Greenwish, Kracht in Nederland) and the recent cabinet nota of the ‘do democracy’.

2.2 The system of labor participation Social entrepreneurs in the field of labor will be confronted with employees that due to their distance to the regular labour markets in most cases are connected to a particular law. The law these employees are concerned with does also determine the organization a social entrepreneur has to contact with. The social system is thus an important part of the context of social enterprises and will therefore be explained in this chapter. 2.2.1 How the system is financed The social system in the Netherlands provides each person a livelihood. This implies that the government provides an income and in some cases a compensation for high healthcare costs for each person that is unable to independently earn a sufficient income. The system is financed either by national/employee insurances or money from the national state and thus from general taxes. The national insurances are paid by each person in the Netherlands through taxes a payment or pension. Employee insurances are paid by employees and are automatically retracted form loan. Social provisions take care of the so called ‘safety net’. Social provisions are paid form the general taxes (Janssen, 2012). National insurances

AOW AKW ANW AWBZ TOG WMO

Employee insurances

WW ZW WIA (WAO)

Insurances

Social system

Social provision

WWB Wajong TW Wsw

(Source: Janssen, 2012)

15

2.2.2 How the system is organized Social entrepreneurs in the field of labor have to work with the social system. Their employees are related to different laws and therefore are also connected to different organizations. Social entrepreneurs have to contact the municipality, UWV and CIZ. Different laws have been assigned to different public organizations. The executing part of the department of social affairs of the municipality is popularly called the ‘sociale dienst’ and CIZ is called the ‘zorg kantoor’. Organization that executes the law Law

Suborganization

Focus

Municipalities   

WWB WSW WMO



Social service (sociale dienst)/  Department of social affairs Work/ income

UVW

Health insurance

     

WW ZW WIA TW Wajong Wazo

 



UWV (werkbedrijf)



Work/ income

ZVW AWBZ

Care office (zorgkantoor),  Indication for laws by CIZ Healthcare/ care

(Source: Janssen, 2012) Municipalities Municipalities are concerned with the laws of WWB, WMO, and WSW (Janssen, 2012). The WWB (Wet Werk en Bijstand, law of employability and assistance) provides an income to people that, due to for example long term un-employability, are not able to independently earn a minimal income. If a person worked for a couple of years, this person will first receive money from the law of WW (UWV). In general for each year of work one receives one month of WW. After this period one is concerned with WWB. In addition municipalities are assigned to execute the WSW. The WSW (Wet Sociale werk voorziening, law on social workplaces) arranges special workplaces for those who can due to psychological/physical disabilities not function in regular labor process. The municipalities have to create an adjusted workplace for people that cannot work in a regular company and that are assigned to the WSW. Municipalities often have (sheltered) social workplaces to execute the WSW that are often concerned with assembly work and landscaping. The central government gives according to the law on social workplaces (WSW), budgets to municipalities to support these social workplaces. The municipality partly subsidizes the social workplaces, and partly these social workplaces are financed by the revenues of the workplace. Municipalities are also concerned with the execution of the WMO. The Law of WMO (Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning, law social support) determines that municipalities have to support citizens participating in society through provisions such as wheelchairs and adjustments of houses. This law tries to stimulate the participation of people in society.

16

UWV

UWV, the Dutch institute for employee insurances (Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen) is an independent administrative office (ZBO) of the ministry of social affairs and employment that is organized on a regional level. UWV is a central point for employers and employees and tries to find a match between these two groups. UWV has the tasks to stimulate and help unemployed people to find a job. UWV provides re-integration trajectories and education to prepare employees for a future job. UWV is assigned to execute the laws WW, ZW, WIA, TW, WIA, Wajong, Wazo (Janssen, 2012). For this research only the law of WW, ZW, WIA and Wajong are relevant. The law WW (Werkloosheid Wet, law of unemployability) ensures a minimal income to unemployed people. The durance and level of the payment depends on the years of work of an employee. In general for each year of work, one receives one month of income. In addition the UWV is concerned with the ZW. The law ZW (Ziekte wet, law on illness) provides an income for example for (ill) unemployed people and people with a temporary job. In general employers have to pay for a maximum of two years for their employees. After this period the state will pay for these employees. In addition the UWV takes care of the payment of the Wajong. The law Wajong (Wet werk en arbeidsondersteuning jong gehandicapten, law of employability and employment support for young disabled people) provides an income to people that are or did become disabled below the age of 17 and therefore not able to have a full time job or cannot work in regular circumstances. The UWV is also assigned to arrange the law WIA. The law WIA (Before: WAO, Wet werk en Inkomen naar Arbeids vermogen, law of employability and income relatively to ability) provides an income to people who are due to a illness or disability unemployed for a period longer than two year. CIZ CIZ (centre for indication of health care) gives indications and controls the requests for the AWBZ (Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziekenkosten, Law of special health care). This insurance supports high costs of health care that regular insurances companies would not support. This law provides for example compensation in costs of a long term stay in health care institutions. The guidelines for the request are formulated by the ministry of health, welfare and sports. The AWBZ provides a compensation for the costs for extra health care. This compensation can be in kind (natura) or in money (PGB). If a client chooses for compensation in kind, this person can for example go to a specialized health centre. If a client chooses for money and a personal budget (persoons gebonden budget) one can individually buy care. The CIZ can give indications for personal care, nursing, accompaniment, treatment, stay in an institution and a short term stay. Also the CIZ can give an indication for day care. In this day care people can for example work and learn. (www.ciz.nl). 2.2.3 Current and future changes in the social system In the upcoming two years several changes have been planned in the system. More laws will be transferred to the municipalities. This process of decentralization has the aim to make the laws integrated and more efficient. The process of decentralization brings along three major changes.

17

First the AWBZ that first was the task of care offices will be integrated into the WMO and thus becomes a task of the municipalities. The WMO will be adjusted and more people will be assigned to the WMO instead of the AWBZ. The PGB will still exist but due to the relatively smaller budgets the PGB it is expected that the PGB budget will be less. Secondly, the GGZ care of youth will become a task of municipalities. Thirdly, the municipality has to execute the new law of participation. This law is extended and will be discussed in the second chamber in the end of 2013. With the approval of this proposal the law Wajong will be a task of the municipality. In addition the municipalities are responsible for creating new jobs in the public and private sector for people with a distance to the labor market. In the beginning of 2013 a 5% quota was introduced for each company with more than 25 employees. In the proposal that will be in the second chamber by the end of 2013 it is proposed to create 125.000 new jobs up to 2016. The municipality thus has the integrated task of stimulating people with a distance to the labor market to work (Source: Kamerbrief actualisering brief over decentralisaties op het terrein van ondersteuning participatie en Jeugd, 16-05-2013). With the decentralization the laws that concern people with a disability will be in the hands of one organization: the municipality. First a person was obliged to contact the municipality/UWV for an income and CIZ/ Care offices for the compensation of the costs of health care. Still with the decentralization the budgets will increase significantly. Major budgets cuts have to be realized in for example the WSW and Wajong.

2. 3. Logics Tension between two parties can be understood by competing logics of both parties. If one party for example has a particular kind of resources, this party has different kinds of logics to open up these resources to another party. If a social entrepreneur for example asks for a permit at a municipality, the municipality considers for example trough the logic of the law and the democratic logic whether they give the permit. If the democratic and political risks are too high the permit is probably not granted. The logic in the interaction thus determines the result of the interaction. I argue that the tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities can thus be explained by looking closely at the different logics that prevail in moments of interaction. 2.3.1 Interacting logics All actors in the public domain have to deal with a diversity of logics, reagardless of their position in the public domain (Mayntz & Scharpf, 1995; Van Gestel et al., 2009). Nicolette van Gestel (2010) argues that especially in sectors like education, the social security system or health care, there are many interests from different actors and these actors act from a different set of logics. The different logics can cause tension between two parties. WRR (2004) and Hemerijck & Helderman (1995) also point at tension between the logics of institutional and provision organizations. Due to the complexity of problems government cannot act according to just one logic (Aberbach & Christensen, 2009; Mohoney et al., 2009). The government acts according to the legal, efficient & effective (economic) and political logics (Clemens & Cook, 1999; Pandey & Wright, 2006; Bovens et al., 2012). Also entrepreneurs do not act from one logic, and 18

function in a hybrid world (Alter, 2006, Bornstein, 2010) in which an entrepreneurial, socialwelfare and public sector logic play a role (Peach & Chowdhury, 2012). In the interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities both act from their own logic that determines the decisions and acts of the both parties. These logics can explain the type of interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. 2.3.2 What are logics? In the social sciences there are, in contrast to for example math, no unified tools or methodologies for building a theory or argument and thus come to a universal logic. According to Hannan et al. (2007) the essential problem lies in the use of language. Language often leaves room for interpretation and nuances. Hannan et al. (2007) point at the difference between extensionally and intentional logic. The extensionally logic is often described as the classical or first order logic. An often quoted example within the extensionally logic is: all men are moral; Socrates is a man; Socrates is moral. The first order logic must impose two important requirements. First, the theoretical statement must be universal and does not admit any exception. In addition the concepts used must be universal. Extensionality logic simplifies the logic but is also makes it more abstract and rough. Hannan et al. (2007) points to the fact that in the social sciences statements are often less uniform and they can allow exceptions. Modern intentional logic leaves space for nuances and exceptions. In society there are all sorts of domains in which different logics prevail. The main role of logic in science is to clarify the notion of ‘logical interference’ or a ‘sound’ argument’. The modern concept of logic points at the arguments that suit in the context of the domain. Reay & Hinings (2013) point at this use of the concept of logics and point at the shared rules, norms and structures that create logic in a certain domain. According to Hanna (2006) logics are intrinsically normative. Hannan (2007) defines logic in the domain of organizations as follows: ‘socially constructed rules, norms and beliefs constituting field membership, role identities and patterns of appropriate conduct that are transmitted through regulatory, normative and cognitive processes’ (p.12). This definition will be used in this research. Reason and rationality are closely related to logic. Hanna (2006) argues: ‘rational human animals are essentially logical animals, in the sense that a rational animal is defined by its being an animal with an innate constructive modular capacity for cognizing logic (p.68). A logic thus comes from a rationality. Still, the concepts are not exchangeable because statements that are logical do not always have to be rational. In this research the concept of logics will be used because logics also point at the constructed rules, norms and beliefs. Decisions and acts of social entrepreneurs and civil servants are probably in most cases not only let by rational decisions, but are also influenced by the context of these two groups. In research concerning logics an important question to answer is: how can one recognize logics? Much research has been conducted in the field of competing logics (e.g. Thornton, 2002; Reay & Hinings, 2009; Mullins, 2006). These authors try to identify different types of logics. It is interesting that most of the researchers chose two competing logics, for example the logics of professionals and the logics of market (Thornton, 2002). This research also consists of two major types of logics, namely the logic of municipalities and the logic of social entrepreneurs, but these logics are divided into three separate types of logics. In the research concerning competing logics the logics are described in a precise manner and 19

characteristics of each logic are identified, these characteristics can be used to identify different types of logics in the data. 2.3.3 Logic of municipalities The logic of municipalities consists of three sub-logics. The following three logics can be distinguished (Bovens et al., 2012; Dryzak, 2001; Van der Wal, 2010):   

Effective and efficient: performing government Legality: decent government Democracy: responsive government

Effective and efficient: performing government The first logic is the economic logic in which concepts of effectiveness and efficiency prevail. The concept of effectiveness refers to the achievement of the before established goals and to the optimization of the cost-benefit equation (Bovens et al., 2012). The problems in the society are always bigger than the means to solve to these problems, therefore, choices have to be made (Snellen, 2002, Bovens et al., 2012). These concepts did become highly important in public administration due to the growing costs of the welfare state. The awareness about the performance of public organizations played an important role in the most significant political changes and government reforms in recent history (Rainey, 2009). The development of new public management that prevailed in the eighties was also led by economic and financial considerations (Pollitt & Bouckart, 2012). The mindset connected to this development can still be found in current policies. This development of new public management consists of five concepts, namely: the market, decentralization, transparency, management culture and entrepreneurship. The first concept is the market. Public organizations have to become similar to private companies and have to try to maximize the efficiency, effectiveness and productivity of the organizations. With the least amount of money, a large amount of services and products have to be delivered. The second concept is decentralization. Government has to contract out tasks to organizations that can carry out the public tasks better and more efficiently. The organization has to be more flexible and less hierarchic to be better able to make decisions and to save costs. The third concept is transparency. By making the organization more transparent more rational choices can be made. The transparency of the organization makes it also easier to control the results of the organization. The fourth concept is the management culture. The managers in the organizations have to keep an eye on the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes. The fifth concept is entrepreneurship. Managers and civil servants have to be creative with their means. All employees have to think in an entrepreneurial and innovative manner. Risk taking is a part of the entrepreneurial attitude. To see whether an organization is effective and efficient, the output and the effects of the organizations have to be measured (Waal & Kerklaan, 2004). Rainey (2009) points at the discussions concerning the goal and performance criteria of public organizations, the multiple authorities and actors in the government system do not always agree on the performance criteria of public organizations. The performance of public organizations is hard to measure and steer. Waal & Kerklaan (2004) mention six considerations that public organizations have to make in designing a performance model: 20

1. The political element in public organizations makes decision-making more complex. Politics makes the decision about the strategy of the organization. 2. The value of public organizations is hard to measure. The diversity of stakeholders can have conflicting values; one person wants to pay less taxes while another person wants a higher government payment. 3. Government organizations have internal and external policies. Public organizations need other organizations and citizens to execute their policies. The effects of the external policies are difficult to measure. 4. Ambiguity of goals. Goals in public organizations can be conflicting. This freedom in policy is often consciously implemented because politics wants to satisfy as much stakeholders as possible. This ambiguity makes it difficult for public organizations to measure the outcomes and effects. 5. The satisfaction of citizens is hard to measure. The group of citizens to which the policy is aimed is not always clear defined. 6. Private as well public organizations have material resources. Public organizations also have immaterial resources, such as power that is visible in for example law enforcement. Public organizations do not only need to be effective and efficient due to economic or financial reasons, but public money should also be spend justly and should serve the whole population. Public organizations have to be integer organizations (Waal & Kerklaan, 2004). Public money should not be spent on individual goals and gains, but should meet societal goals. Legality: decent government States possess several major monopolies, such as the levy of taxes, determination of laws and the monopoly on violence. Because the power of the states needs to be regulated and controlled, the law has an important function. Every act of a (public) person of organizations needs to be grounded in the law. The law leads the acts of the state and prevents unequal treatments (Bovens et al., 2012). Bovens et al. (2012) argue that the influence of the law on public organizations has been increased in recent years. More often lawsuits have been held against public organizations, for instance if a person suffers damage due to a damaged road. Judges more often judge public organizations. Bovens et al. (2012) describe this process as juridification: the growth of formal rules and the growth of formal systems of conflict management. Public managers and civil servants complain that their work is influenced by this growing system of rules and argue that the government is forced to an aversion of risks and formal behavior (Todd, 1969). Weber (1946) pointed at the leading principle of the law in public administration. Weber (1946) argues that modern officials function according to the principle of fixed and official jurisdictions, which are in general ordered by rules, laws and regulations. Bureaucracies are governed by a set of impersonal rules and procedures which are applied universally, without regard for personal characteristics of particular individuals. The essential elements that constitute the legal rationality are: equality before the law, legal security and protection from

21

arbitrary action. The legal system has a self referential character for it has its own structures of relevance. Clarity and consistency are essential. Also Perry (1994) points at the supremacy of the law: ‘the law requires the use of legally established principles (rather than arbitrary decisions), equality before the law, protection of individual rights, constraint on agencies by authoritative legal rules, the application of administrative power by authorized and regular processes, impartiality, uniformity, and some degree of predictability in administrative behavior’ (p. 117). The problem is that civil servants need discretion to apply their expertise and to achieve effective and efficient solutions. Davis (1969) argues that the goal of administrative law must be to find a balance between the need of protecting against abuse of power and the ensuring of sufficient discretion. Moe (1987) tells us that with these arguments a false dichotomy is created between the rule of the law and efficient public management. Lipsky (1980) points at the discretionary space of civil servants that are in direct contact to citizens. The civil servants have to make a decision in direct contact with citizen within a certain context, which can influence the execution of laws and rules. Within the scope of the law, policies and regulations are formulated by politicians and executed by civil servants. The guideline of the law leads according to Rainey (2009) to different structures in the public organizations. The first structure is the formalization of the bureaucracy. Rules and regulations are formally established in written rules and regulations. Also Weber points out that bureaucracies are based on written documents to control the functioning of the bureaucracy. Social phenomena are categorized into legally relevant categories. The formalization of the bureaucratic processes leads to the concept of red tape bureaucracy (Bozeman, 1993). Rainey argues that red tape consists of a burdensome administrative rules and requirements. Democracy: responsive government Democracy functions according to the principle of sovereignty which implies that public organizations, politicians and civil servants act in the name of the citizens. Politicians are looking for a legitimate position and try to comply with the majority of the citizens. If the majority of the citizens does not agree with the chosen policies then politicians have the risk to not to be reelected. Bovens et al. (2012) argue that this principle forces politicians and civil servants to be responsive to developments in society. Public decision making has to be transparent and accessible to all citizens. According Niskanen (1971) there are two types of actors with government: bureaucrats and politicians. ‘The bureaucrats are the sole supplier of public goods and services, and politicians are the only buyers of bureaucratic outputs. The goals of each actor are equally simple. Bureaucrats are aiming to maximize their agency’s budget …. And politicians, in turn, are aiming to maximize the votes cast for them in the next election’. Politicians try to maximize their votes. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (2003) point at the process of political survival in which politicians give in times of elections attention to specific topics. Politics try to survive in times of elections by strategically choosing topics and in symbolically solving problems. Politics and the public bureaucracy are interwoven (Easton, 1965 & Gawtorp, 1984). Peters (2010) points at the concepts of ‘accountability’, that is important in public 22

organizations. The concept of accountability is often used interchangeably with concepts such as ‘responsiveness’ and ‘responsibility, but have different meanings. These three concepts point at the discussion concerning the (political) control of bureaucracies. Accountability is about the requirement of public organizations to account for the financial, administrative, or political decisions that have been made. Accountability depends on external organizations, usually with political legitimacy, to assess the acts of the bureaucracy. Responsibility is a concept that points at the control of external organizations, but also at the internal compass of bureaucracy based on ethical standards and trainings. Peters (2010) argues that it is often assumed that civil servants work, at least indirectly, for all citizens. Responsiveness is the third concept that points at the discussion of controlling the bureaucracy. The idea of responsiveness is that government has to respond to the demands of the public. Responsiveness is a difficult concept to civil servants, by responding to the demands of citizens they could pass the wishes of the political masters. Rainey (2009) tells us that the media scrutiny of government plays an important role in governance. Rainey (2009) argues that the news media also reports aggressively on scandals in private business, but appears to place more emphasis on the scrutiny of government. The risk of negative media attention influences the acts of politicians and civil servants. Dees (2007) argues that, in contrast to private companies, in government it is not accepted to take risks. Private companies, involved with private money, can experiment to find out what is the best solution to a problem. In the public sector failure is often not accepted. The three logics of government are often combined and a civil servant has to act according to multi logic considerations (Snellen, 2002). Logics do not only consist of rational considerations but are, as mentioned before, also embedded in norms, beliefs and role identities that are transmitted through regulatory, normative and cognitive processes. Peters (1999) also points at the effect of formal (vertical) structures, patterns, institutionalized rules and procedures, routines and informal norms and habits on government organizations. This permits civil servants to act without regard to logics, but for example to the routine of the bureaucracy. In addition civil servants act in a system (Kunneman & Keulartz, 1985) and due to political, legal and economic reasons have to look at all different interests in society. 2.3.4 Logic of social entrepreneurs The logic of social entrepreneurs consists of three sub logics:   

Entrepreneurial logic: running a company Social- welfare logic: creating social impact Public- sector logic: working in the social domain

Peach & Chowdhury (2012) argue that social entrepreneurs engage in entrepreneurial activities similar to any other entrepreneur, but they do so in a very different context. Social entrepreneurs depend on a complex web of stakeholders that influence the logic of social entrepreneurs. Peach & Chowdhury (2012) argue that for a social entrepreneur to be successful they need to be skilled at building a bridge between competing commercial, social well-fare and public- sector logics. Also other authors (Alter, 2006; Bornstein & Davis, 2010) point at the hybrid world of social entrepreneurs. Peach & Chowdhury (2012) formulated the following scheme that points at the different logics of social entrepreneurs. 23

Social entrepreneurs and the Social-welfare, commercial and public sector logics Social-Welfare Logic

Commercial Logic

Public-Sector Logic

Goals

Improve social conditions and relieve suffering of beneficiaries

Maximize surplus revenue from organizational activities

Ensure fairness and transparency across different levels of society

Institutional stakeholders

Nonprofit social partners, charitable and philanthropic funders, beneficiaries

Clients, business partners, investors, shareholders

National and local government entities, multilateral funding agencies, regulators, elected officials

Social entrepreneurs’ interaction with stakeholders

Collaboration on specific projects, knowledge transfer from organizational peers, service delivery to beneficiaries

Delivering goods and services to clients, developing relationships with suppliers, managing investor and shareholder expectations

Managing relationships with elected officials, regulators, and funding agency officials

Social entrepreneurs’ dependencies on stakeholders

Funding from charitable and philanthropic organizations, legitimacy and material resources from social organizations

Revenues from sales to clients, reliable service from suppliers and other business partners, investment from shareholders and investors

Certification from regulators, funding from government agencies and multilaterals, political backing from elected officials

Source: Peach & Chowdhury (2012), p. 497 Entrepreneurial logic: running a company Peach & Chowdhury indicated a ‘commercial logic. ’ I argue that an ‘entrepreneurial logic’ is a more appropriate to describe the logics of social entrepreneurs. In the logics of social entrepreneurs the entrepreneurial logic is reflected by the recognition by chances in the market. Cucly et al. (2002) argue that all acts of entrepreneurship start with the recognition of an attractive opportunity, ‘for social entrepreneurs, an ‘attractive’ opportunity is one that has sufficient potential for positive social impact and to justify the investment of time, energy, and money required to pursue it seriously’. Social entrepreneurs thus combine an economic goal with a social goal. Westhead et al. (2011) argue that there are in general two types of entrepreneurial inputs explored by economist, namely: - Imagination and creativity & innovation - New combinations, idea’s, products and businesses - Opportunity identification - Environment: demand and supply 24

-

Process Organization

Imagination and creativity are important aspects of entrepreneurship. Shackle (1966) stresses the limited scope of economic rationality when it comes to imagination and creativity. Imagination and creativity are expressed in the output of the enterprise, such as services and products. Schumpeter (1934) suggests that entrepreneurs are the catalysts of dynamic change. According to Schumpeter (1934) entrepreneurs come up with innovative solutions and new combinations. Entrepreneurs come to these new solutions in a learning process. ‘Social and business entrepreneurs have to uncover or create new opportunities through a process of exploration, innovation, experimentation and resource mobility. This is an active, messy, highly decentralized learning process’ (Dees, 2007). According to Dees (2007) entrepreneurship is comparable to natural selection, including a continuous cycle of differentiation, selection and expansion. In addition entrepreneurs have to recognize opportunities and evaluate the demand and supply equations in the market. The recognition of the chances and the response to the environment bring along risks (Westhead et al., 2012). The entrepreneur is not sure of the results of the action and therefore has to deal with great uncertainty. The response to the environment is an important criterion in the success of social entrepreneurs (Sharir & Lerner, 2006). Next to the recognition of chances in the environment social entrepreneurs can also identify opportunities within the organization and the processes in the organization (Sharir & Lerner, 2006). Such as the optimization of the production processes to maximize the surplus revenue from organizational activities. The costs have to be as low as possible to make as much products or deliver as many services as possible to create high economic revenues, or in the case of social entrepreneurship create social impact. In addition an entrepreneur could also recognize opportunities in the organizational model and look at the composition of the staff. Social welfare logic: creating social impact Social entrepreneurs want to create value, not only in economic terms, but also in social terms. The logic of creating social impact consists of three motivations: -

Personal experience Social needs Need for change

Social enterprises are often initiated by a personal story (van Twist et al., 2012). An example is the company of the Thomas houses. The father of Thomas, named Hans, was not able to find a home-like house for his son. Therefore, he decided to start up his own company to provide housing for disabled people. Many new enterprises arise from the entrepreneurs’ education, work experience or their personal environment (Guclu et al., 2002). ‘Dissatisfaction with the status quo often spurs entrepreneurial activity, prompting social entrepreneurs to look for new approaches to problems and frustrations they have encountered personally, witnessed among family or friends, or seen on the job’ (Guclu et al., 2002, p. 2). Personal experience is vulnerable but also limited. Ideas could appeal to the entrepreneur, but could not ground in market realities. 25

Social entrepreneurship can also be stimulated by the experience of social needs. Social needs can be understood as the gap between the socially desirable condition and the existing reality. These desirable conditions are grounded in personal values and may serve as a powerful motivator for social entrepreneurs and their ideas (Guclu et al., 2002). Social entrepreneurs can experience this need in a personal experience or notice this need in society. Social entrepreneurs often act according to an ideal and they want to improve social condition (Pache & Chowdhury, 2012). Also Dave Roberts and Christine Woods (2005) clearly point at the passion that leads social entrepreneurs: ‘Passion was a word that cropped up in every interview, a passion for what they are doing, whether it was starting a business, creating a theatre company or reviving a run- down company. Their passion, the conviction that what they were doing is important, gave them the second characteristic, the ability to leap beyond the rational and the logical and to stick with their dreams, if necessary against all evidence’ (p.46). Nicholls (2006) argues that some social entrepreneurs do not stop at creating social value, but also want to bring a sustainable shift in the social and economic relations of disadvantaged groups. An example is the Green Hotel in Mysore, Southern India which provides a model of environmental and social tourism, employing abused women and ‘dalits’, the untouchables. This initiative does not only add social value in providing the woman an income, but also changes the perspectives and attitudes towards these women. Public- sector logic: working in the social domain Social entrepreneurs act in the public domain and often depend for their resources on public sector stakeholders. Social entrepreneurs that are able to understand the social system and cooperate with public stakeholders can for example create strong financial partnerships with local governments or can lobby to change a certain policy. Social entrepreneurs are thus embedded in the public sector logic and have to adapt this logic to effectively operate in the field (Sampson, 2011). The public sector logic is focused on the goals of ensuring fairness and transparency across all acts, to act within bureaucratic principles and in the notion of democratic governance. Peach & Chowdhury (2012) argue that the institutional logic of government shapes in important ways the behavior of the actors with whom they interact. Some compliance of the logic in a field is thus important to generate support and to survive in the domain. The public sector consists of stakeholders and a system. First social entrepreneurs have to manage relationships within a complex web of public stakeholders, such as regulators, elected officials and funding agencies. These stakeholders can influence the company and the social enterprises can depend on these stakeholders for certificates, permits, funding and political backing. Social entrepreneurs have to maintain a strong relationship with these stakeholders and have to be aware of the demands of the stakeholders in the field. Not only do social entrepreneurs have to interact with stakeholders that are related to the government. Also customers have expectations of social entrepreneurs to act in a decent way with a vulnerable group of employees. Due to the position in the public domain social entrepreneurs can receive more attention. Secondly, social entrepreneurs have to deal with the social system. In this system several public organizations are situated that act according to a governmental logic and that came to 26

existence by political decision making. The system of the public system may have come to existence by an incremental process and therefore, may not be logic to social entrepreneurs to understand. Social entrepreneurs have to understand the social system with its complex web of laws and organizations to be successful (Peach & Chowdhury, 2012). The three logics of social entrepreneurs are thus combined in a hybrid form of logic in which the entrepreneurial, social-welfare and public sector logic are combined. Social entrepreneurs have to interact with a wide range of stakeholders.

2.4 The intersection of municipalities and social entrepreneurs Social entrepreneurship can be perceived as a self supporting entity (Van Twist et al., 2012). There is a limited amount of research that investigates the relation between social entrepreneurship and government. Still, Korosec & Berman (2006) conducted a quantitative study and showed that in municipalities with a high level of support for social entrepreneurs more social entrepreneurship exists. Sampson (2011) also points at the positive influence of municipal support on the development of social enterprises. Municipalities thus play a role in the development of social entrepreneurship. Therefore, it is interesting to study more closely the interaction between municipalities and social entrepreneurs. 2.4.1 Where do social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet? Regulating institutions have a range of instruments to steer the behavior of subordinate groups. They can steer an organization to act in line with the targets and goals of their own organization. Regulating institutions have three instruments to steer other subordinate groups, namely with financial instruments, with laws and procedures and with softer forms of steering such as information, convincing or seducing other parties do something (Majone, 1989; Bemelmans-Vicet et al., 1998; Bakker en van Waarden, 1999; WRR, 2004). Institutions could for example steer by setting particular criteria for subsidies (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983) or setting particular laws that make a particular activity impossible. At these three areas government and surrounding organizations often meet. Also social entrepreneurs and municipalities seem to meet in these three areas (Greenwish, 2012; Social Enterprise NL, 2012; Hood, 1883; Linder & Peters 1998).   

Financial/economic area (e.g. start-up capital, housing facilities, subsidy, state money or payments); Legal/procedural area (e.g. permits, certificates); Communicative area (e.g. information, facilitating, network, advising, political support/attention).

Dependent on the request and the group of employees, social entrepreneurs will meet different departments of municipalities, such as the department of social affairs, economic affairs, care and welfare. In addition social entrepreneurs could also be in contact with UWV if employees receive for example an income from Wajong, or they could be in contact with health offices to make arrangements concerning PGB. Bemmelmans-Videc et al. (1998) describe the three instruments, of government, namely the financial, legal and communicative instruments and compare these three instruments with 27

carrots (financial), sticks (legal) and sermons (communicative). This points at the strengths of these instruments. The financial and legal types of interactions can be described as directive and communication is a softer form of steering. It can be expected that the different steering mechanisms also lead to a particular sequence and phases in interaction. In government, the law is the leading principle (Weber, 1946; Perry, 1994). It can be argued that the legal area is the basis is for other types of interaction. Entrepreneurs for example first need a permit or an adjusted zoning plan before the enterprise can operate. Also the entrepreneurs need a legal subscription at the chamber of commerce. It can be expected that after this phase the entrepreneurs will have less contact on the legal area. Financial steering can be one-off or structural. Also in this area different phases of interactions can be expected (Twist et al., 2012). Government can for example mainly steer in the start-up phase of the enterprise. Finally, municipalities and social entrepreneurs can meet in communicative terms. Bemmelmans-Videc et al. (1998) describe the communication as a softer form of steering. The interaction in this area can therefore be more open-ended. 2.4.2. Model of interaction Much research has been conducted in the field of inter organizational relations; why would organizations interact? And in the cases of this research: why would social entrepreneurs and municipalities interact? And what type of interaction causes tension? In the literature two major approaches of inter-organizational relationships have emerged. The first approach views inter-organizational relationships from an exchange perspective (Levine and White, 1961; Tuite, 1972; White, 1994). In this perspective relations come to existence when two or more organizations have perceived mutual benefits or gain from interaction. The leaders of each organization are motivated to interact because they assume that they are better able to attain goals by interacting with another organization. Aiken & Hage (1968) argue that these interactions come up in times of scarce or declining resources. Schmidt & Kochan (1977) argue that the exchange approach also implies that the interaction between participants in these relations can be characterized by a high degree of cooperation and problem solving because both parties are motivated to maximize joint benefits. The second approach is the power-dependency approach. In this approach it is implied that the motivation to interact is asymmetrical. One party is motivated, but the other is not. The interaction will only exist when the motivation of one party is powerful enough to interact with another party. Bargaining and conflict are the form of interaction in this approach (Schmidt & Kochan, 1977). Ahrne (1994) argues that the interaction approaches of ‘exchange’ or ‘power-dependency’ can be explained by the resources of the organizations. The resources can either be inside of the organization or outside of the organization. Inside of the organization can be for example money or funds and outside of the organization can for example be customers. Ahrne (1994) indicated four types of interaction that are based on the different resources. The four types are indicated in the following model:

28

Position of resources

Form of interaction

Struggle

Inside Inside

O Outside

Conflict

Competition

Exchange

Collaboration

Cooperation

Forms of interactions between organizations – Source: Göran Ahrne (1994). Organizations can thus either struggle or cooperate. A conflict is a struggle for a resource that one of the organization has in its control. Ahrne (1994) points at the example of a war, in which case one country has money or land that another country wants to obtain. The country that wants the money or land has to make much effort to obtain the resources. At the same time the organization has to defend its own resources. Competition is another pattern of struggle between organizations. In competition the conflict is indirectly. Organizations can for example compete for resources outside of the organizations, such as support of voters and corporations can compete for customers. Ahrne (1994) argues that it is not always clear when the conflict ends and the competition begins. Often, competition can occur between more than two actors or parties. In competition all parties are assumed to use their strengths and to use their resources against each other. Cooperation occurs when one or both parties involve their resources in the interaction. In a relationship of exchange there is a dependency between two parties. Conflicts are often resolved by an agreement in the form of an exchange. An exchange could for example be an agreement between employers and a union about wages or an agreement between the renting or leasing of property. An exchange is in most cases based on a contract that regulates the interaction between the two parties. Collaboration comes to existence to achieve common goals that are outside of their control. Instead of competing with another party, one could try to collaborate. Organizations can also collaborate to fight against common enemies. 2.4.3. The model of interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities The model of Ahrne (1994) could explain the (type of) tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. The monopoly position of municipalities in the economic and legal/procedural area makes social entrepreneurs dependent on municipalities for example for permits and subsidies. In these cases the municipality has a large power position which can lead to a relationship of conflict. If the resources are outside the reach of both social entrepreneurs and municipalities the interaction can be characterized as competition. This can be the case if both social entrepreneurs and municipalities try to find workplaces for their employees/clients. Both parties can compete for workplaces. Both the types of interaction of conflict and competition fit into the before mentioned power-dependency approach.

29

An example of a situation of exchange between social entrepreneurs and municipalities can be a contract between social entrepreneurs and municipalities about (government) payment of employees. An interaction of collaboration can come to existence if both parties experience problems of the economic crisis and collaborate to find solutions to be able to ensure their existence. The interaction types of exchange and collaboration can thus be understood from the before mentioned exchange perspective (Schmidt & Kochan, 1977). In these types of interaction both parties are motivated to maximize joint benefits. Both the exchange approach and the power-dependency approach assume an interaction between the organizations from which one or all parties benefit. This implies that when organizations have no benefits they will not compete, conflict, exchange or collaborate (Huberts & van Hout, 2011). In this case two organizations can function independently from each other and two different worlds come to existence. This can for example happen after a situation of conflict and a social entrepreneur received a permit. After this period, the interaction can be limited. This analysis leads to the following scheme. Conflict thus implies that one organization has resources that the other party would like to have. The party with the resources can steer the other party. An interaction of competition thus implies that the resources are outside of the organizations. Both parties are looking for resources to make their position more stable. An interaction of exchange thus implies that both parties have resources that can help the other party. The parties can work independently and still benefit from the resources of the other party. An interaction based on collaboration exists when both parties have to work together to have better results and to solve problems. They share their resources. Finally, an (non) interaction of separate worlds can come into existence and in this case both parties do not need each other to reach their goals and are not interested in the resources of the other party. The logics determine whether an interaction lead to a certain type of interaction.

Conflict

Competition

Exchange

Collaboration

Separate worlds

30

In this research the question is whether there is a tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. In this case the question arises: what is a tension? A tension is an interaction based on a power-dependency relationship. The interests and logics of the organizations are not in one line. A tension can thus be understood in the type of interaction of conflict or competition. Friction can also exist in case of exchange and collaboration. If for example a contract has to be formulated, parties have to collaborate for this to come to existence through bargaining and this could bring friction along. Still, in the interaction of exchange and collaboration both parties have the same goal and this simplifies the interaction and causes less tension. Tension in this research is thus seen as an interaction of conflict or competition. 2.4.4 The potential tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities The tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities has not been investigated in an empirical systematic manner. The literature concerning the relationship and the development of social entrepreneurship is still highly limited. Still, when considering the different logics of municipalities and social entrepreneurs, potential tension in the economic, legal and communication area can be expected. Tension in the economic relations In the economic area potential tension can be found between the entrepreneurial and socialwelfare logic of social entrepreneurs and the democratic and legal logic of municipalities. Social entrepreneurs have more costs than ‘regular’ entrepreneurs (TNO, 2011), due to higher costs of accompaniment and the guidance and development of their employees. Social entrepreneurs are in most cases dependent on municipalities for the compensation of extra costs. This dependency gives municipalities a large power position as they can set out criteria for the entrepreneur to meet. Municipalities set out criteria for enterprises to meet in order to qualify for certain subsidies. Municipalities can steer entrepreneurs with economic instruments. A municipality can for example give subsidies to steer an entrepreneur into to the criteria of the subsidy. Municipalities can for example in general not give subsidies to a BV (TNO, 2011). A BV aims at gaining profit, but once a company makes profit the given subsidy cannot be justified. This can cause tension with social entrepreneurs because the intention of the entrepreneur does not change with the legal label of the organization. In this case the plans of the entrepreneurs are thus steered and restricted by the rules of the municipality and there is tension between the entrepreneurial and social welfare logic of social entrepreneurs and the legal logic of municipalities. Not only the rules can cause tension between the entrepreneurial logic and the legal logic, but also the system in which the legal logic is embedded can cause tension. WRR (2012) points at different tensions in the economic area between entrepreneurs and municipalities. Municipalities more often stick to standard procedures, while entrepreneurs look for new solutions. Dees (2007) argues that social entrepreneurs have the opportunity to go through a process of exploration, innovation, experimentation and resource mobilization to create new combinations and opportunities and find new solutions for (social) problems. In addition entrepreneurs think in informal terms and in terms of trust, while municipalities mainly make decisions and appointments within standard procedures. Also, entrepreneurs think in 31

individual parts, while municipalities think in systems and have to think about the interest of all actors in society. The different logics can lead to long procedures that can cause tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. In addition, social entrepreneurs act with public money which can cause (political) problems and problems with accountability (SER, 2005). The social element combined with an entrepreneurial element of social entrepreneurs can cause difficulties in the policies and the criteria of municipalities. Social entrepreneurs can add social and economic value to the society (Hoogendoorn, 2011). This can in times of budget cuts and limited sources be highly important to municipalities. At the same time can social entrepreneurs who deal with public money bring political risks along (SER, 2005). Projects of social entrepreneurs can fail and the company can get bankrupted and public money can disappear. Municipalities thus have to be careful with social entrepreneurs to prevent political risks. This can cause tension between the entrepreneurial logic of social entrepreneurs and the political logic of municipalities. The assumed tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities can thus be found in the tension between the entrepreneurial and social-welfare logic of entrepreneurs and the legal and political logic of municipalities. Social entrepreneurs have to fit into the standard and uniform forms and this could restrict the financial and social aims of the entrepreneurs. Tension in legal relations In the legal area there is potential tension between the entrepreneurial and social-welfare logic of social entrepreneurs, and the legal and political logic of municipalities. The municipality has a monopoly position when it comes to the law and social entrepreneurs are dependent on municipalities for the permits and certificates. The municipality can give permits and certificates that give the enterprise the right to exist. Dimaggio & Powell (1983) argue that government forces surrounding organization to be the same by making them fit into the same laws and regulations. Similarity is rewarded because in this case organizations will fit into the administrative categories and the procedures and application will be efficient and quick. To municipalities uniformity in law is highly important; all citizens and companies need to be treated in the same way (SER, 2005). This could cause tension with social entrepreneurs that perhaps do not fit into the regular administrative categories (WRR, 2012). Social entrepreneurs can change their organization but then perhaps do not reach the goals of the company. As mentioned before, social entrepreneurs have difficulties with different legal labels, such as the BV and the label of a foundation. Social entrepreneurs do not fit in one of the two categories (TNO, 2011), which makes it difficult to apply for example for subsidies. Procedures of permits can be intensive and time-consuming, while entrepreneurs have to respond quickly and flexible to their environment. WRR (2012) argues that many citizens often experience they need much patience in government procedures. Here the legal logic of municipalities causes tension with entrepreneurial logic of entrepreneurs. Laws are formulated by politicians and the civil servants have to execute the law. When the law has not been followed by a civil servant, and the civil servant advantaged for example a particular enterprise, this could lead to political problems (WRR, 2012). The law is thus a leading principle to civil servants and will strongly influence the relationship with social entrepreneurs. Not only do entrepreneurs have to comply with the uniform law. Due to the 32

political element the law changes on a regular basis and this is difficult for an enterprise to depend on. This dependency on politics can cause tension between the political logic of municipalities and the social welfare and entrepreneurial logic of social entrepreneurs. In addition the existence of the different laws in the social system causes that entrepreneurs for the execution of different laws have to interact with different public organizations. For employees concerned with the Wajong, entrepreneurs have to contact the UWV, while for employees concerned with the WWB they have to contact the municipality. The compartmentalized system makes it difficult for the social entrepreneur to understand the system. The assumed tension can thus be found between the political and legal logics of municipalities and the entrepreneurial and social-welfare logic of social entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs possibly do not fit into the law and therefore experience difficulties in the interaction with government. Social entrepreneurs can be restricted by the law and in some cases have to adjust or even end their plans, this process costs much effort and time of social entrepreneurs. Tension in the communicative relations The interaction in the communicative area is presumably more open-ended, therefore the tension in this area can be limited. Still, it can be expected that social entrepreneurs and municipalities experience tension between the social-welfare and entrepreneurial logic of entrepreneurs and the political and legal logics of municipalities. In the communicative area social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet each other for example for information, their network, advice, to facilitate and to give political support and attention. In this area the interaction is more open-ended, because the entrepreneur is less dependent on the municipality. Hoogendoorn (2011) argues that a social entrepreneur often has a large network in which the entrepreneur can gain much help and information. Social entrepreneurs can thus use their own network, and need less government. Entrepreneurs can involve several actors in their business plans and processes. This places the enterprise at a distance from municipalities that have fewer abilities to steer the initiative. Social entrepreneurs often have a strong (personal) story that is told by the enterprise. In addition, the network of social entrepreneurs can help to promote the enterprise and its story for example in the media. Also the municipality can give (political) attention to the enterprise. This could cause tension, because the enterprise came in some cases to existence as a protest against the treatment of particular groups in society or against governmental provisions (Schulz, 2013). It can cause tension when the municipality creates publicity and positively influences the image of the social enterprise and the municipality at the same time. Here tension can be found between the social-welfare logic of social entrepreneurs and the political logic of municipalities. In addition communication in general between social entrepreneurs and municipalities can cause tension. The municipality can be highly compartmentalized (WRR, 2012). WRR (2012) argues that many activities in government are divided into smaller parts. This causes that for some activities many people have to be involved. This costs much time and effort and in addition, a citizens or entrepreneur is not able to build a relation with a civil servant. This makes it difficult for an entrepreneur to obtain the right information about the governmental 33

organization. This is especially the case for social entrepreneurs that work with the municipality, UWV and CIZ at the same time. A tension can be found here between the entrepreneurial logic of entrepreneurs and the legal and political logic of municipalities. In the communicative area the entrepreneurial and social welfare logic of social entrepreneurs thus seems to create tension with the political and legal logic of municipality. It is interesting to notice that in all three areas the potential tension can be found between the entrepreneurial and social logic of social entrepreneurs and the political and legal logic of municipalities.

2.5 Conclusion Social entrepreneurs in the field of labor work with a group of people with a distance to the regular labor market. Due to this social aspect of the company social entrepreneurs meet government on a regular basis. Social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet in the economic, legal and communicative area. In these three areas potential tension can arise between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. In practical terms the tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities can be studied by looking at the logics of municipalities and social entrepreneurs. At a moment of interaction in which tension arises the logics of social entrepreneurs and municipalities come together. Municipalities act from an economic logic, legal and democratic logic. In the economic logic the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency prevail. In the legal logic government acts according to the laws, rules and regulations set out by the political system. In addition municipalities act from a democratic logic; here responsiveness to the society is important. Civil servants act from a multitude of logics in which the economic, legal and democratic logics are combined. Social entrepreneurs also acts according to three logics, namely: an entrepreneurial, social welfare and public-sector logic. In the entrepreneurial logic social entrepreneurs focus at the survival of the company; the entrepreneurial logic aims at running a company. In addition social entrepreneurs act from a social-welfare logic, in which social entrepreneurs act to change the situation of their employees. In addition social entrepreneurs act from a public sector logic, in which they have to adapt to the logics within the social system. Social entrepreneurs act from a hybrid logic, in which all three logics can exist at the same time. At a moment of interaction the three logics of municipalities meet the three logics of social entrepreneurs. The tension between municipalities and social entrepreneurs can be explained by a model of interaction in which five types of interaction are identified. The first type of interaction is conflict. This is the case if one party has resources that the other party would like to have. The second type of interaction is competition. Here the resources are outside the reach of both the organizations and both the organizations try to gain access. The third type of interaction is exchange, where both organization have resources that in exchange could benefit both parties. The fourth type of interaction is collaboration. In this type both parties have to work together to obtain resources outside of the company. The fifth type of interaction points at the absence of interaction. Both parties do not need each other to reach their goals. The types of interaction of conflict and competition can be defined as a tension between

34

organizations. In the other types of interaction bargaining is often needed and tension can come to existence, but due to the common goals the tension will be less intensive. In the literature potential tensions can be expected in the three areas between the entrepreneurial and social logic of social entrepreneurs and the political and legal logic of municipalities. In the economic area potential tension can be expected between the legal logic of municipalities and the entrepreneurial logic of municipalities because the plans of social entrepreneurs can be restricted or hindered by the rules and the system in which the rules are embedded. In addition there can in economic terms be tension between the entrepreneurial and social welfare logic because social entrepreneurs deal with public money and this could cause political problems. In legal terms tension can be expected between the entrepreneurial and social-welfare logic of entrepreneurs and the political and legal logic of municipalities because the municipality has a monopoly in this area and can thus stop or restrict the plans of the entrepreneurs. In addition several legal provision are divided over different public organizations (municipalities, UWV, CIZ) which gives difficulties in the interaction with these organizations. In communicative terms tension can be expected between the entrepreneurial and social-welfare logic and the political logic of municipalities. Politicians have to be responsive to the society and can use social enterprises to advance their image which could cause tension with social entrepreneurs. As mentioned before there can also be a tension between the entrepreneurial and social-welfare logic of social entrepreneurs and the legal logic of municipalities. The municipality is divided in different parts to execute the law. This compartmentalization can be difficult for social entrepreneurs to work with.

35

3. Methods 3.1 Research setting & methods 3.1.1 Competing logics Several researchers (Thornton, 2002; Reay & Hinings, 2009; Mullins, 2006) investigated competing logics in or between organizations. Reay & Hinings (2009) argue that logics are important theoretical constructs to understand a common purpose and unity in an organizational field and thus understand the tension between two organizations. This research will focus on the competing values of municipalities and social entrepreneurs. In the field of social entrepreneurship there are only a few empirical studies conducted, of which most are case study based (Hoogendoorn, 2011). Only few studies focused on the relation between social entrepreneurs and government (Korosec & Berman, 2006; Van Twist et al., 2012; Sampson, 2011; Sharir & Lerner, 2006; Dees, 2007). Only one research focused on the role of municipalities in the development of social entrepreneurship. This article ‘municipal support for social entrepreneurship’, by Korosec & Berman (2006) was a quantitative research among civil servants in the United Nations of America. This qualitative research with 22 interviews with municipalities and social entrepreneurs in the Netherlands will therefore contribute to the academic debate. 3.1.2 Qualitative research design The research design is a case study. Yin (2003) indicated four types of cases studies. A case study can be based on single cases and on multiple cases. A single case is appropriate if for example the case is highly unique and there is only one case available. Yin (2003) argues that more cases give analytic benefits and single cases are vulnerable because ‘you have all your cases in one basket’ (Yin, 2003: p. 53). In addition cases can be holistic or embedded. In the case of holistic, one unit will be studied per case. In the case of embedded, more units are embedded in one case. These two axes lead to four possible case study designs.

36

Single- case designs

Multiple- case designs

Context Context

Holistic (Single unit of analysis)

Case

Case

Context

Context

Case

Context

Case

Case

Context

Context

Context

Context

Context

Embedded (multiple units of analysis)

Case Embedded unit 1 Embedded unit 2

Source Yin (2003). Basic types of case studies. For our investigation we have chosen a multiple embedded cases study. A multiple cases study is considered to be more robust than a single case study (Herriott & Firestone, 1983). In a multiple case study design, it is important to carefully select the cases. A multiple case study should be considered as an experiment in which the cases are carefully selected and in which a replication of the study is possible to make research more robust. The number of cases depends on the certainty the researcher wants to have about the multiple case results. The number of cases depends on the complexity and the context of the cases. An embedded research design is appropriate if a case does not consist out of one unit. The research question will determine the case study design. The multiple embedded cases study design seems appropriate for this research because the Netherlands has 408 municipalities and there are thus many possible cases. The research concentrated on 5 large cities in the Netherlands. It is expected that the context of the economic crisis, budget cuts and the process of decentralization has comparable influences on the cities. Due to the comparable sizes it is thus expected that the cases will have comparable results. In this research 5 cases are chosen to have a sufficient level of validity and make the research feasible within the amount of time that was available for this research. These cases are selected by finding a match between a large city and social enterprise that meets the definition that is formulated in paragraph 2.2.1. It is the aim of the research to investigate the 37

tension between municipalities and social entrepreneurs. In order to answer the research question an embedded research design seems appropriate. With this design in one case and context, both the position of municipalities and the position the social entrepreneurs can be investigated. Yin (2003) points at the cyclical research method that suits a multiple case study design. This cyclical process is strengthening in this research by the fact that only little research has been conducted on the relation between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. An explorative design seems therefore appropriate. Hennie Boeije (2010) argues: ‘When a research has an explorative nature – for instance, a newly emerging field of interest that not yet been extensively examined – you need methods with a maximum of explorative power. Qualitative methods do live up to this because of their flexible approach. As we have seen, the research questions can be tailored to the field of study. In addition, data collection and data analysis can be continually adjusted to the emerging findings. That is why both activities are conducted in small cycles instead of one after the other.’ (P.32). Also other authors (Hakvoort, 1995; Van Thiel, 2010) point at the cyclical process of qualitative research. Due to the explorative character of the research new findings come up that are interesting to investigate. In this research a multiple embedded case study with an explorative nature has thus been used as a research design. 3.1.3 Research method To fully understand the relation between social entrepreneurs and municipalities I chose to have in-depth interviews. An interview is a conversation between the interviewer and the respondent in which the interviewer tries to gain information from the respondent. Interviews are an appropriate method in an explorative research (Van Thiel, 2010). Due to the explorative character of the research, semi-structured interviews are appropriate (Field, 2009; Boeije, 2010; Silverman, 2006). For the semi-structured interview I made a topic list (attachment 2). In this research parts of the topic list were inspired by the theoretical framework while other questions are related to knowledge that was gained during the research and the interviews. This again points to the small cycles in qualitative research (Boeije, 2010). I designed one topic list for both municipalities and social entrepreneurs (attachment 2), because I was looking for the tension between these two parties. By paying attention to the same topics I was able to see where possible tension between the two parties can be found. In this research I focused on the current vision of the civil servants and social entrepreneurs on the relation with each other. The information presents the current situation and the analysis cannot give information about the development or future of the relationship. 3.1.4 Context of the research Each selected case is embedded in a particular context. In each city the policies concerning people with a distance to the labor market differ. In addition changes in the social system, such as the process of decentralization and the law on participation can impede the interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. Also the economic crisis can have a large impact on the relation between the two parties. The impact can be two-sided. First, the 38

number of unemployed people still rises in comparison to early years (CBS, 2013). The government has to take care of a higher number of people with a government payment and thus have to lead a higher number of people to a job. Secondly, municipalities have to deal with budget cuts because the municipalities receive less money from the state and other sources of income. It is expected that the context of the rising unemployment count will have an influence on the results. The context can give problems for the generalization of the results. Flyvbjerg (2001) points out the importance of context in social sciences. Lincoln & Guba (1985) discuss the problem of generalization as follows: ‘the only generalization is: there is no generalization’. Also Flick (2009) argues that we should look for findings that are transferable from one context to the other.

3.2 Background interviews and information 3.2.1 Background research concerning the social system In the first interviews with the respondents I noticed that the field of labor contained its own complex jargon, to be able to fully understand the social system a sub-research has been conducted. First the laws that relate to the social system have been studied. In addition to understand the development and the past changes in the system, policy notes have been studied. The assignment of laws to certain organizations and the division of tasks into different laws can be better understood by these notes. In addition during this research many changes have been proposed by the second chamber to the social system. To understand the upcoming changes I spoke with two policy advisors of the Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations who were closely involved with the upcoming changes in the social system. Also all recent policy notes and newspaper articles related to the subject have been studied. In addition five respondents have been interviewed. First a program coordinator of MVO/CSR at UWV was interviewed. The person was able to give more insight into the functioning of the UWV. In addition two persons who worked at the department of social affairs at the municipality of Capelle aan den IJssel were interviewed. Both persons were job coaches. Job coaches have the task to lead people with a government payment to a paid job or to an education. One of the job coaches was mainly focused on people with a relative short term WWB payment while the other job coach was focusing on people who were long-term unemployed (WWB). The second person had also worked in the GGZ sector and was often confronted with the law AWBZ and the organization CIZ. In addition a project leader at the department of social affairs of Rotterdam was interviewed. This person guides the process of decentralization in the municipality of Rotterdam. In addition a job coach at the department of social affairs of the municipality of Rotterdam was interviewed. This job coach worked for 10 years at the UWV and was able to give an overview of the social system. 3.2.2. Background conversations From the 4th of February until the 27th of June I have been an intern at the Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations at the department of citizenship and information policy, in the team of citizenship. This is a team that focuses on civil initiatives and social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. As an assignment for my internship I conducted all sorts of interviews with municipalities, social entrepreneurs, founders of civil initiatives and umbrella organizations, 39

which gave me a better understanding of the context of both municipalities and social entrepreneurs. A total of 21 background interviews were held. I interviewed several actors in the field of social enterprises. Three project leaders of banks have been interviewed to get an understanding of the financing of social entrepreneurship (ABN AMRO and the Rabobank). In addition a meeting was attended of the social impact platform about the establishment of social bonds. These social bonds have to make the financing of social enterprises feasible by designing methods to measure the social impact of the company. Eight organizations that support social entrepreneurs and create a platform for social entrepreneurs to meet have been interviewed. Here, the directors of Social enterprise NL, Kracht in Nederland, Social powerhouse, Greenwish, Bouwen voor Social, Stadslab Leiden and Nudge have been interviewed. In addition several social entrepreneurs in other areas than the area of labor have been interviewed. A manager at the enterprise Broodje apart has been interviewed. In this restaurant both mentally and physically people concerned with an AWBZ (PGB) payment get the opportunity to work in an actual restaurant. In addition the owner of the Leeszaal West has been interviewed. The Leeszaal West is an alternative library and a meeting place for people in the neighborhood. People can bring their residual books to the library and can without an administrative system take other books home. Also the coinitiator of the initiative Singeldingen was interviewed. Singeldingen is an initiative in which citizens in Rotterdam West together run a kiosk in a public park. Finally, a teacher of social entrepreneurship at the USBO was interviewed. In addition several civil servants at different municipalities were interviewed. These interviews were held for the project of the ‘knowlegde broker’ (Kennismakelaar) of the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. In this project academic insights about the current transition of government were coupled on practical questions of municipalities, social entrepreneurs and a diverse set of organizations that for example support civil initiatives. During these conversations the subjects of civil initiates and social entrepreneurship were also a topic that was discussed. For this project the secretary of the municipality of Schijndel has been interviewed, a policy maker at the municipality of Amersfoort, a policy maker at the municipality of Zeist, a policy advisor at the municipality of Berkelland, a program coordinator at the municipality of Enschede and a project leader at the municipality of Peel en Maas.

3.3 Cases 3.3.1 Case selection I selected 5 cases for this research, namely the cases of the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag, Utrecht and Groningen. In these cities I held 22 interviews with civil servants and social entrepreneurs to investigate the tension between the social entrepreneurs and municipalities. To make a case selection I first made a list of all social entrepreneurs in the field of labor in the Netherlands that were traceable in different databases (attachment 1). By researching all databases of social entrepreneurs in the field of labor (e.g. Normaalste zaak and Social Entreprise NL) and in addition magazines and separate websites, a saturated and complete list was formed.

40

Then I selected five large cities with at least one social enterprise in the field of labor. I selected five large cities in the Netherlands to have comparative cases and to reduce the influence of the size of a city on the relation between the social entrepreneurs and municipalities. It can be expected that in small municipalities contacts between civil servants and social entrepreneurs are more direct and therefore differ from large cities. In each city I chose one social entrepreneur that fitted in the definition described in chapter 2.1.2. These entrepreneurs have a focus on labor. I tried to select companies in different sectors (e.g. ICT, fashion). In all cases I spoke to the founding entrepreneur of the enterprise to be able to get insight in the whole process of the social enterprise. Social entrepreneur Specialisterren Van Hulley

Enterprise ICT Fashion

DNA Charlois

ART

De 7 Deugden Vilt aan Zee

Brewery ART

Target group Law Autistim Wajong/ WWB Multi-cultural group of WWB woman Multicultural group of WWB/ WW Woman Diverse group WWB/WW/ Daycare Diverse group WWB/WW

In addition I selected civil servants at these municipalities because I argue that civil servants are confronted with social entrepreneurs in everyday situations, in for example the application of permits and subsidies and therefore possibly experience tension. I did not select politicians. In the cases of Amsterdam, Utrecht and Groningen I called different departments of the municipality to investigate which person was acquainted with the subject of social entrepreneurship. In the cases of The Hague and Rotterdam I was referred to the right person by civil servants of the ministry. In Rotterdam I used the snowball method to interview more people in the municipality. 3.3.2 Case description Amsterdam With 799.442 inhabitants Amsterdam is the largest city of the Netherlands. Amsterdam has a potential labor force of 580.052 persons. 75 per 1000 people receive a WWB payment, 28 per 1000 receive a WW payment, 13 per 1000 people receive a Wajong payment (CBS, 2012). To gain a clear insight into the policy concerning people with a distance to the labor market of the municipality of Amsterdam, a project leader of the department of residence, health and society, a mediator for civil servants (participatie makelaar) and a policy officer at the department of social development have been interviewed. To research the relation between the municipality and social entrepreneurs the research focused specifically on the social enterprise de Zeven Deugden, initiated by Garmt Haakma. In 2008 Garmt Haakma decided to establish a brewery. Before that he worked at the policy office of the political party CDA where he decided to hire a person with autism. After nine months of work Garmt was not able to extend the contract of the person: the person did not fit into the team and the accompaniment cost much time and effort. Garmt decided that he wanted to help this kind of people and started up his own brewery in Amsterdam. De zeven 41

deugden produces beer, bottles the beer and has an own unique label. Garmt indicted 7 virtues (deugden), for instance faith, hope and love. In the themes of these virtues several kinds of beers are made. De zeven deugden employees several groups of employees with a diverse background. Some of the employees have been in a coma, others are autistic or have a mental/physical disability. Garmt emphasizes the need of a good organizational culture. Due to the large differences between employees some employees will be quicker in doing their work than other employees. De zeven deugden works in close contact with the social workplace of the municipality of Amsterdam. Groningen The municipality of Groningen has 195.080 inhabitants, of which 148.805 belong to the potential labor force. 70 per 1000 people receive a WWB payment, 22 per 1000 people receive a WW payment and 24 people per 1000 receive a Wajong payment (CBS, 2012). To research the policies of the municipality in the field of labor participation of people with distance to the regular labor market, two account managers at the department of economic affairs have been interviewed. These account managers maintain relations between the municipalities and entrepreneurs. Each new enterprise in the municipality is visited by one account manager. In the municipality of Groningen the research specifically focused on the social enterprise Van Hulley, initiated by Jolijn Creutzberg. In 2011 Jolijn Creutzberg started the company Van Hulley to use her skills to add value to the society in social terms. 10 years ago she made a boxer short for her husband from a blouse that he still liked but could not wear anymore. She used the sleeve to make a spurt and manufactured unique details. The idea of the boxer short stayed in her mind and thought that this idea was perhaps interesting to place on the market. Jolijn decided that she wanted to manufacture these boxer shorts with a multicultural group of women. She has always been interested in the other cultures and dressmaking is a craft that is build for women she argued. When Jolijn told other people about the idea, many people were interested in supporting the idea. One person designed the boxer shorts and made a design for fashionable boxer shorts with unique details. The foundation Jasmijn in Groningen helped Jolijn by finding women that wanted to participate in the project and offered Jolijn a space to work in for the first period of time. The women that work at Van Hulley get the chance to learn a craft, to speak the Dutch language, participate in a real company in which their presence is essential, and the company is able to sell the boxer shorts for a commercial price. Van Hulley works with different arrangement. Some woman have a so called ‘participation job’ provided by the municipality of Groningen, others participate as part of an internship. The goal of Van Hulley in the long run is to provide a regular paid jobs at Van Hulley or lead the women to a paid job in another company.

42

Utrecht Utrecht has 316.448 inhabitants, of which 232.846 persons belong to the potential labor force. 41 per 1000 people receive a WWB payment, 24 per 1000 people receive a WW payment and 15 per 1000 people receive a Wajong Payment. To investigate the policy of the municipality a policy advisor at department of societal development was interviewed. This policy advisor focused on the process of decentralization and the development of social entrepreneurship in the municipality of Utrecht. The research specifically focused on the social enterprise Specialisterren, established by Sjoerd van der Maaden & Ronald van Vliet in 2009. Both the entrepreneurs are the father of an autistic son and they tried to create a company in which the abilities and strengths of autistic people are recognized and utilized. Specialisterren is ICT testing company in Utrecht. The combination of autism and ICT appeared to be a strong combination and the company did become highly successful. Specialisterren already has many customers such as the Rabobank, Hema and the municipality of Utrecht. Specialisterren provides a certificated education to their employees, provide internships and tries to lead the employees to regular paid jobs at Specialisterren or other companies. Sjoerd points at the personal growth of the employees. There is a job coach inside of the company that guides the employees in the work-related issues and personal issues. Den Haag The Hague has 502.802 inhabitants, of which 347.651 persons belong to the potential labor force. 69 per 1000 people receive a WWB payment, 29 of 1000 people receive a WW payment, 15 of 1000 people receive a Wajong payment (CBS, 2012). To investigate the points of view and policies of the municipality a policy advisor at the department of economy and entrepreneurship and account manager at the department of social affairs employers point (werkgeverspunt) were interviewed. The policy advisor was concerned with the economic development in the city. The account manager tried to maintain good relationships between the municipality and the entrepreneurs and in addition he was trying to find work places for unemployed persons in the municipality. In addition the social enterprise Stichting leren doen, initiated by Sander Eijkenbroek was interviewed to research the relation between the social enterprise and the municipality. The foundation leren-doen is an organization that helps youth to become independent and to prepare them for a future job. The foundation has a workplace and a shop in which bicycles are sold. The research in Den Haag mainly focused on the social enterprise Vilt aan zee, initiated by Sandra Burggraaf. Vilt aan zee is a company that is established in 2010 by Sandra Burggraaf in Den Haag. Sandra is an architect and a few years ago she was confronted with a burn-out situation. She noticed that for people with a burn out there is only a limited package of help available. Sandra went to a care farm to recover and she noticed that this manual labor in a natural environment did have a healing effect. With this experience she came to the idea to set up a company in which people were able to reintegrate into the society, an inter phase between an illness and regular work. In 2010 Sandra established the company Vilt aan zee, in which she makes art products with felt. The company produces for example wand lights and light panels. Currently Sandra is experimenting in finding the right business model in which 43

she can hire people that need an extra period between a period of un-employability and work, such as people with a burnout. In addition Sandra is looking for a new workplace where she can also keep sheep to produce the felt and to provide in extra work for the employees. This experimental phase clearly points at the problems to which a social entrepreneur is confronted in the start-up phase. Rotterdam Rotterdam has 616.260 inhabitants, of which 425.042 people belong to the potential labor force. 94 per 1000 people receive a WWB payment, 30 per 1000 people receive a WW payment and 16 per 1000 people receive a Wajong payment (CBS, 2012). In the municipality of Rotterdam five civil servants have been interviewed, namely a policy advisor at the department of youth, education and society, a policy advisor at the administrative department (bestuursdienst), a project leader at the department of income and work, a Job coach, department of social affairs and employability, a project leader of the social workplace Rotterdam. In addition a meeting concerning social entrepreneurship for civil servants at the municipality of Rotterdam was attended. To investigate the relationship between the municipality and social entrepreneurs the social enterprise of Granies Finest and Enviu have been interviewed. The research in particular focused on the social enterprise DNA Charlois, initiated by Ivo van der Baar. In 1999 Ivo van der Baar established the company wandschappen in Rotterdam. This company develops art in the public area. In 2012 Ivo van der Baar started the project DNA Charlois. The idea behind this project is: 160 nationalities in one neighbourhood, 160 crafts, 160 designers leads to 160 successes. In the upcoming five years wandschappen wants to work with all different 160 nationalities in the neighbourhood. In total 25 art projects will be designed each year. Per year Ivo van der Baar offers ten people a learn-work trajectory. After this year these people will have enough experience to apply for a regular paid job. In the project DNA Charlois thus produces art in collaboration with a multicultural group of people. This group of people was concerned with the law of WWB and WW.

3.4 Data analysis 3.4.1 Coding process To be able to analyze the data I recorded all the interviews and made exact reports of these interviews. These exact reports gave me the opportunity to analyze the interviews with the least interpretation of the words of the respondent. In addition during the interviews I made memos of the interesting findings and patterns in the interview. These memos were highly useful in the analysis. The first step in the analysis was the process of open coding: ‘breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data’ (Strauss & Corbin, 2007:61). In this process I read all the interviews carefully. Then I coded the interviews into the categories of ‘financial area’, ‘legal-procedural area’ and ‘communication area’:  Financial area: all items that are related to money, subsidies and compensations  Legal- procedural area: all items related to the law, rules and regulations

44



Communicative area: all items related to an non- material exchange of information or network No selection is made in the relevance of the research material. When coding the data the data is thus segmented into smaller parts and these smaller parts/themes/categories are labeled by a code. I printed all the interviews and coded the material by highlighting the different areas into different colors. When a fragment fits into two areas I tried as precisely as possible to highlight the right parts of the fragment in one color. In the second phase of the coding, I used the method of axial coding or focused coding (Boeije, 2010). In this phase I coded the three main themes of ‘the financial area’, ‘the legalprocedural area’ and ‘the communicative area’ into smaller codes (Attachment 4). Within the three areas I distinguished sub-themes and specified these themes into different categories and characteristics. I coded these subthemes by writing words in the margins such as ‘zoning plans’ and ‘arbo’. In some cases I described a sub-theme by a word that I formulated myself, in other cases I used the exact words of the respondent. The word that best covered the content of the fragment was chosen. It is important to choose words that are close to the data. This coding process led to a diverse set of words, which I later divided into large categories. In the legal area I for example divided the themes into national and local laws, regulations and rules. These larger categories where highly useful for the analysis and in order to make links and distinctions between the different themes. In the third phase of the analysis I used the method of the selective coding (Boeije, 2010). Here I tried to make sense of the different categories. Why do civil servants and social entrepreneurs have a specific point of view in an interaction? With regard to the theoretical framework I identified different key terms/characteristics to identify the logics (attachment 5). I compared these characteristics with the statements of the civil servants and social entrepreneurs to identify different types of logics. The logics were not always easy to distinguish, because the different types of logics are closely interlinked. In these cases I divided the statement into smaller parts or searched for the main message or logic in the statement. The subthemes were thus divided into different logics. These different types of logics were reported in the results. In the fourth phase I compared the logics of the municipalities and social entrepreneurs to investigate what type of interactions can be found. It was possible to identify these types of interaction because the civil servants and social entrepreneurs in the interviews and statements constantly compared and referred to the other party as they pointed at the logics of the other party. The four stages of the research as described above were not embedded in a linear process. In some phases ideas were raised for later stages or vice versa. In some cases when looking in the fourth phase at the logics the distinctions in subthemes became clear. During the research I focused specifically on the research question. This implies that where some fragments and codes in the text are less relevant to the research, decisions have to be made in the research. An example is that social entrepreneurs will also be confronted with laws, rules and regulations on a national level, but the research concentrates on the relation between social enterprises and municipalities. The national level is less relevant and therefore less intensively studied. 45

In the research 22 background interviews have been held. These interviews have been used to understand the statements and the context of the respondents, but were not analyzed for the research. 3.4.2 Reliability and validity Reliability often refers to the degree to which findings of a research are independent of accidental circumstances of their production (Kirk & Miller, 1986). It deals with the questions whether other research can do the same research and have the same results. Moisander and Valtonen (upcoming) point out two things to satisfy reliability criteria in non-quantitative research. First, by making the research process as transparent as possible. One should describe the strategy and analysis method as precisely as possible. Secondly, one should pay attention to the theoretical transparency and make all the theoretical stances from which the interpretation takes place. In this research I tried to make the decisions as transparent as possible. In addition I described the context of the respondents to enable other researcher to repeat the research. Validity refers to the extent to which a research actively represents the social phenomenon to which it refers. Proposing accurate statements involves the possibility of two errors: 1. Type 1 error is believing a statement to be true when it is not 2. Type 2 error is rejecting a statement that is in fact true The concept of validity originates in quantitative research. Silverman (2006) argues that the concept is also applicable to qualitative research. A type 1 error arises when one accepts a ‘spurious’ correlations. If x is always followed by y, it does not necessarily mean that y is caused by x. There can be a third Z factor that influences the relation. In addition it can happen that people in interviews present a situation that does not correlate with the way they behave in naturally occurring situations. The interpretation and behavior of people can influence the statements of the research. As mentioned before, due to the subject-subject relation statements are interpreted. Besides that, in this research I asked social entrepreneurs questions about municipalities and vice versa. The placement against this group could lead to a more explicit position of both parties on the subject and thus statements that not fully correspond with reality.

46

4. Results Municipalities meet each other for economic affairs, legal affairs and for the exchange of information and communication. At the moment of interaction the logics of municipalities (economic, legal and democratic) meet the logics of social entrepreneurs (entrepreneur, social- welfare and public- sector). Different combinations of logics can lead to different types of interaction. Logic of municipalities Effectiveness and efficiency Legality Democracy

Logic of social entrepreneurs Entrepreneurship Social welfare Public sector

In this chapter I will describe the intersection of municipalities, UWV and intermediate organizations and social entrepreneurs in the economic, legal and communicative area to investigate where tension can be found and how this tension can be explained. For each area it is first described where social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet. Secondly, the different logics that exist in the area are described. Thirdly, it is described what type of interactions can be found in the particular area and what logics play a role in the type of interaction. The type of interaction together with the different logics will give an explanation of the tension.

4.1 Economic area 4.1.1 Where do social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet in economic terms? Social entrepreneurs and municipalities can in economic terms interact on a short and long term basis. On a short term or one-off basis they meet for subsidies and funds. An example is subsidies to adjust workplaces to disabled employees. In times of budget cuts the subsidies and funds are minimized and therefore the interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities is limited. On a long term basis they interact on the basis of employment of people with a government payment. In most cases social entrepreneurs hire employees that are still (financially) connected to the municipality (department of social affairs) or UWV. Social entrepreneurs have to make contracts with municipalities or UWV and after this the employees have to be monitored. An example of this contract can be a participation job. In Groningen participation jobs are meant for those people that cannot easily find a job. A participation job is an intermediate phase between a regular job and a period of unemployability. Social entrepreneurs and municipalities thus mainly meet with regard to employees. 4.1.2 Logics of municipalities Efficiency and effectiveness: Performing government Municipalities in general cannot support the organization of social entrepreneurs. First municipalities have less money for example to subsidize organizations and secondly subsidies are in general not meant for enterprises. For civil servants a social enterprise is comparable to any other company. Some funds or subsidies are available for social enterprises in the start-up 47

phase of the company. The municipality of Groningen for example has innovation vouchers that stimulate entrepreneurs to start innovative projects. The municipality does in general not support the organizational aspects of the company, but is prepared to invest in the development of employees. The attitude of government towards social entrepreneurs that act with people with a distance to the labor market is changing. Municipalities are confronted with many changes in the labor market. First municipalities are confronted with the decentralization of tasks and the executing of the Wajong and the law on participation. Secondly, the decentralization of the tasks is combined with large budget cuts which means that more tasks have to be executed with relatively less money. In addition, there is a growing number of people with a government payment and at the same time it becomes more difficult to find a job for people. These changes bring municipalities in a difficult situation and municipalities have to look for new opportunities and possibilities. Social entrepreneurs can be seen as a solution to reach targets and to provide in jobs. Rene Cannoo (municipality of Rotterdam) argues that before, municipalities did have tons of money to execute the WSW. In the past, large groups of people that were not able to find a job were placed in the WSW. Eventually the WSW was a gathering of all sorts of people with diverse abilities. With the current process of decentralization and budget cuts this situation is changing. Martin Bluijs (Utrecht) argues: ‘Things are changing. In the past we asked people with a inability to work ‘What do you want to do?’ – ‘I want to paint’. In this situation we provided a workplace where a person was able to paint. Nobody did ask what this person could really do, or what production capacity this person had. That was also not necessary. This is changing. This is financially not possible anymore’. Within municipalities the necessity to change the social system increased. New possibilities are explores, such as an exchange and collaboration with other parties. Municipalities more often seem to exchange tasks and assignments. In each of the interviews with civil servants the concept of ‘social return on investment’ was mentioned. This concept implies that for each public tender at the municipality the winning party has to give 5% in social return to the municipality. Nienke Boesveldt (Amsterdam) points at the example of KPMG that received a consultancy assignment for the municipality of Amsterdam and in return KPMG works as an accountant for the Prael, a social enterprise in Amsterdam. Another example is landscaping companies that have the contract and assignment to take care of all the parks in a particular city. In return for this large assignment the landscaping company has to spend 5% of the amount of the contract on social purposes, such as the hiring of unemployed people. Social return on investment tries to create a win-win situation for both the company and the municipality. This is a large development in cities in which municipalities are discovering a new position. Municipalities are also exploring new possibilities with smaller parties. Perry van Rijn (municipality of Rotterdam) argues that the municipality is often looking for partners that look and act like government and that can be trusted, in most of the cases these are large institutions. This attitude is changing because these large parties appeared not always to be 48

effective and efficient with public money. Also there seem to be a mind shift towards social entrepreneurs. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) tells us that first municipalities were scared of entrepreneurs in the public domain. These entrepreneurs deal with public money, take risks and they deal with a vulnerable group of citizens. As a municipality you do not want people to earn money on groups that you as a municipality protect. This attitude is changing; the municipality has less money and realizes that small parties can have a large social value. To deal with social entrepreneurs entails risks, but in times of budget cuts the municipality seems more willing to take risks and to explore new possibilities. The development of social entrepreneurship in the labor area can in economic terms be highly positive for municipalities. Social enterprises can provide workplaces for people for who it is difficult to find a job in a regular company. The municipality of Rotterdam designed the following scheme.

On the left side of the scale people need (health) care and have high costs. They have a large distance to the labor market. Then there are people in the social workplaces (SW- Beschut A, B,C,D). The different indications (A,B,C,D) are different stages of the intensity of work. Then there are possibilities to work in groups in an external company (Groepsdeta). An example in Rotterdam is the company Verstege (spices) that in their production process works which people with the indication of ‘groepsdeta’. After this stage people are individually placed in a company. The municipality is trying to make each person move more to the right side of the spectrum, because here people will cost less money for the municipality. The municipality has different tools to stimulate people to move to a different indication. Martin Bluijs (municipality of Utrecht) mentioned that in the past people worked for 20 years in a social workplace. No one did wonder if this person was also able to work in a regular company. Due to the budget cuts municipalities have to look more critically to the social workplace and to the place a person could take in society. Social entrepreneurs can provide jobs in different stages of the spectrum, but in most of the cases they take care of the ‘individuele detachering/individual detachement’. In the scheme one can see that in this stage a person will contribute more to society than he/she costs. Marja Talen (Rotterdam) mentioned that this is an important stage in the development of people with a distance to the labor market. There are not many places where people can work on a individual basis, especially not in times of the current crisis. Social entrepreneurs can thus be 49

highly important to municipalities. Rob Burghouwt (Rotterdam, social workplace) mentioned that only 1% of all people with an indication of WSW or ‘groepsdeta’ will eventually work on an individual basis (individual detachement). Social entrepreneurs thus only represents a very small group in the large process of labor participation. Although the employees in the phase of ‘individuele detachering’ maintain a financial tie to the municipality, jobs in this stage will save money for municipalities. People have more economic value in this stage and there is a possibility that these employees eventually will be guided to a higher level of participation. Legality: decent government Due to the budget cuts there is hardly anyone to offer subsidies to entrepreneurs and most of municipalities argued that subsidies are not meant for entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs have to be able to function independently. Social entrepreneurs are in essence entrepreneurs and do not differ other entrepreneurs is that aspect. ‘A while ago we did have an application to subsidy the rebuilding of a restaurant where psychiatric patients work. This is difficult. It is a place where people with a distance to the labor market could possibly work, but then you are subsidizing a restaurant.’ (Nienke Boesveldt, Amsterdam). All the civil servants did speak about the fairness of competition in the market. Government cannot financially support a company. A municipality has to look at all the interests of every person in the municipality. Every person has exactly the same rights. There are almost no subsidies for entrepreneurs and the ‘BV’ status could give problems receiving a subsidy. Some entrepreneurs experienced that it is not possible to receive subsidies or funds with a BV, and therefore placed a foundation next to the BV. Specialisterren has for example a BV and a foundation that are interlinked. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) tells us municipalities cannot accept if companies receive governmental money and make profit at the same time. All governmental money is related to laws, regulations and rules. Entrepreneurs have to comply with criteria to be able to receive one-off subsidies or funds and have to adapt to criteria to receive governmental money that is related to their employees. The employees of social entrepreneurs are in many cases concerned with different laws (e.g. WWB, Wajong). The re-integration process and the amount of money that is connected to these different groups of people are determined by the law. Democracy: responsive government Social entrepreneurs deal with public money and often work with a vulnerable group of people. Social entrepreneurs have to take risks and explore new opportunities. This could bring political risks along: ‘what if something goes wrong?’. Civil servants and politicians have to be able to explain their decisions and have to accountable. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) argues that civil servants always have to be able to justify their decisions to prevent arbitrariness. Trust is a word that popped up in every interview with civil servants. Providing subsidies and signing contracts with social entrepreneurs is not only about criteria, but civil servants need the feeling that an entrepreneur can be trusted and that the public values are protected. I 50

had the following dialogue with Rene Burghouwt (project leader social workplace): Rene

Why do you think social entrepreneurs work with people with a distance to the labor market? Interviewer Because these entrepreneurs have a social goal and are able to combine this with an economic goal. Rene No, why do you really think social entrepreneurs hire these people? What is a motive of an entrepreneur? Interviewer Well, of course I understand that it is an enterprise, but is also has a clear social goal. Most of the entrepreneurs started the company from a personal experience. Rene Well, I think that is a minority, I think the motive of an entrepreneur is money.

Also Rob de Rooij (Den Haag) pointed out the perceived motives of social entrepreneurs and stated that municipalities cannot accept when an entrepreneur strategically provides work to people with a distance to the labor market to earn money. An entrepreneur will receive €12.000 for hiring one employee for half a year with a disability. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) mentioned that sometimes people misuse this incentive and do not offer these employees a durable and stable labor position. Nienke Boesveldt (Amsterdam) argues that the last thing a government wants is that a vulnerable group has an unstable position in a company. Specialisterren points at the fact that in the social system people with a distance to the labor market can be used by companies as a reusable resource. An entrepreneur can hire a person, earn €12.000 and fire this person after half a year after which another entrepreneur can earn again €12.000 with the same person. Civil servants argue that they do not want to be treated as fools and therefore distrust some entrepreneurs. In the past an organization that hired people with a distance to the labor market received the total amount of money at once. Rob de Rooij (Den Haag) mentioned that the municipality has learned not to trust each entrepreneur. Therefore, an entrepreneur will now receive the money in small parts. If the municipality if not satisfied with the result it can be decided to not to pay out the last amount of money. As mentioned before many of the social entrepreneurs are in close contact to an organization that intermediates between the company and the municipality. This has a positive effect on the trust between the company and the municipality. De 7 Deugden (Amsterdam) is in close contact to a GZZ institution and Van Hulley (Groningen) with the foundation Jasmijn that operated in Groningen for over 25 years. The intermediate position of these organizations seems to have a positive effect on the trust of the municipalities towards the social entrepreneurs. Van Hulley (Groningen) argues: ‘The municipality does not tightly control these jobs, they think these participation jobs are arranged by Jasmijn: that will be alright.’ 4.1.3 Logics of social entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial logic: running a company The social entrepreneurs in general prefer the least financial ties with government. The social entrepreneurs argue that it is not healthy to have subsidy ties to government. This would kill the entrepreneurial spirit. In addition the procedures are long and complicated. Most of the entrepreneurs did once apply for a subsidy and several entrepreneurs did have bad experiences 51

with the procedure of the application. If an entrepreneur will not receive the subsidy, the application did cost much effort without an effect. In general there seems to be a lack in applying for separate subsidies. ‘Every day I am concerned with the issues of that day. When I have time left I think about and make plans for the future. I think about how I can expand my market. In these moments I do not think about subsidies, but I think how to contact ABN AMRO. Every support almost has to come to me ready-made for me to use it’. (Van Hulley, Groningen). Currently there are only a few possibilities of receiving subsidies or funds, still it is interesting to see the lack of applying for these. These applications cost in general much time and a entrepreneurs is not certain that this investment in time will eventually pay out. In addition there is still a strong idea about the ‘Paper load that is concerned with applying for a subsidy.’ (Van Hulley, Groningen). Also the waiting times for applications are often very extensive. In addition several entrepreneurs argued that if you apply to much for funds, you will eventually be let by the criteria of these funds. Social entrepreneurs thus seem to be reluctant to apply for one-off subsidies, whereas all of the interviewed social entrepreneurs did have a structural economic relation with public organizations. These ties were related to the employees in the company. This structural ties determined for a large part, together with the service or product, the income of the company. Social entrepreneurs work with a large diversity of employees. Some of the employees are related to an income from government. Others work on an internship basis, and thus will not be paid by government. The employees that are related to governmental money can roughly be divided in two groups of employees which also determines the source of income that is related to this group of people. Entrepreneurs experienced that it is difficult to run a social enterprise without this government support. The following two groups of employees can be distinguished:  Employees that due to all sorts of reasons have a distance to the labor market but can function (mainly) independently (WW, WWB & Wajong);  Employees that due to all sorts of reasons have a distance to the labor market and need extra care and accompaniment (AWBZ (PGB), Wajong). Government is stimulating employees that belong to WW/WWB/Wajong to a regular job. Municipalities have different tools to guide and to stimulate a person to a job in a regular company. One of these tools is the participation job and arranges that people can work in a company and at the same time retain their government payment + €100. Van Hulley for example makes use of this arrangement. Van Hulley guides a multicultural group of women to a regular job by teaching them the Dutch language, learn a craft and learn skills that are needed in a regular job (e.g. being on time). The women work on a voluntary basis at Van Hulley and the company thus does not have to pay a loan to these women. Another tool is loan dispensation. Loan dispensation is a compensation of missed productivity that is caused by the inability of a person. If a person has a specific handicap and can only function for 60%, the government can pay the remaining 40%. This could for example be used for people with a Wajong background. The company Specialisterren (Utrecht) is able to receive loan dispensation for their employees. The company decided not to accept this dispensation 52

because in this case the employees have to sign for their disability and make explicit the part that they cannot do. The company wants to stimulate the confidence of the employees and signing for a disability does not stimulate a person’s confidence. Although in this research we choose to focus on social entrepreneurs that are mainly concerned with work (not care), due to the mixed models of the entrepreneurs some entrepreneurs did also hire people that need day cay (AWBZ (PGB), Wajong). The company de 7 Deugden (Amsterdam) works for example in corporation with a GGZ institution. De 7 Deugden provides work places for the (mentally) disabled people from these institutions. These people thus work on a voluntary basis at the company. Most of the entrepreneurs were trying to create a business model that was able to fully hire and pay all the employees, but the social entrepreneurs noticed that a business model without government support is highly difficult. The dependency on government causes uncertainty for the company. Social entrepreneurs also have problems trusting government due to the political element of government. Government organizations can in times of elections change quickly. Entrepreneurs cannot make an agreement based on trust, because the civil servants follow the instructions of the politicians. Most of the entrepreneurs thus have a structural financial tie to the government when it comes to the costs of employees. Still, the entrepreneurs sell a product or deliver a service. Many of products are unique and have a luxurious look. De 7 deugden for example produces beer in different unique flavors. Each beer presents its own virtue. Also van Hulley produces boxer shorts of old blouses. The boxer shorts have unique orange details and the boxer shorts are, together with a poem, sent in a printed box. The products are unique and tell a story. The entrepreneurs clearly think in entrepreneurial terms and look at the market. Also in organizational terms entrepreneurs have to think in innovative terms. Specialisterren for example has to find a solution for the problem of insurances for the employees. As long as an employee has a government payment this person has an insurance at the UWV of municipality. This insurance is valid for four year after which the entrepreneur has to take care of the insurance. The cost of insurance of people with a disability is extremely high and is not affordable for a regular company as Specialisterren argued. The company thus has to make the decision to fire a person after four years or to pay the high cost. Specialisterren mentioned that valid express, a post service with people with disabilities, was in big problems due to this problem. Specialisterren thus has to find a solution for this situation. Social – welfare logic: creating social impact Most of the entrepreneurs have a mixture of people that are paid by government funds and have people that bring no money along. The social entrepreneurs argue that they want to support the social goal, regardless whether a person brings along money. The costs of accompaniment and personal attention make it difficult to design a profitable business model, but profit is in most cases not the aim. Van Hulley argues ‘you should not start a social enterprise to get rich easily’. Also de 7 Deugden argues that all the work in the brewery can also efficiently and effectively be managed by two full time employees, but this is not the model the company has chosen.

53

Social entrepreneurs also invest in their employees by giving them education and personal attention. All of the entrepreneurs argued to give much attention and time to the development of the employees. Specialisterren (Utrecht) provides for example a certificated education for their employees. The municipality pays €8000 of the costs of this education, while Specialisterren argues that this is only a small part of the actual costs. The employees need this certificate to execute their work in a professional way. Also other social entrepreneurs pay much attention to the person development of their employees. Van Hulley teaches the women at the company the skills that are needed in a regular job. Van Hulley teaches the women for example not to make an appointment with the dentist of doctor on the day that one should work. In addition the company teaches the women the Dutch language. The guidance of the employees costs much time. Public sector: working in the social domain As mentioned before the employees of a social enterprise are often connected to laws. These laws are executed by organizations such as UWV and the departments of social affairs of municipalities. There are many actors in the field of labor. There are for example municipalities, UWV and reintegration bureaus, schools and institutions (e.g. GZZ) that are all looking for jobs or learning places to make their clients participate in the society. Social entrepreneurs have to interact with these different parties. In general social entrepreneurs experience many difficulties with UWV. UWV seems stricter in the monitoring of the employees. The goal of UWV is to lead people to a job. Several social entrepreneurs argue that the UWV is more bureaucratic than municipalities. The company Wandschappen wanted in the project of ‘DNA Charlois’ in Rotterdam to use the skills and crafts of all different nationalities in the neighborhood of Charlois to make art products. Wandschappen worked on a project basis and wanted to pay each employee a unit price. People that for example made a chair received €300. Most of the employees received a UWV payment. Wandschappen tried to make arrangements with UWV. This situation was highly difficult for UWV because Wandschappen could not offer a full-time or part-time contract to the employees. Due all the difficulties the employees were afraid to lose their payment and here the project stopped. The bureaucratic character of the company thus demotivated the social entrepreneur. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) argued that if an entrepreneur fits into the system things are easily arranged, but if not, things can become highly complicated. UWV is organized on a regional level and therefore has according to several entrepreneurs a large distance to the actual labor market. Also the headquarter of the UWV is highly bureaucratic and has a political sensitive position. In some cases the local UWV wants to make a distinction, but the national UWV does not approve this. In addition some entrepreneurs mentioned that institutions such as the UWV are not aware of the actual situation on the work floor. Cemil Yilmaz (program coordinator of MVO/CSR at UWV) mentioned that UWV is currently working on the social goals of the organization. Only recently UWV hired people with a Wajong indication. Cemil Yilmaz mentioned that only recently UWV realized what implication the presence of a person with a Wajong indication can have in a team. The team needs to adjust to this person, and in some cases for example

54

explain certain procedures several times. This was an interesting lesson for UWV. UWV aims to have 1% of their employees with a distance to the labor market. Social entrepreneurs also pointed at the compartmentalization of the social system. This is especially the case when an entrepreneur works with different groups of employees. De 7 Deugden (Amsterdam) has a large diversity of employees, such as a person that has been in coma, persons that hardly have an inability but need a gently push, a person with an autistic background and a person with a burn-out. All these employees are connected to different regulations and public organizations. To entrepreneurs it is often highly difficult to get a full grasp of the social system and the different sources of income can be highly complicated to administrate. 4.1.4 The tension between municipalities and SE in economic terms The economic logics of municipalities and social entrepreneurs seem in current times to be in one line: municipalities are looking for work places for people with a government payment and social entrepreneurs are looking for stable factors in their business model. Social entrepreneurs can help municipalities to reach their targets and to stimulate the development of a person. Social entrepreneurs are looking for resources that make it possible to run an enterprise that is expensive due to a lower production and a high accompaniment cost of the employees. Still, social entrepreneurs are not fully focused on effectiveness and efficiency. The development of the employees in combination with a healthy company is the focus of these entrepreneurs. Due to these equal interests in financial terms there is collaboration between government and social entrepreneurs. Both parties have an interest to exchange resources and the relation can be explained by the exchange approach (Levine and White, 1961; Tuite, 1972; White, 1994) in which there is a high degree of cooperation and problem solving because both parties are motivated to maximize joint benefits. The recourses are within the company and therefore this interaction can be characterized as exchange. The logic of social-welfare and the public sector seem to match the democratic and legal logics of municipalities. When an entrepreneur can be trusted to spend public money in a correct way and treat employees in a decent manner, the political risks will decrease and the municipality is more prepared to exchange and collaborate with social entrepreneurs. For municipalities it is highly important that an entrepreneur can be trusted. In the economic area the logic of the law and the logic of the democracy dominate when an entrepreneur was suspected to have wrong intentions. The interaction through intermediate organizations seems to positively influence this interaction. In addition if an entrepreneur understands the public system it is more easily to interact with government. Social entrepreneurs have to get a grasp on the possibilities, constraints and opportunities in the social system. In some cases the entrepreneur has to comply with the criteria of the municipality to make the interaction more easily. Some social entrepreneurs have for this reason for example a BV and a foundation. The system of checks and balances to diminish the legal and democratic risks can cause tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities because it constrains the act of the entrepreneurs. In addition this system changes on a regular basis which causes problems for the enterprise. Municipalities and social entrepreneurs can thus interact and exchange resources if the entrepreneur operates within the democratic and legal frames.

55

When social entrepreneurs are known and trusted by the municipality, the social enterprise fits within the legal and political frames and the social entrepreneurs understand the social system, there is less interaction between the two parties. Social entrepreneurs become institutionalized and a regular channel for the municipality. In general social entrepreneurs and municipalities only experience tension in the start-up phase of the company. After this phase, when the enterprise fits within the legal and political logic, there is in general not much tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities in the economic area. Social entrepreneurs often depend on municipalities for financial support but in recent times social entrepreneurs can also add positive contributions to the goals of municipalities. Once social entrepreneurs are trusted, the interests of municipalities and social entrepreneurs are in one line and municipalities can make arrangements for social entrepreneurs to hire employees.

4.2 Legal area 4.2.1 Where do social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet in legal terms? Social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet on a local level for example to change zoning plans. In addition social entrepreneurs have to comply with the local rules and regulations with regard to the labor participation of people with distance to the labor market. The employees that work in social enterprises that still have a financial tie to government have to comply with regulations. In addition social entrepreneurs have to comply with national rules and regulations with regard to the organization, such as regulations concerning hygiene and the environment. Social entrepreneurs also have to comply with national rules concerning the safety and wellbeing of employees (ARBO). These regulations are thus determined on a national level and are checked on a regular basis. 4.2.2 Logics of municipalities Efficiency and effectiveness: performing government To municipalities a social enterprise is like any other company. The laws, rules and regulations are standard and no adjustments can be made. Even if, by adjusting a rule, money can be saved the rule is the leading principle. ‘The law is leading, whether you like it or not. As civil servants we cannot change the rules and laws. If you want to change something you have to vote for the political party that wants to change a particular law’ (Rob de Rooij, Den Haag). Municipalities have the possibility of financially supporting an entrepreneur with the adjustments that have to be made to comply with the law. If an entrepreneur works with people in wheelchairs the desks and tables have to be adjusted to create a comfortable workplace. The municipality can compensate the entrepreneur in the cost to adjust to the law, but cannot adjust the law to financial benefits. Legality: decent government As mentioned before social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet on both a local and a national level. With regard to permits, uniformity and equality are highly important. Each person has to be treated in the same way. In addition the municipality is the mediator between 56

different interests for these to be considered before a permit is given to a certain party. The position of municipalities as an intermediate of the different interests came back in every interview. Social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet for organizational permits on a local level. An example are zoning plans. In these plans it is determined how particular areas or buildings can be used. The decision concerning a zoning plan can in general take 6-8 weeks. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) mentioned that the waiting time is caused by the carefulness of the civil servants. Each application receives the same attention, every person needs to be treated in the same way and one cannot make mistakes in the application. Vincent Holleman (Den Haag) pointed at the fact that once a permit is given or a zoning plan is changed this cannot easily be changed. Once a ‘horeca’ permit is given this cannot easily be changed, not even when the company that applied for the permit gets bankrupted. Municipalities can create space in their policies. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) point at the trick of a ‘pilot’ or experiment. In pilots or experiments rules are less applicable. Civil servants have a bit more space to make decisions. Perry van Rijn argues that this is an interesting process because some acts do not fit within the rules and regulations. Innovation in the law can be difficult, but one also has to be careful in writing down new policies. Nienke Boesveldt (Amsterdam) argues that once you make policies the flexibility disappears. ‘You cannot write down we will be flexible in some cases. If you write down the policy and formalize the process you will make clear what rules are in favor or against social enterprises’. Rob de Rooij (Den Haag) emphasizes that in fact entrepreneurs are often the parties that ask for laws and regulations. At a tender the municipality of Den Haag received always many complains because companies arguing that they were disadvantaged in comparison to other entrepreneurs. Politics took this seriously and tried to make the tenders transparent. Rob de Rooij argues that now entrepreneurs complain that they cannot comply with the criteria they asked for themselves. Municipalities and social entrepreneurs also meet on a local level concerning the employees of the enterprise. The employees the social entrepreneurs work with are connected to a social law. These laws are determined on a national level, but the municipality has to execute the laws (e.g. wsw). In addition the system is currently changing, which makes the execution more complex for municipalities. Social entrepreneurs have to make contracts with local municipalities or UWV concerning the employees in the enterprise. In these contracts assignments about the monitoring and guidance of the employee are arranged. Both the employee and the social entrepreneur have to agree with the contract. Municipalities thus execute these laws and look at the interest of the employees. Finally, social entrepreneurs also meet government with regard to national laws. On a national level entrepreneurs are confronted with rules and laws concerning the safety and wellbeing of the employees, such as the law on work conditions (ARBO). Several civil servants point at the uniformity of these national rules. Arrangement can thus be made, but the national rules will not be adapted. One cannot adjust universal laws to individual cases. The safety and wellbeing of the employees is highly important. In addition entrepreneurs have to meet laws concerning the hygiene and the environment. There are no special regulations for enterprises dealing with people with a distance to the labor market. An enterprise is like any

57

other enterprise and has to comply with all the rules on a national level, such as hygiene, safe workplaces, safe work condition and for example the number of hours of work. Democracy: responsiveness government This political element appeared in every conversation with civil servants: ‘what if the employees are not treated well in a company?’, ‘what if is a company hires a person and then fires this persons again?’, ‘what if a enterprise cannot be certain about their existence in the future?’, ’‘what if employees misspend public money’, ‘what if entrepreneurs hires people and ignoring other groups of employees’ and ‘what if they do not fit in the regulations?. In the meetings I attended concerning social entrepreneurship these topics were often discussed. It was interesting to notice that when the decisions made by civil servants were in direct contact to unemployed people these ‘what if’ questions did not play a role. These civil servants based many decisions on trust. In addition the economic logic plays a role in these decisions by taking a risk people can possibly obtain a new workplace. There seems to be a clear distinction between the civil servants close to the politics and civil servants that have to execute the law. They seem to act from different logics. Civil servants close to politics are more afraid of political consequences, while civil servants that execute the law in direct contact with the social enterprises are focused on finding jobs for people with government payments. Both civil servants have to justify their decisions, but place emphasize on different elements. In addition there was also a large difference between civil servants from the different departments. Civil servants from the economic department saw the existence of the social entrepreneurs as economic value for the city, while civil servants from the department of social affairs emphasized the jobs that are created in these companies. The media can be a risk if a civil servant bypasses the law. The UWV pointed at the danger of the media. ‘We have a task to execute the law, for example the law WW. This law says that the income from WW will disappear if a person has another source of income. UWV cannot make exceptions because we are dealing with public money. As a professional one could think this is a nice initiative, but you cannot do something against the law, because if the example would come in the media people start thinking that the UWV has double standards or even worse the UWV does not execute the law’. If the UWV does not completely comply with the law and the media will find out this could cause large problems for the image of the UWV. Due to the media civil servants have to be careful for political consequences some decisions or experiments could have. The risk avoidance strategy could cause difficulties in procedures in innovative projects. Innovation is per definition about taking risks and making decisions outside of the determined regulations. For social entrepreneurs the political element of public organization can be difficult to pursue a plan.

58

4.2.3. Logic of social entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial logic: running a company Entrepreneurs are in some cases dependent on government to make steps in their plans. If a permit is not given, this could even imply the end of an entrepreneurial plan. In general social entrepreneurs mainly have contact in the start-up phase of the company with the municipality concerning permits. De 7 Deugden argues: ‘Now I only have contact with Pantar (social work plaza) for the participation jobs. In the start-up phase I did have contact with the municipalities for permits and those sorts of things. That was the most intensive period and also the least pleasant period. It took terribly long and people did not work together.’.... ‘In April I applied for a permit to brew on this location, eventually in November I got the permission. This is off course way too long. In the meantime I did not have a job, because I already left my old job. Everyone told me that I needed maximum three months for all the permits, eventually it took much longer’ (De zeven Deugden, Amsterdam). The waiting time is difficult for the entrepreneurs because one cannot make any steps in the business plan. In addition this time costs an entrepreneur much money. The start-up phase of an organizations could also give space to an enterprise. Van Hulley (Groningen) argues that in the start-up phase there is much leniency. Van Hulley did not experience to be overwhelmed by rules and regulations. Perry van Rotterdam (Rotterdam) argues that entrepreneurs have the tendency to be impatience. They are used to that they can arrange things really quickly and in some cases entrepreneurs now have to wait for months because they are dependent on the permits of the municipality. In addition, Vincent Holleman (Den Haag) points at the behavior and conceited of entrepreneurs. ‘Entrepreneurs have the tendency to be conceited and they say ‘I will not hire an architect to make my building plans, I will do it myself.’ These selfmade plans are not always architectural responsible.’ Wandschappen (Rotterdam) mentioned the difficult application forms that some permits bring along. Wandschappen wanted to place art made of steel in the public place. The company received pages with questions, for example about the construction, material, pressure- weight calculation. Wandschappen mentioned that even the steel company that produced the art was not able to make an exact calculation. The adjustment of uniform rules costs time and money, but entrepreneurs try to come up with new solutions or interpretations of the law and regulations. Specialisterren mentioned the example of job coaches. Each unemployed person has a job coach, this coach guides the unemployed person to a job and in most cases also guides this person in the new job. Specialisterren had at a certain time 18 job coaches, each in contact with different employees. All of these coached needed to have a conversation on a regular basis with the owners of the company and this costs much time. Specialisterren proposes an experiment to the UWV in which one job coach guided all the employees. The job coach was in this position also able to see similarities or patterns in the behavior of the employees in the company. Specialisterren was thus a pioneer in this method and this costs much time and effort. Being dependent on laws and regulations brings risks along for the economic situation of the company. The social system is changing often and rapidly. Especially in the recent years 59

many plans have been made concerning participation jobs and the decentralization. This is difficult for social entrepreneurs that are dependent of PGB or participation jobs. In addition some task come with the decentralization to the municipalities. At the same time the budgets that come to municipalities are relatively smaller. Municipalities have to execute more laws with relatively less money. For social entrepreneurs this brings uncertainty along. They do not know if certain provisions will exist in the future and in addition they do not know how the budgets will change. Social entrepreneurs can in these cases not prepare themselves for the future. Specialisterren argues that in these uncertain times both the municipalities as the UWV did become paralyzed. The position of the Wajong was not certain for a while and both parties did not pay much attention to this law; they both did not feel responsible for the law. Social welfare logic: creating social impact As mentioned before social entrepreneurs can depend on decisions of municipalities for example for zoning plans or rules related to the employment of people (e.g. ARBO). In this sense municipalities have a large power position. A dream of an entrepreneur can thus partly depend on governmental decisions and the arrangement of permits which costs much time and effort. In this research only social enterprises have been interviewed that passed the start-up phase in which most of the permits have to be arranged. This implies that all legal barriers have been passed. The company Specialisterren experienced for example problems with the standard ARBO law. These rules are uniform and cannot be adapted to individual cases. These arrangements costs much effort and money. ‘The standard ARBO rules can be conflicting. One of the ARBO requirements is that employees need enough daylight during a workday, therefore rooms need windows. Our employees would prefer to work without daylight and any distraction. They like to work in places with least stimuli and light to be able to fully concentrate. As an entrepreneur you have to arrange and justify these adjustments’ (Specialisterren, Utrecht) Public sector logic: working in the social domain In general social entrepreneurs did not experience difficulties due to the social and innovative aspects of the company. Social entrepreneurs have to meet, like any other company, the standard rules and laws. A restaurant has to meet for instance all the hygiene regulations; the social aspect of a restaurant does not make any difference. Municipalities have the possibility of financially supporting an entrepreneur in the adjustments that have to be made. If an entrepreneurs works with people in wheelchairs the desks and tables have to be adjusted and there is more space needed. The municipality can compensate the entrepreneur in the cost of the adjustments. In general the system of social laws appeared difficult to understand for social entrepreneurs. In most cases social entrepreneurs deal with a particular group of employees. In some cases this group is closely related to a personal background. The owners of Specialisterren have for example both an autistic son. Social entrepreneurs get specialized in a particular part of the social system. Still all the arrangements are not always logical and it depends on what label a person received during his or her life. There is a difference in

60

Wajong, WSW and WWB, while Marja Talen (Rotterdam) argues that one person could, due to the circumstances end up in one of these categories. 4.2.4 The tension between municipalities and SE in legal terms In this part of the interaction of social entrepreneurs and municipalities the legal logic of municipalities clearly prevails over the entrepreneurial, social-welfare and public sector logic of entrepreneurs. Uniformity, equality before the law and the democratic position of politics as a representative of the whole society are highly important. At the national level there are uniform rules that apply for all entrepreneurs. Here rules can be found concerning the safety and wellbeing of employees. On a local level there is more space for exceptions, but still in the system all interests have to be considered before a decision is taken. The compliance with the law is related to the democratic system. No exceptions to the law can be made on an individual basis because this is not in line with the democratic system. Exceptions in the law can also be captured by the media and this causes problems for politics and the relation between citizens and the municipality. The power position of municipalities in the legal area causes tension in the interaction with social entrepreneurs. The plan of social entrepreneurs in some cases depends on the decisions of municipalities. If the municipality rejects a permit, this could imply the end of a project. In addition, if the application does not fit into a policy this could lead to long procedures and a large paper load that is required to obtain a permit. This process costs much effort and money from the entrepreneurs and leads to an interaction that can be described as a conflict. Social entrepreneurs argued to have most contact with municipalities in the legal area in the start-up phase of the enterprise. In the start-up phase most permits related to the organization have to be arranged. This is not different from commercial companies. Other regulations, such as the ARBO regulations, connected to employees are checked on a regular basis. In addition with every new employee the entrepreneurs have to make contracts with the municipality. The contacts in the legal area with regard to the organization thus decrease, while the contact concerning the employees maintains. Still, the social entrepreneurs argued that when learning about the system, it becomes more easily to find a way in the legal and bureaucratic system. The law and regulations are more important to municipalities than economic profit. Entrepreneurs have to safeguard in all cases the safety and wellbeing of the employees, customers and environment. The legal and democratic logic thus prevails over the economic logic. Still, in the legal area the entrepreneurial spirit and logic of entrepreneurs is apparent. Social entrepreneurs look for space in the system and come up with solutions to make the plan or project possible. The procedures can take persistence, time and effort of social entrepreneurs. The network of social entrepreneurs can help in these procedures. Entrepreneurs that have the right contacts within the municipality and are for example in close contact to the alderman can more easily arrange permits. Social entrepreneurs thus look for opportunities; this does not directly increase tension with municipalities, but make the realization of the project more feasible.

61

4.3 Communicative area 4.3.1 Where do Social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet in communicative terms? Social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet in communicative terms to exchange information. Social entrepreneurs can gain information at the municipality concerning procedures and rules. The municipality can gain information from the entrepreneurs about the procedures and statements of the entrepreneurs and can see if it is possible to learn from these procedures. In addition a municipality can facilitate an entrepreneur by giving the entrepreneur access to the network of the municipality. Finally, municipalities meet social entrepreneurs to give publicity to the initiative. An alderman can visit a social entrepreneur and raise attention in the media for the enterprise. The contact in communicative area is more open-ended than in the other two areas. 4.3.2 Logic of municipalities Effectiveness and efficiency: performing government The tasks of the civil servants are changing. Civil servants are more expected to create a network and provide information to the citizens. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) argues that traditionally the municipality is seen as a money supplier but because the municipality has less money it is looking for new roles. Civil servants have to visit social entrepreneurs with empty pockets, but they can advise entrepreneurs about procedures and regulations. Civil servants take more and more the role of an advisor. As Hans Ohlenroth (Groningen) argues: ‘we cannot help with money, but with men power’. Vincent Holleman (Den Haag) argues that civil servants are more expected to think together with the entrepreneurs about procedures and applications. In addition the municipality gives information to entrepreneurs. Nienke (Amsterdam) argues that many social entrepreneurs are not ready for changes that come from the process of the decentralization. The municipality gives information to the entrepreneurs about the new procedures and budgets. Also Den Haag and Groningen organize on a regular basis meetings in which they provide new information to entrepreneurs. Groningen has assigned nine account managers that visit all new companies in the city. These account managers check whether the entrepreneur has any questions or suggestions with regard to the municipality. These account managers try to answer the question or find the person in the government that can answer the question. The municipality also provides a network. The civil servants know many other entrepreneurs and other organizations. The municipality of Groningen organizes information meetings in which entrepreneurs, the chamber of commerce and civil servants can exchange information. Also Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) tells that the coupling of the right people becomes an important part of the role of civil servants. This network is also important if employees of social entrepreneurs have outgrown the company. The civil servants at the departments of social affairs have a large network of many entrepreneurs and are constantly looking in this network for workplaces for employees. This is also the reason these departments are in close contact to social entrepreneurs. 62

In addition civil servants more often visit the initiatives. Civil servants can learn about the initiative and see what problems an enterprise encounters. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) argues that some entrepreneurs cannot write good applications. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) tells that civil servants like nicely written application. Some entrepreneurs even hire offices to design the application. The application of entrepreneurs that are less neatly organized can be misunderstood by civil servants. When visiting an entrepreneur a civil servant can discover the actual motivation and story of a social enterprise. Legality: decent government In the communicative area the legal logic did not clearly appeared. Still, civil servants consider the interest of all citizens before giving advice and trying to divide their attention in an equal manner. Also, civil servants serve as guide through the bureaucratic organization. Hans Ohlenroth (Groningen) argues the role of civil servants is changing. First a civil servant would say ‘here is an application form, fill it in and you will hear from us within 8 weeks’. Now, civil servants more often guide citizens though the process and analyzes beforehand if it is usefull to fill in an application. This saves much effort and time from citizens and entrepreneurs. In addition civil servants more often explain the decisions of the municipality to the applicant. The decision process is more transparent and entrepreneurs can more easily find out about the reasoning of the decision. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) tells that civil servants have to be able to explain their decision. Democracy: responsive government Networks become more important. The network of civil servants becomes more important to learn about the actual situation in the sector. The municipality more often realizes that civil servants cannot only make policies in the buildings of the municipalities; civil servants have to go into the city. In addition the network of social entrepreneurs becomes more important. Perry van Rijn (Rotterdam) argues that social entrepreneurs can bypass civil servants by directly contacting for example an alderman in their network. In addition for politicians in the municipality it is important to know about social enterprises in their field of policies. Almost all social enterprises have on the homepage of their website a link to ‘our story’. The story of the enterprise is an important part of the company and the goodwill of the customers. Van Hulley for example adds unique details to their project and with the delivery of the boxer shorts the person receives a poem and on a card it is written which person has manufactured the boxer shorts. In addition van Hulley works on their publicity in magazines and on the radio. The story can be positive to the enterprise, but can also influence the public opinion towards government provisions; ‘why did government not provide this provision?’ and ‘It is nice that the enterprise exists, but actually it should not have been necessary’. This story of the entrepreneurs could imply that the government is not able to take care of disabled people in an effective and efficient manner. The marketing and publicity of social entrepreneurs can thus influence the image of the government. Social entrepreneurs emphasize the success of the company. Rob de Rooij (Den Haag) argues that entrepreneurs have the tendency to emphasize the tension with government and 63

are reluctant to admit that the government helped them. Due to the positive association of social entrepreneurs in society politicians can contact the initiatives to show the citizens that the municipalities are aware of the developments and support these initiatives. Politicians can show that the municipality is a part of the success of an enterprise. The visual support of the municipality of social entrepreneurs shows that these enterprises are not competition for public organizations, but are stimulated by the government. In addition Hans Ohlenroth (Groningen) argues that social entrepreneurs are highly busy with the everyday business. To ease social entrepreneurs municipalities arrange meetings with the alderman of the municipalities, a report and pictures of these meetings often appear in the local newspapers and imply free publicity for social enterprises. The alderman will not visit all enterprises in a city and attention is therefore sometimes distributed unequally. In addition in Amsterdam the alderman of the city buys beers of de 7 deugden as a gift for his contacts. This beer is an original gift of the alderman and promotes the company. In addition the political attention also is meant as compliment to the entrepreneur that the initiative is appreciated. 4.3.3 Logic of social entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial logic: running a company In general, social entrepreneurs will not contact the municipality when the contact does not have results for the company. Van Hulley (Groningen) argues that the municipality and the camber for commercial organizes on a regular basis information meetings, but she will not go to a meeting if the meeting is too general. These meetings will cost much time and time is highly scarce to most entrepreneurs. The information has to be applicable to the aims of the company and the provision of information has to be effective and efficient. Social entrepreneurs also experience diffulties finding the right person in the government organization. The provision of the municipality to support enterprises and the persons that work in a particular area are in some cases hard to identify. If an entrepreneur will not hear about provisions he or she will not look for the provisions. In addition social entrepreneurs did not have the tendency to first figure out about every detail of an arrangements: ‘we just started’. Some entrepreneurs argued that they learned along the way about the procedures in the sector. Still, social entrepreneurs argued to create a network with government to have a direct contact person in case of problems. Good contact with municipalities can at the end have positive effects. Specialisterren argues that the information that government can provide is in some cases not the information needed by the entrepreneur. Specialisterren for example looks for young autistic people with a background in HBO with an affinity to ICT. According to Specialisterren the system of UWV is organized to the disabilities of people and they do not have a system to search for abilities or affiliations. In addition Specialisterren argues that the contact with the municipality is too slow. In some cases an entrepreneur already started a project before the municipality has responded. Social entrepreneurs experienced difficulties in contacting the UWV and the municipality. Cemil Yilmaz (UWV) argues that the municipality and the UWV are ‘concolleges’. Although both organizations handle with public money, they have their own interest in placing a person in a company. A social entrepreneur thus in most cases has to 64

contact UWV separately from the municipality. This causes tension and costs extra effort. The relation between the UWV and the municipality can highly differ. In Groningen there is close contact between the department of social affairs and the UWV, yet in other cities there is a large distance between these organizations. In addition both organizations are still highly compartmentalized. Social welfare logic: creating social impact Social entrepreneurs often have a large network. They have much people in their surrounding that help the company. Van Hulley tells that she started the company by telling many people what she was planning to do. She was amazed by the positive reactions and offers to help from people in her network. People were enthusiastic about the aim of the company. This network helped her in the start-up phase of the company and she did not need much help from government. Social entrepreneurs have a large network in which they have to cooperate with different actors. More than a ‘commercial’ company they have to cooperate with public organization and foundations. Social entrepreneurs argued that they would rather contact their network for information than the municipality. As mentioned before, social entrepreneurs have a story that they tell. This publicity creates goodwill at the customers. Van Hulley explains that when the story of the company receives attention in the media the sales will immediately raise. The companies Van Hulley and de 7 deugden emphasize that all products are handmade and they have a link on their website to ‘our story’. In this story the unique character of the company becomes apparent and the social goal of the company is elaborated. They emphasize that not only do people buy a product, but also add to a social goal. Still social entrepreneurs emphasize that enterprises are not only about ‘nice stories’ and ‘nice initiatives’. The social entrepreneurs emphasized that they do not run a foundation. The company has to deliver a decent product or service and cannot survive on goodwill of customers. Specialisterren argued that the company has certificates and tries to be fully comparable to other enterprises in the sector. The company is not for fun but it is an actual company that has to survive within a market. Wandschappen points at the competition that is organized by the municipality. Social enterprises can also opt in these competitions. Projects or companies can win money and free publicity with the competition. Wandschappen argues these competitions are not appropriate for social entrepreneurs. Wandschappen is not just a fun project that by facebook tries to win votes for their company, but is a serious company with a clear aim and does cannot spend time to win votes on facebook. Public sector logic: working in the social domain Some social entrepreneurs are skeptical towards political attention. They argue that politicians use their project to win votes. This is especially the case in times of elections. ‘An alderman of Utrecht has been here, then they twitter ‘it has been inspiriting at specialisterren’ Click, - picture. Its election rhetoric. Now we have to be careful again with the upcoming elections, then we become ‘hot’ again.’ (Specialisterren, Utrecht). ‘At the moment you commit an alderman to your project they will market themselves with the project. The alderman appears in the newspaper with our project. We did become a bit shivery for this.’ (Wandschappen, Rotterdam). 65

Some social entrepreneurs are skeptical about the actual intentions of politicians. The politicians cannot arrange assignments for the company, still the municipality claims positive attention for the enterprise. This especially causes attention when the enterprise has many difficulties in the economic or legal area in contact with municipalities. In times of budget cuts municipalities are in most cases not able to assign social entrepreneurs a subsidy. Therefore with free publicity municipalities try to support the initiative. The attention of an alderman in a newspaper could give positive attention and legitimacy to an initiative. The intention of the civil servants are in some cases differently perceived by social entrepreneurs. 4.3.4. The tension between municipalities and SE in communicative terms The contact between social entrepreneurs and municipalities in communicative terms is noncommittal. The power of municipalities in this field is limited. In times of budget cuts municipalities cannot steer an organization with subsidies. Still municipalities try to provide information to entrepreneurs, give entrepreneurs free publicity and create a network in which questions and answers of entrepreneurs and organizations can be matched. Municipalities are looking for another role in which they still can have an important role in society; here the democratic and economic logic is apparent. Only if the information is provided in an effective and efficient manner social entrepreneurs can use this information. Social entrepreneurs make a clear consideration about the direct relevance of the information; here the entrepreneurial logic of social entrepreneurs prevails. Some entrepreneurs stay in contact to municipalities and try to create a good relationship. For municipalities contact with social entrepreneurs can also be highly useful to be aware of the development of company and to be able to be supportive to the company. The alderman can learn from the initiative. Social entrepreneurs and municipalities can thus exchange in communicative terms if one of the parties benefits from the contact. Social entrepreneurs thus are in contact to municipalities if they benefit from the interaction. At the same time social entrepreneurs have a large network. Many people help the enterprise and give advice on different aspects of the company. The entrepreneurs are in contact to many different organizations and find ways in their networks to reach the aims in an effective and efficient manner. Social entrepreneurs argued that they would rather contact their network for information than the municipality. Social entrepreneurs act according to the social welfare logic and use different paths to reach their goals. Social entrepreneurs can thus operate independently from municipalities. Social entrepreneurs experience tension with municipalities in communicative terms because the contact with different public organizations is fragmented. Social entrepreneurs in most cases have to contact municipalities separately from the UWV. This costs more effort and time and causes tension in the entrepreneurial logic. In addition the contact with the municipality is often slow and not effective. In addition the publicity of social enterprises can be difficult to deal with for municipalities. Social entrepreneurs can implicitly say something about the provision of government. Social entrepreneurs have a story that they tell and have a clear image and a goal. This could imply competition for the image of government. The entrepreneurs showed skepticism about the visits of politicians to their company. Some entrepreneurs did have the feeling that interest was not sincerely or they did not want to add to the election campaign of a politician. Other entrepreneurs use the publicity to receive 66

attention for their company. This interaction thus causes tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities.

67

4.4. Conclusion: do social entrepreneurs and civil servants experience tension? The types of interactions can be summarized in the next scheme. Economic area

Legal area

Conflict

Tension between the entrepreneurial logic of S.E. and the legal and political logic of municipalities. S.E. can bring along political risks and have to fit within the legal frames.

S.E. are limited by the rules and restrictions of municipalities. The plan of S.E depends on the decisions of municipalities. The logic of social welfare and the entrepreneurial logic of S.E and the Legal and political logic of social entrepreneurs cause tension. Still S.E look for space in the rules and regulations.

Exchange

The economic logic of municipalities is in line with the entrepreneurial logic of S.E. in times of budget cuts. This is only the case when S.E are trusted and are thus in line with the political and legal logic of municipalities. There is an exchange of employees and subsidies.

S.E. and municipalities exchange information if both parties benefit.

Collaboration Competition

Differentiation- After the company is institutionalized the different contact between worlds municipalities and S.E. is limited.

Communicative area

After all the organizational permits are arranged social entrepreneurs can function more independently from government.

There is competition between S.E. and municipalities for a good image. Social entrepreneurs can implicitly say something about the performance of government. Due to the large network of S.E. they often do not need municipalities.

68

Conflicts can be mainly found in the legal area. The rules and regulations of municipalities can restrict the plans of social entrepreneurs. Municipalities are looking for security and look for parties that they can trust. Equality and equity are highly important. Social entrepreneurs are regarded as entrepreneurs and thus have to comply with the same rules as commercial entrepreneurs. If an entrepreneur wants to deviate from the standard rules this costs much effort and time and leads to tension with municipalities. The power position of municipalities is clearly appeared in this area. Social entrepreneurs and municipalities exchange in economic and communicative terms. Municipalities see chances in social enterprises to place people with a government payment and social entrepreneurs can use the financial ties to government as a structural source of income. Municipalities are only prepared to exchange with social entrepreneurs when they can be trusted with the public money. The misuse of public money can lead to political problems. The social welfare logic of social entrepreneurs and the image of the company can help in the relation of trust. In addition the public sector logic of social entrepreneurs and the understanding of the social system can help the interaction. In addition social entrepreneurs and municipalities exchange in the communicative area, but this is only the case if the information or network adds to the goals of the social enterprise and when social entrepreneurs cannot gain the information in their own network. Civil servants can use the information in their policy plans. In general social entrepreneurs and municipalities maintain a good relationship in communicative terms to use in a later period. Competition can only be found in the communicative area. Social entrepreneurs have a story to tell and this implicitly tells a story about the image of government. Social entrepreneurs are able to combine several goals in one company, whereas the government can be seen as ineffective and inefficient. Municipalities can visit entrepreneurs to show that they support the enterprise and to create publicity for the enterprise. This attention can be interpreted differently by social entrepreneurs. When the questions was asked to entrepreneurs ‘what contact do you have with municipalities?’, they often answered ‘not much’. This can be explained by the existence of two worlds. Only the start-up phase in the legal area is intensive. In this phase the organizational permits have to be arranged. After this phase the entrepreneurs only have contacts with regards to their employees. Social entrepreneurs often have structural ties to government, but when the social entrepreneur is trusted and gets institutionalized the contact between social entrepreneurs and municipalities is limited. In addition social entrepreneurs have a large network that they can use to create publicity or to obtain information and therefore can work independently from government. To conclude most of the conflicts can be found in legal terms. Exchange can be found in economic and communicative terms. Competition can only be found in the communicative area. Differentiation can be found in the legal and communicative area, and partly in the economic area. As described before, tension can be described as an interaction of conflict or competition. Tension can thus be found in the legal and communicative area. Economic interactions also have to fit into legal frames and therefore tension can also be found in the economic area. The tension in the legal and economic area can mostly be found in the start-up phase of the company. After the start-up phase this tension will decrease and social entrepreneurs and municipalities can for example exchange within the legal and political 69

frames. The tension in the communicative area is less intensive, because the interaction is more open-ended.

70

5. Conclusion and Discussion Social entrepreneurs meet in economic, legal and communicative terms. Social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet in economic terms for one-off subsidies. In addition most of the social entrepreneurs have structural financial ties with public organizations that are related to the employees. In legal terms the contact is the most intensive, because the entrepreneur is this phase fully dependent on the decisions of government. In legal terms social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet with regard to national rules (e.g. arbo) and local rules (e.g. zoning plans). In addition they meet the departments of social affairs of the municipality and the UWV for the employment of people with a distance to the labor market (e.g. hours of work). In the communicative area the interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities is more open-ended. Municipalities and social entrepreneurs meet each other for information and networks. In the economic area the current context of budget cuts seems to have an effect on the interaction between municipalities and social entrepreneurs. In economic area municipalities and social entrepreneurs do not often meet for one-off subsidies. Due to the budget cuts the municipality does not have much money to provide subsidies and there seems to be a lack of applications for subsidies at the side of social entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs and municipalities meet for long term financial ties that often are connected to employees with a government payment. This interaction changed in recent years. With the decentralization, budget cuts and a growing number of government payments it becomes more difficult for municipalities to pay the social system. New possibilities and opportunities are explored. In the economic area the economic logic of municipalities is more in line with the entrepreneurial logic of social entrepreneurs. Both parties can interact because they both benefit from the interaction. Municipalities will only interact with social entrepreneurs if the company fits within the legal frame. In addition dealing with public money can cause political risks. Trust was an issue that emerged in every interview. The economic interaction has to fit within the legal and political logic of municipalities. The closer the civil servants are to politics the more the political logics prevail. Civil servants that are closer to the execution of actual policies will be able to think more in economic logics. Due to the necessity for changes in the social system the mindset towards social entrepreneurs is changing. If social entrepreneurs are able to understand the social system this will advance the interaction. If the social entrepreneur fits into the legal and political frames, the interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities in economic terms can be characterized as exchange (Levine & White, 1961; Tuite, 1972; White; 1994). Both parties gain from the exchange. Problems are solved more easily and both parties are motivated to maximize joint benefits (Schmidt & Kochan, 1977). In the theoretical framework tension was expected between the entrepreneurial and social-welfare logics of social entrepreneurs and the legal and political logics of municipalities (TNO, 2011; WWR, 2012; SER, 2005; Hoogendoorn, 2011). This tension was confirmed in this research. Social entrepreneurs have to fit within the legal frames and civil servants are due to political risks careful with public money. In addition social entrepreneurs do in the start-up phase experience difficulties with the functioning of the social system. Still, the research added nuances to this statement. In the economic area there is 71

currently in practice not much tension because the municipalities are more prepared to change their regular paths. The economic logic of entrepreneurs is more in line with the entrepreneurial logic of social entrepreneurs and the mindset of civil servants towards social entrepreneurs is changing. Social entrepreneurs are more trusted. In addition social entrepreneurs that understand the social system and the provisions of government are better able to interact with government and this decreases the tension between the two parties. Most of the tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities can be found in the legal area. The current context of decentralization and changes in the laws of the social system do have an effect on the interaction. The contact in the legal area can mainly be found in the start-up phase of the company. In this phase, the permits have to be arranged and contracts have to be made between the social enterprises and municipalities, UWV or intermediate organizations. During the start-up phase of a social enterprise, a social entrepreneur is confronted with the logics of democracy and the law. The universal law is highly important and political risks are avoided. When an entrepreneur needs to make adjustments to the universal law this costs much effort and time. This in turn causes tension with the entrepreneurs whose ideas and feasibility often depend on the decisions of the municipality. The ideas of these entrepreneurs are often guided by a personal experience and motivation. Here the social-welfare logic of social entrepreneurs is clearly apparent. The interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities can be characterized in terms of power and dependency (conflict) (Schmidt & Kochan, 1977). The municipality has the monopoly to assign permits and to sign contracts for example for participation jobs, on which the entrepreneurs are highly dependent. After the start-up phase, when all organizational permits are arranged the entrepreneur can function more independently from the municipality. The results in the legal area confirm the expectations in the theoretical framework (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983; WRR, 2012, TNO, 2011). Municipalities act from a legal rationality in which uniformity and equality is highly important. Social entrepreneurs experience difficulties in dealing with a system that changes on a regular basis in which they have to interact with different stakeholders and public organizations. Social entrepreneurs seem to learn from the social system and learn how to interact in an efficient way so that the interaction causes less tension. This research showed that the tension can mainly be found in the start-up phase of the enterprise. After this period the tension will decrease. In the communicative area the interaction is more open-ended than in the economic and legal area. Time is scarce to social entrepreneurs and they will only interact if the information or network will add to the goals of the enterprise. Still, social entrepreneurs and municipalities try to maintain a good relationship. In general social entrepreneurs have a large network, this makes that in many cases they do not need government for information or a network. Due to the large network they can function independently. In the area of communication competition can be found for the image of the company. Municipalities want to be associated with the initiative and create publicity for social enterprises. The intentions of politicians to show interest in the enterprise are perceived skeptically by social entrepreneurs and this causes tension. Only when both parties see the benefits, an exchange in the area of communications can develop (Levine & White, 1961). These results in the communicative area partly confirm the expectation in the theoretical framework. It was expected that the political attention of municipalities would cause tension 72

between the social entrepreneurs and municipalities (Schulz, 2013). In the research it was confirmed that the political attention to social enterprises can lead to tension between the municipality and the entrepreneurs. In addition it was expected that the compartmentalized system would cause difficulties for social entrepreneurs (WWR, 2012). This research showed that through to the open-ended interaction, large network and embeddedness, and knowledge of social entrepreneurs of the social system the tension in this field was limited. Also through the interaction in the communicative area, social entrepreneurs and municipalities can function independently from each other, which causes the existence of two separate worlds (Huberts & van Hout, 2011). The tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities can thus mainly be found in the legal area where the plans of the entrepreneurs can be restricted by the rules and regulations of municipalities. This tension can be explained by an intersection of the entrepreneurial and social welfare logic of social entrepreneurs and the democratic and legal logic of municipalities. The interactions in the economic area are also restricted by the legal frames. There appeared to be a difference between the civil servants with a different position in the municipality. The closer a civil servant is situated to the political level of the municipality, the more the legal and democratic logic played a role. The tension will disappear after the start-up phase of the enterprise. After the start-up phase entrepreneurs can function more independently from municipalities. In the communicative area also tension can be found in the form of competition. Social entrepreneurs can understand the political attention of municipalities as an act to gain votes while the company does not profit much from this attention. Still, the tension in this area is less intensive because the interaction is more open-ended and both the municipality and the social entrepreneurs can choose for the interaction. In this research an embedded case study design was chosen. Five cities were selected in which one or more civil servants and one social entrepreneur was interviewed. Five large cities have been chosen to make the results better comparable. In the research it was confirmed that all five cities were confronted with budget cuts, savings, changes in the social system and the process of decentralization. The context was thus comparable; still the policies of municipalities concerning social enterprises slightly differed. Amsterdam did for example have an explicit written policy concerning social entrepreneurs, while the other four cities only have policies concerning entrepreneurs in general. In addition Groningen does have account managers that have a personal contact with each entrepreneur. This creates closer contacts between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. Also each civil servant was in another context and from another department, at the department of social affairs civil servants have other policies than civil servants at the department of societal development. Finally, also social entrepreneurs are situated in other areas (e.g. fashion, ICT). This could have influence on the comparability of the cases. The separate contexts of the embedded cases should thus be considered. In this research not much attention has been given to individual cases because in general no large and crucial differences have been found between the cases. Only few studies focused on the relation between social entrepreneurs and government (Korosec & Berman, 2006; Van Twist et al., 2012; Sampson, 2011; Sharir & Lerner, 2006; Dees, 2007), but only one research focused on the municipal level (Korosec & Berman, 2006). This was the first qualitative research that systematically and empirically has 73

investigated the interaction between social entrepreneurs and municipalities by investing five cases (22 interviews) and conducting 23 background interviews. In this research the role of government appears highly important in the (start-up) development of social entrepreneurs. The research therefore adds important insights to the discussions concerning social entrepreneurship. The development of social entrepreneurship is expected to grow in the Netherlands (Nota doe-democratie, 2013; WRR; 2012; RoB, 2012). A better understanding of the different logics that come up in a moment of interaction can be highly useful in this development. The results of this research will give a better understand of the tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities and this will possibly ease the interaction between the two parties.

74

6. Reflections & limitations The current financial crisis does have a large impact on the department of social affairs of municipalities. Municipalities have to deal with budget cuts, the process of decentralization and a growing number of government payments. This changes the attitude towards social entrepreneurs. The municipality cannot execute all the programs as they did in the past and are looking for new solutions. These developments thus also have a large impact on this research. When the municipality is less in needing for new solutions the necessity to work with social entrepreneurs would probably be less. This research represents the logics of both parties and it can be expected that in other periods of time not the logics will change, but the emphasis on particular logics. This would imply that the line of argument in this research would hold. The research should be repeated after a certain period to investigate the influence of the crisis on the tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. In the research I concentrated on social entrepreneurs in the field of labor. Currently large reforms have been proposed in the field of labor (e.g. law on participation). This makes the area of labor an interesting area to investigate. Social entrepreneurs in different areas, such as health care or energy will probably have different interactions with government. Government has legal tasks in the field of labor which is different than in the field of energy. The results of this research are therefore not generalizable to other domains. In addition I only interviewed social entrepreneurs that passed the start-up phase. This could cause a bias in the results. The social entrepreneurs that in fact have experienced an intensive tension are not interviewed. In future research also entrepreneurs that did not pass the start-up phase should be interviewed to have a full understanding of the tension between the entrepreneurs and municipalities. Also, it was difficult to find civil servants in the municipalities that were in their work directly confronted with social entrepreneurs. In some cases I was directed to persons that in general had ties with (social) entrepreneurs, for example people from the department of economic affairs. These people could have a different attitude towards social entrepreneurs than civil servants that are directly confronted with entrepreneurs in the field of labor. Although in this research it is tried to have a large diversity in respondents at the side of the municipalities, more research should be conducted to understand the differences in the points of view of civil servants at different departments.

75

7. Future research Only little research has been conducted in the field of social entrepreneurship (Korosec & Berman, 2006; Van Twist et al., 2012; Sampson, 2011; Sharir & Lerner, 2006; Dees, 2007). This qualitative research was the first empirical research that focused on the tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities. Social entrepreneurs can become in the future important actors to solve complicated public problems, therefore it is important to conduct more research on these entrepreneurs in the public domain. The current financial crisis does probably have an influence on the tension between social entrepreneurs and municipalities, therefore the research should be repeated after a certain amount of time to update the results. This research was the first qualitative research. More quantitative research should be conducted to possibly discover patterns in the results. This research was conducted in a Dutch context in five large municipalities. More municipalities should be interviewed to discover differences between different municipalities. Also smaller municipalities should be interviewed because it is expected that the relationship between small municipalities and social entrepreneurs is different than in large cities. In addition the research should be repeated in an international context needed to further the discussions concerning social entrepreneurship. In addition in this research only one enterprise in the field in for example art and fashion was investigated. If more enterprises in the same sector will be interviewed, possible similarities in the interaction with government can be found within the group of social enterprises in the field of labor. Also, different types of social enterprises should be investigated. This research focused on social enterprises in the field of labor. The research should be extended to other parts of the public domain such as health care and energy. This research confirmed that municipalities play an important role in the development of social entrepreneurs. More research is needed to investigate the success factors that influence social entrepreneurs. Municipalities appeared to play an important role in the (start-up) development of social entrepreneurs. Further research is needed to investigate what other factors do influence the development of social enterprises.

76

Biography Aberbach, J.D. & Christensen, T. (2003). Translating theoretical idea’s into modern state reform: economics- inspired reforms and competing models of governances. Administration and society, 35 (5). P.491-509 Alter, K. (2007). Social entrepreneur typology. Virtue Ventures LLC. Ahrne, G. (1994). Social organizations: interactions inside, outside and between organizations. Sage: Londen. Bakker, W. & Waarden, F. van. Ruimte rond regels. Stijlen van regulering en beleiduitvoering vergeleken. Amsterdam: Boom. Bemelman- Videc, M.L., R.C. Rist & Verdung (eds). (1998). Carrots, sticks and Sermons. Policy instruments and their evaluation. New Brunswick: transaction publisher. Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. London: SAGE publications Ltd. Blond, P. (2010). Red theory, how left and right have broken Britain and how we can fix it. Bonanni, C, Lépineux, F. & Roloff, J. (2012). Social responsibility, entrepreneurship and the common good. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bornstein, D. & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: what everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bovens, M.A.P., Hart, P.’t. & Twist, M. van. (2012). Openbaar bestuur: beleid, organisatie en politiek. Deventer: Kluwer. Bozeman, B. (1993). A theory of government ‘red tape’. Journal of public administration research and theory: J-PART, vol. 3. No 3 (Jul., 1993). Pp. 273- 303. Brabander, R., Emmerik, R. Pijpelink, P. Walraven, G. & Zoeteweij, P. (2009). Een waardevolle spagaat. Een verkenning van sociaal ondernemerschap. Lectoraat van de stad. Appeldoorn: garant. Bridge, S., Murtagh, B. & o’Neill, K. (2009). Understanding the social economy and the third sector. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (2003). The logic of political survival. University of California. Carree, M.A. & Thurik, A.R. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In Z.J. Acs and D. Audrestsch (eds.), handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp.557-594) Springer. CBS. (2012). Personen met een uitkering per gemeente. http://www.cbs.nl/nlNL/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/cijfers/extra/personen-uitkering.htm 77

Clemens, E.S. & J. Cook. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and chance. Annual review of sociology 25. P. 441-466. Davis, K. (1969). Discretionary justice. Baton Rouge: Louisiana state University Press. Dees, J.G. (2007). Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Transaction social science and modern society. Vol. 44, No. 3. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues. Londen: Sage Dimaggio, P.J & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional and collective rationality in organizational field. American sociological review. Vol. 48 (2). Pp. 147- 160. Du Gay, P. (2005). The values of bureaucracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Printice- Hall. Field, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. Edition 4. London: SAGE. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University press. Gartner, W.M. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. The Academy of Management Review: Vol. 10, No. 4, Oct., 1985. Gawthorp, L.C. (1984). Public sector management, systems and ethics. Bloomington, IN: University press. Gestal, N. Van. Botsende logica’s van besturen. Universiteit van Tilburg. Goodsell, C.T. (2000). Red tape and a theory of bureaucratic rules. Bureaucracy and red tape by Barry Bozeman review by: Charles. T. Goodsell. Public administration review, vol. 60, No. 4 (Jul- Aug., 2000), Pp. 373- 375. Guglu, A., Dees, G. Anderson, B.B. (2002). The process of social entrepreneurship: creating opportunities worthy to serious pursuit. Center for the advancement of social entrepreneurship, Fuqua school of business. Granados, M.L., Hlupic, V., Coakes, E. & Mohamed, S. (2011). Social enterprises and social entrepreneurship research and theory. Social enterprise Journal. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 198- 218. Greenwish (2012). De creative samenleving en de overhead. Visie van intermediaire organisaties op de rol van de overheid t.a.v. maatschappelijk initiatief.

78

Hakvoort, J.L.M. (1995). Methoden en technieken van bestuurskundig onderzoek. Delft: edubron. Hanna, R. (2006). Rationality and the ethics or logic. The journal of philosophy, Vol. 103. No. 2. P. 67-100. Hannan, M.T., Polos, L. & Carroll, G. (2007). Logics of organization theory: audiences, codes and ecologies. Oxford: Princeton university press. Herriot, R.E. & Firestone, W.A. (1993). Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing description and generalizability. Educational researcher, 12, 14-19. Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government. Londen: Macmillan. Hoogendoorn, B. (2011). Social entrepreneurship in the modern economy, warm glow cold feet. Doctoral thesis Erasmus University. Huberts, L. & Hout, e. Van. (2011). Goed bestuur, kiezen of delen? Bestuurskunde 20(2), p. 53-62. Janssen, L.(2012) Arbeidsrecht en sociale zekerheid. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers. Kirm, J. & Miller, M. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. SAGE: London Korosec, R. L. & Bernman, E. M. (2006). Municipal support for social entrepreneurs. Public administration review, May/Jun 2006. Vol (66). No 3. Pp. 448. Kunneman, H. & Keulartz (1985). Rondom Habermas, analyses en kritieken. Amsterdam: Boom. Krosenbrink, S.C. (2011). Social entrepreneurship and the acquisition of resources. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Levine, S. & White, P. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships. Administrative science quarterly. 5. P. 583- 601. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.gG. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Londen: sage. Linder, S.H. & Peters, B.G. (1998). The study of policy instruments: four schools of thought. In Peters and van Nispen 1998: 33- 45. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy. In the sociology or organizations. Classic, contemporary and critical readings. Editor Michael J. Handel. London: SAGE publications. Mahoney, J.T. & Mcgahan, A.M. & Pitelis, C.N. (2009). The interdependence of private and public interests. Organization science. 20 (6). P. 1034- 1054. Mair, J. & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business 41. P. 36- 44. 79

Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE. Mayntz, H.B. & Provan, K.G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of public administration research and theory. 10 (2). P. 359-279. Moe, R.C. (1987). Exploring the limits of privatization. Public administration review, no. 47 (6). P. 453-460). Moisander, J. & Valtonen, A. Qualitative marketing research: a cultural approach. SAGE: Londen. Moore, M.H. (2013). Recognizing public values. Cambride: Harvard University Press. Mort, G.S, Weerawarenda, J. & Carnegie (2002). Social entrepreneurship: towards conceptualization. International journal of nonprofit and voluntary sector marketing. Vol. 8. No 1. Mulgan, G. (2007). Social innovation. What is it, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. London: the Young Foundation. Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: new models of sustainable social change. Oxford: University press. Niskanen, W.A. (1973). Bureaucracy, servant or master? Lessons from America. London: institute of economic affairs. OECD. (1999). Social enterprises. Paris: OECD publications. Pache, A.C. & Chowdhury, I. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as institutional embedded entrepreneurs: towards a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of management learning & education. Vol. 11. No. 3. P: 494- 510 Pandey, S.K. & Wright, B.E. (2006). Connecting the dots in public management: political environment, organizational goal ambiguity, and the public managers role ambiguity. Journal of public administration research and theory. 16. P. 511-532. Peters, G. (1999). Institutional theory in political science. London: Pinter. Peters, G. (2010). The politics of bureaucracy: an introduction to comparative public administration. London: Routlegde. Perry, J.L. (1996). Handbook of public administration. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2012). Public management reform: A comparative analysis- new public management, governance, and the neo- Weberian state. Oxford university press.

80

Rainey, H.G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey- bass. Reay, T. & Hinings, B. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. London: sage. RoB. Loslaten in vertrouwen. www.rob-rfv.nl Robbie, K. (2005). Social firm UK. The extra elements: a social firm trainer. Element E. www.socialfirmsuk.co.uk. Roberts, D. & Woods, C. (2005). Changing the world on a shoe string: the concept of social entrepreneurship. University Ackland business review. Sampson, D.N. (2011). Social entrepreneurship. New York: Nova science publishers Inc. Schmidt, S.M. & Kochan, T.A. (1977). Inter-organizational relationships: patterns and motivations. London: sage. Shackle, G. (1966). The nature of economic thought. Cambride: Cambridge University Press. Schultz, M., Steen, M. Van der Steen. & Twist, M. Van. De realisatie van publieke waarden door sociaal ondernemerschap. Bestuurskunde 2013. Vol. 22, No. 1. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambride, MA. Harvard University Press. Sharir, M. & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of business 41. Pp. 6-20. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. SAGE: Londen. Smit. A.A., Genabeek, J. Van. & Klerkx, M. (2008). Europese ervaringen met sociale economie. Werk voor gehandicapten en langdurig werklozen in sociale ondernemingen. Hoofddorp: TNO, 2008. Snellen, I. (2002). Conciliations of rationalities: the essence of public administration. Administrative of public administration. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 323- 346. Social enterprise NL (2012). Wat zijn de kansen en belemmeringen. www.social-entreprise.nl Sireau, N. (2011). Micro financing; how social entrepreneurs are building a new road to development. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited. Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (2007). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: sage. Thiel. S. Van. (2010). Bestuurskundig onderzoek: een methodische inleiding. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho

81

Todd, J. D. (1969). The risk management function in municipal government. The Journal of risk and Insurance. Vol. 36 (3). Pp. 285- 295. TNO. (2011). Sociale ondernemingen en werknemers met een arbeidsbeperking. 031.21018. Tuite, M.F. (1972). Towards a theory of decision-making. Inter- organizational decision making: p. 9-19. Twist, M.J. W., Steen, van der, M., Schulz, M. Cointre, Le, S. (2012). Exploring the relation between social entrepreneurs and government. Waal, A.A. & Kerklaan, L.A.F.M. (2004). De resultaat gerichte overheid. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers. Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: essays in sociology. edited and translated by H.H. Gerth C. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1978). Bureaucracy. Chapter 11 in economy and society. 1978. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Londen: University of California Press Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: an outline of interpretative sociology. New York: Bedminster Westhead, P., Wright, M. & Mcelwee, G. (2011). Entrepreneurship: perspective and cases. London: Pearson. Wijdevan, T. (2012). Doe-democratie. Over actief burgerschap in standswijken. Delft: Eburon. White, P.E. (1974). Intra- and inter-organizational studies. Administration and society. 6. 105- 152. WRR (2004). Bewijzen van goede dienstverlening. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. WRR. (2012). Vertrouwen in burgers. www.wrr.nl Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretative policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, sage Yanow, D. & Schwartz-Shea. P. (2006). Introduction. Interpretation and method: emperical research method and interpretative turn. D. Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe. Zahra, S. Gedajlovic, E. Neubaum, D. & Shulman, J.M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of business venturing 24 (5), 519- 5312. Sources:

82

Letter to the cabinet, 27th of June 2013. http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-enpublicaties/kamerstukken/2013/06/27/kamerbrief-over-participatiewet-en-quotum-na-sociaalakkoord.html Kamerbrief actualisering brief over decentralisaties op het terrein van ondersteuning participatie en Jeugd, 16-05-2013. http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-enpublicaties/kamerstukken/2013/05/16/kamerbrief-actualisering-brief-over-decentralisaties-ophet-terrein-van-ondersteuning-participatie-en-jeugd.html

83

Attachment I List of social enterprises Source: Social enterprise NL (Mark Hillen), Start foundation, normaalstezaak.nl, documentation of ministry of inferior and kingdom Relations. Municipality

Social firm

Activity

Target group

Amsterdam

Annie connect De prael

Call center

People with diverse background with distance to the labor market People from mental health care People with diverse background with distance to the labor market Physically or mentally disability Woman with a distance to the labor market Young people with Mental or physical disability

Amsterdam Amsterdam

Fifteen

Brewery Restaurant

Amsterdam Amsterdam

Tulpfietsen Rose of east

Bycycle company Handmade product

Amsterdam

Web service

Amsterdam

Swink webservices De lokatie

Amsterdam

Taxi- E

Green taxi

Amsterdam

Mensjelief

Café

Amsterdam Amsterdam

Rambles Restaurant Freud

Fashion Restaurant

People with diverse background with distance to the labor market People with diverse background with distance to the labor market People with diverse background with distance to the labor market Street and homeless youth People with

Almere Amersfoort

Tante Truus

Restaurant Restaurant

Mental disability Mental disability

Apeldoorn

Support & co

Supermarket

Apeldoorn Arhnem

Mobi bus

Bunschoten Den Bosch Den Haag Den Haag Den Hague

Autitalent

Bus company Courier and cleaning ICT

Nelis Vilt aan zee

Restaurant Taxi service Window clearer Design

Deventer

Parolo

Café

Enkhuizen

Soci com

Production

Emmen

Es Burg

De onthaasting

Mel service

In de roos Tap taxi

Bike shop Den Texelhoeve

Recycling company

Bike repair service Restaurant

People with diverse background with distance to the labor market 55+ People car People with difficulties finding a job (WAO) Autism Mental or physical disability Labor disability Youth with limited job opportunities Women with a distance to the labor market People with diverse background with distance to the labor market People with diverse background with distance to the labor market People from mental health care Physically or mentally disability

84

Elst Ermelo Gemonde Groningen

Droom

Groningen

De verbinding

Groesbeek

Buurtmarkt breedeweg Edelhout

Helmond Hilversum Houten

Puur Smaek

Hoorn Ittervoort

Ridderikhoff

Lievelde Nieuwkuijk Nijmegen Nieuwe-gein Oosterhout Oss Rotterdam

Rotterdam

Rotterdam Rotterdam Rotterdam Schijndel

Restaurant

Proeverij de Lunch café ontmoeting Webmaster ICT y Van hulley Clothing recycling company Production window frames Market

People that have difficulties leaving their homes

Women with a distance to the labor market of Deaf people Mental or physical disability

Production

Moroccan people with distance to labor market Mental disability Mental or physical disability

Restaurant

Eet cafe het Restaurant- café atelier WestromRisse Facilitair Hacron Groen Sathin

Labor disability People with a mental disability

Restaurant Cleaning company

Labor disability People with diverse background with distance to the labor market

Green projects

People with diverse background with distance to the labor market

Production of fabrics

People with diverse background with distance to the labor market People with a psychiatric background and mental disability

Brood op de Bakery and café plank Curam zorg Heath care Mode met een missie Macek Technica Electric Scooter Factory Beautiful people, fairtrade drinks Oli’s callcentre Wandschappen Granies finest

Fashion

Broodje apart

Foreign people with a distance to the labor market Woman with diverse background with distance to the labor market

Productiom Production scooters

People with diverse background with distance to the labor market of School drop-outs

Production of drinks

People with a mental disability

Call centre

Blind/ people with less visual ability

Art

People with diverse background with distance to the labor market

Fashion

Grandma’s

Restaurant

Physically or mentally disability

85

Tilburg

Prins heerlijk

Restaurant

Utrecht Utrecht

Zizo I did slow fashion Specialisterren Chain Logistics

Lunch café Fashion and design

Driekant fabriek Dineren in het donker

Utrecht Uden Zutphen Zeist

People with learning difficulties or (light) disability Mental disability Foreign people with a distance to the labor market

ICT projects

Autism and high intelligence

assemblage activities

People with diverse background with distance to the labor market

Bakery

20-30 People with diverse background with distance to the labor market Blind people

Restaurant

Attachment 2 Vragenlijst 1. Heeft u contact met sociaal ondernemers/ gemeenten? 2. Hoe verlopen de contacten op Financieel vlak? - Start- up geld - Subsidie - Huizen - Beleid? 3. Hoe verlopen de contacten op Legaal vlak? - Law - Permissions - Certificates - Beleid? - Ruimte in regels? Verantwoordelijk? 4. Hoe verlopen de contacten op communicatief vlak? - Information - Facilitating - Advising - Political support - Beleid? 5.Zijn er spanningen waar te nemen tussen u en de sociaal ondernemers/ gemeente? 6. Waardoor worden deze spanningen veroorzaakt? 7. Hoe zou u het contact omschrijven? 86

Attachment 3 Respondents Case municipality of Amsterdam -

Nienke Boesveldt, project leader at the department of residence, heath and society Rob van Veelen, mediator for civil initiatives and the municipality in Amsterdam east Hettie politiek, policy officer at the department of societal development De De zeven deugden – Garmt Haakma

Case municipality of Groningen -

Hans Ohlenroth, accountmanager at the department of economic affairs Ferdi Hendriks, accountmanager at the department of economic affairs Van Hulley – Jolijn Creutzberg

Case municipality of Utrecht -

Martin Bluijs, Policy advisor at department of societal development Specialisterren – Sjoerd van der Maaden & Ronald van Vliet

Case municipality of Den Haag -

Vincent Holleman, policy advisor at the department of economy and entrepreneurship Rob de Rooij, department of social affairs, employers point (werkgeverspunt) Stichting leren doen - Sander Eijkenbroek Vilt aan zee – Sandra Burggraaf

Case municipality of Rotterdam -

-

Perry van Rijn, policy advisor at the department of youth, education and society Wim Reijierse, administrative department (bestuursdienst) municipality of Rotterdam Rene Cannoo, project leader at the department of income and work Marja Talen, Job coach, department of social affairs and employability Rene Burghouwt, project leader of the social workplace Rotterdam Granies finest - Niek van Hengel Enviu, Walter aan de Wiel Oli’s callcenter. DNA Charlois – Ivo van der Baar

Background conversations Social system - Cemil Yilmaz, program coordinator of MVO/CSR at UWV 87

-

Bram Ligtenberg, klantmanager (WWB) social work plaza (werkplein), Capelle aan de IJssel. Jaap Smit, klantmanager, wide range of expertise, social work plaza (werkplein), Capelle aan de IJssel.

Municipalities - Frank van Geffen, municipality of Schijndel - Nico Paap, municipality of Amersfoort - Ypkje Grimm, municipality of Enschede - Geert Schmitz, municipality of Peel en Maas - Arno Schepers, municipality of Zeist - Judith Harmsen, municipality of Berkeland Social entrepreneurship - Jeanne Roozendaal, restaurant Broodje apart - Mark Hillen, owner of social enterprise NL, a platform for social entrepreneurs - Peter Linde, teacher social entrepreneurship USBO - Leeszaal west, Maurice Specht - Singeldingen, Marieke Hillen - Social powerhouse, Kristel Logge - Meeting social impact platform: werkconferentie sociale werkbedrijven & Social impact bonds - Jan van Betten, director of Nudge - Marije van der Berg, stadslab Leiden - Silvia de Ronde Bresser, Kracht in Nederland - Ingrid de Moel, Bouwen voor Sociaal - Eric Buckens, ABN AMRO - Paul Iske, ABN AMRO - Bas Ruter, Rabobank Attachment 4 CODINGSCHEME AREAS AND SUB-THEMES Municipalities

Economic area

Savings

-

Changes in the system

Less money Effectiveness and efficiency in social workplaces More people with a government payment Social entrepreneurs as a possible solution The social system cannot last in its current form

88

-

Structural subsidy

-

Social workplaces as a reservoir of all sorts of people Social system was not used to commercial thinking Social return on investment Structural ties connected to the company

-

Structural ties connected to the employees

-

Careful of misuse; political risk Social enterprises depend on municipalities Stimulation Not many subsidies available Start-up phase Careful of misuse; political risk Careful of unequal competition

One off subsidies

-

Local laws, rules and regulations

-

Rules concerning organization

-

Legal area

-

-

Rules concerning employees

-

-

In general no structural ties to company; false competition

-

Structural ties to employees - Strict procedures - Development of employees is main goal - Compartmentalization - Different policies UWV/municipalities

Zoning plans: Once determined not easily returned Interests of all other citizens in city Uniformity: no exceptions for individual cases Precise procedure; long procedures Political risks Politics changes laws. Civil servants will execute these laws Difficult to make exceptions in a bureaucracy

Compartmentalization; a label of a person refers to an organizations Protection of the rights of all citizens Considering the interest of all citizens Uniformity: no exceptions for individual cases Changing laws and system Integral decision Political risks: prevent misuse Politics changes laws. Civil servants will execute these laws Politics can give space within the rules Difficult to make exceptions in a bureaucracy

89

National laws, rules and regulations

-

Rules concerning organization

-

-

Rules concerning employees

-

Information

-

Giving information

-

Communicative area

-

Publicity

-

Collect information

-

Political attention to enterprise SE does not emphasize good work of government Showing good examples Thinking together with SE about new solutions / new partners

Network

-

-

BV/ Foundation Politics changes laws. Civil servants will execute these laws Difficult to make exceptions in a bureaucracy Environment Hygiene

ARBO: safety and wellbeing Influence of Ministry Changing laws and system Politics changes laws. Civil servants will execute these laws Difficult to make exceptions in a bureaucracy

The system is changing and SE need information about the changes Information about tenders

The council visits the SE to learn about the enterprise

90

Social enterprises Structural subsidies

-

Subsidies connected to the company -

-

Subsidies connected to the employees -

Economic area

-

One off subsidies

-

No subsidies

-

Investment

in -

A company should be healthy and not depend on government subsidies One cannot depend on subsidies and this is also not the goal of the company

Difficult to run a company with people with a distance to the labor market without subsidies Difficult to work with these employees due to the changes in the system: dependent on politics Municipalities distrust SE SE should be trusted by the government to receive subsidies SE experience that they have to proof their ability Employees are afraid to make mistakes, so that the government will cancel their government payment Government acts slowly Difficult to understand the system

A company should be healthy and not depend on government subsidies One- off subsidies are complicated and one is not certain of the result Companies should find solutions in the market to run the company The company should not be influenced by the criteria of the subsidy A company should be healthy and not depend on government subsidies Subsidies give the wrong incentive to employees Entrepreneurs should rather focus on the market than on the government The company wants to function independently Not aware of the existence of subsidies Invest in employees in

91

social goal

Local laws, rules and procedures

money and in time

-

Rules concerning organization

-

-

Rules concerning employees

-

Legal area

National laws, rules and procedures

-

Rules concerning organization

-

-

Rules concerning employees

-

Zoning plans; complicated and cause a delay in the business plan Difficult to understand The focus on uniformity makes it difficult to make changes SE like any other company

Due to legal system different public organizations for different employees Contracts with municipalities/ intermediate organizations/ UWV Municipality less strict than UWV Monitoring of employees Changes often, difficult to depend on. Uncertainty. In uncertain times public organizations can be paralyzed Difficult to understand the system The focus on uniformity makes it difficult to make changes The municipality is comparable to an island; does not know about the actual situation SE should be trusted; intermediate organizations can help Combinations of BV/ foundation Fit into administrative categories

ARBO can be difficult In general not much difficulties; like any other company

92

Information

-

-

Information is useful if it answers individual questions Boroughs are useful, closer contacts Municipality does not understand the initiative Raises the sales

-

Political attention

-

Communicative area

Publicity

-

Network

-

Communication with different organizations

Politicians can use the promotion of SE for their own interest Political attention can be useful if politicians raise attention in the society for the enterprise; rise of sales

A civil servants can link SE to right person Intermediate organizations are useful in the network Many people in own network that help; do not need network of municipality Difficult to maintain relations with different organizations

Attachment 5 CODINGSCHEME LOGICS Municipalities Logics Economic logics

Legal logic

Democratic logic

Characteristics/ Key terms - Efficiency: maximizing cost-benefit equation - Effectiveness: achievement of goals - Performance: the output of the organization - Targets: achievement of goals - Budget cuts/savings - Integrity: spending public money in the right way - Equality - Aversion of political risks - Impersonal rules and procedures - Rules are applied universally; no regard for personal characteristics - Legal security of all individuals - No arbitrary acts; clarity and consistency - Supremacy of the law - Formalization and bureaucracy: written rules and regulations - Relevant legal categories - Legitimate position - Responsive to society

93

-

Social enterprises Logics Entrepreneurial logics

Social welfare logic

Public sector logic

Accountability Responsibility Transparent Maximize votes Media scrutiny

Characteristics/ Key terms - Chances in the market - Demand – supply equation - Recognition of opportunities - Imagination and creativity - Maximizing impact, social and economic - Optimalization of processes in the organization - Efficiency - Effectiveness - Dissatisfaction with status quo - Maximizing social impact - Stimulated by personal experience - Recognition of social needs - Need for change - Passion - Sustainable change - Corporate with public actors - Understanding public sector and social system - Adapt to public sector: ensuring fairness, transparency, democratic governance - Institutional acts - Corporate with a complex network of stakeholders - Depend on public and political decision making

94

95

Overheidsparticipatie overdacht

Daphne Bressers Master Publiek Management Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Eerste lezer: Prof. Dr. Mark van Twist Tweede lezer: Prof. Dr. Steven Van de Walle

96

Voorwoord Dit onderzoeksverslag is geschreven voor de bestuurskundige master ‘publiek management’ aan de Erasmus Universiteit te Rotterdam. Dit verslag is een aanvulling op en uitdieping van de scriptie voor de bestuurskundige onderzoeksmaster in ‘public administration and organizational science’ aan de Universiteit van Utrecht. Daar waar de scriptie voor de onderzoeksmaster ingaat op de interactie tussen sociale ondernemers (markt) en de overheid, zal dit onderzoeksverslag de interactie tussen de samenleving en de overheid scherper in kaart brengen. Dit onderzoeksverslag belicht dus een andere kant van de driehoek overheid - markt - samenleving, en zal daarnaast ingaan op de verschillende rollen die gemeenten aan kunnen nemen in de nieuwe verhoudingen. De overheid krijgt met twee verschillende ontwikkelingen te maken. Aan de ene kant is de overheid genoodzaakt taken over te hevelen naar de samenleving, een ontwikkeling die ook wel te beschrijven is als vermaatschappelijking. Aan de andere kant ondernemen burgers, zonder tussenkomst van bestuurders, meer activiteiten in het publieke domein. Deze ontwikkelingen kunnen op elkaar aansluiten; daar waar de overheid zich terugtrekt kunnen burgers dit gat opvullen. Desondanks blijken de nieuwe verhoudingen allerlei vragen met zich mee te brengen waar gemeenten antwoord op moeten geven. Welke (publieke) taken kunnen we overlaten aan de samenleving? Welke taken is de burger bereid om over te nemen? Welke activiteiten vanuit de samenleving kunnen we volledig loslaten? Wat is de rol van de democratie nog binnen deze ontwikkeling? En nog vele andere vragen die tot interessante en fundamentele discussies leiden. Van 4 februari tot 27 juni 2013 heb ik stage gelopen bij het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties. Ik heb hier met vele gemeenten mogen spreken, bij verschillende congressen met gemeenten aanwezig mogen zijn en mee mogen schrijven aan de kabinetsnota over de ‘doe -democratie’. Deze ervaringen hebben me veel geleerd over de veranderende verhoudingen tussen de overheid en de samenleving. De discussies hebben me veel nieuwe inzichten gebracht over de werkwijzen van gemeenten. Deze ervaringen hebben geleid tot de ideeën die aan de basis staan van dit onderzoek.

97

1. Introductie De gemeente Berkelland stond een aantal jaar geleden voor een grote bezuinigingsopgave. Hieruit ontstond een fundamentele politieke discussie over de publieke taken van de gemeente, bijvoorbeeld over de toekomst van de bibliotheek en het zwembad die met publiek geld gefinancierd waren. De gemeente besloot om de contracten met de bibliotheek op te zeggen en een budget voor ‘leesbevordering’ te reserveren in plaats van een budget voor ‘de bibliotheek’. Iedereen in de gemeente met een idee ter bevordering van de leesvaardigheid binnen de gemeente kon aanspraak doen op het budget door middel van een aanbestedingsprocedure. Er wordt bij het afstaan van publieke taken dus niet meer alleen gekeken naar de markt, zoals in de jaren 80 het geval was (Skelcher, 2007; Van Thiel, 2001), maar de burger lijkt ook steeds vaker een oplossing te zijn voor het overnemen van publieke taken (Cook, 2007; Marinetto, 2003; Verhoeven & Tolkens, 2013; Uitermark & Van Beek, 2010). Het overdragen van publieke taken aan de maatschappij kan ook wel omschreven worden als vermaatschappelijking (Steen et al., 2013). Tegelijkertijd ontstaan er vanuit de samenleving initiatieven ter bevordering van de leesvaardigheid, zonder dat de overheid daarom heeft gevraagd. Een voorbeeld hiervan is de voorleesexpres, een groep vrijwilligers die werkt aan de lees- en taalvaardigheid van gezinnen met een taalachterstand. Een halfjaar lang komt er wekelijks een vaste voorlezer bij de gezinnen langs. Bottom-up nemen burgers steeds meer initiatief om bij te dragen aan de publieke zaak. Deze ontwikkeling waarbij burgers het heft in eigen hand nemen is ook wel te beschrijven als actief burgerschap (Farrelly, 2009; Bakker et al., 2012). De verhoudingen tussen de overheid en de burger zijn dus aan het veranderen. Deze nieuwe verhoudingen zijn grofweg in te delen in twee ontwikkelingen, met aan de ene kant de top-down ontwikkeling die te beschrijven is als ‘vermaatschappelijking’, waarbij de overheid steeds meer taken en verantwoordelijkheden overdraagt aan de gemeenschap, en aan de andere kant burgers die bottom-up steeds meer ondernemen. De term ‘actief burgerschap’ wordt in verschillende contexten gebruikt. Actief burgerschap wordt vaak gebruikt in de trend van vermaatschappelijking. Actief burgerschap kan dan een invulling zijn van de vermaatschappelijking en het overdragen van taken aan de samenleving bevorderen. Actief burgerschap wordt zo gezien als een ontwikkeling die top-down gestuurd kan worden om doelen te bereiken. In dit onderzoek zal actief burgerschap echter worden begrepen als een bottom-up initiatief dat vanuit de burger zelf komt. Deze veranderende verhouding tussen de overheid en de burgers wordt aangeduid met vele termen, zoals de vitale samenleving, burgerkracht, energieke samenleving, zelfsturing, actief burgerschap, doe-democratie, doe-het-zelf-democratie, maatschappelijk initiatief en burgerinitiatief (Kabinetsnota, 2013). In Nederland zijn er recentelijk verschillende rapporten verschenen die de discussie over de nieuwe verhoudingen hebben verbreed. Zo heeft de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid (2012) het rapport ‘Vertrouwen in burgers’ geschreven en de Raad voor Openbaar Bestuur (2012) het rapport ‘Loslaten in vertrouwen’ uitgebracht. Ook het SCP (2009) en de Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling (2011) kwamen met rapporten over het thema. In juli 2013 is daarnaast de kabinetsnota over de ‘doe98

democratie’ verschenen. Het thema lijkt dus te leven in Nederland. De trend is niet alleen in Nederland gaande, maar bijvoorbeeld ook in Canada (Ilcan and Basok, 2004), Verenigde staten (Bloom and Kilgore, 2003), Zweden (Lundstorm, 1996) en Verenigd Koninkrijk (Acheson, 2001), aldus Verhoeven & Tolkens (2013). De ontwikkelingen van actief burgerschap en vermaatschappelijking brengen een andere rol voor de overheid ten opzichte van de burger met zich mee. Vrielink & Verhoeven (2011) constateren twee beleidslijnen voor de invulling van de rol van de overheid, namelijk de liberale beleidslijn en de communitaristische beleidslijn. Het nationale en liberale beleid stelt dat de overheid burgers meer los moet laten in hun activiteiten en dat de overheid zich steeds minder moet mengen in activiteiten die burgers ondernemen. De overheid moet slechts ‘zorgen voor’ voorzieningen die het burgers makkelijker maken om activiteiten te ondernemen. De tweede, meer specifieke, beleidslijn is er op gericht om te ‘zorgen dat’ burgers meer onderling actief worden en zo meer ‘meedoen’ en meer verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor publieke taken. Deze meer specifieke beleidslijn is volgens Vrielink & Verhoeven (2011) ook wel te kenmerken als een communitarische opvatting van burgerschap. Deze twee beleidslijnen zorgen volgens Vrielink & Verhoeven voor een paradox waar gemeenten mee moeten werken. Gemeenten moeten aan de ene kant initiatieven loslaten en aan de andere kant strategisch initiatieven in de samenleving stimuleren en opwekken. Verschillende raden proberen grip te krijgen op wat de nieuwe verhoudingen betekenen voor de rol van de overheid (WRR, 2012; ROB, 2012; RMO, 2012). Om ordening aan te brengen binnen de veranderende verhoudingen heeft de Raad voor Openbaar Bestuur ‘een overheidsparticipatietrap’ ontwikkeld met vijf rollen die overheden aan kunnen nemen in relatie tot burgers. De Raad voor Openbaar Bestuur (ROB) is een adviesorgaan van de regering een het parlement, maar daarnaast wordt het advies ook gebruikt door lagere overheden (VNG, 2013). De ROB heeft de volgende overheidsparticipatietrap onderscheiden: Reguleren Regisseren Stimuleren Faciliteren Loslaten

Figuur 1. De overheidsparticipatietrap. Bron: ROB (2012). Bij de bovenste trede van de trap geeft de overheid de minste ruimte aan burgers en bij de onderste trede krijgen burgers de meeste ruimte om activiteiten naar eigen inzicht in te vullen. Of zoals de ROB (2012) stelt: ‘De vitaliteit in de samenleving krijgt meer ruimte als de overheid de overheidsparticipatietrap zo min mogelijk beklimt.’ (p.68). Ook geeft de ROB aan dat er niet een ideale rol voor de overheid is; per situatie zal de politiek en de raad moeten bepalen voor welke rol zij kiezen. De participatietrap bevat een tweetal vooronderstellingen: 99

1. De overheid kiest één trede in een bepaalde situatie: dit impliceert dat de treden los staan van elkaar; 2. De treden sluiten logisch op elkaar aan: dit impliceert dat er een orde bestaat binnen de treden. De vooronderstellingen van de overheidsparticipatietrap zijn nog niet eerder systematisch onderzocht, terwijl het advies van de ROB en de daarin voorgestelde participatietrap wordt gebruikt door verschillende overheden (VNG, 2013; kabinetsnota Doe- Democratie, 2013). In dit onderzoek zullen de vooronderstellingen van overheidsparticipatietrap worden onderzocht aan de hand van negen interviews met ambtenaren die door het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (Team Burgerschap) zijn aangemerkt als ‘koplopers’ op het gebied van de veranderende verhoudingen tussen burgers en de overheid. Deze koplopers zijn in Nederland het verst op het gebied van ‘minder overheid, meer burger’, een ontwikkeling die zowel vermaatschappelijking als actief burgerschap omvat. Het Team Burgerschap houdt zich binnen het Ministerie bezig met de verhoudingen tussen de samenleving en de overheid en het optimaliseren van de relatie daartussen en heeft dus als taak om op de hoogte blijven van de ontwikkelingen op dit gebied. Dit team heeft de koplopers geïdentificeerd aan de hand van intensieve contacten en bijeenkomsten met verschillende gemeenten rondom het thema. Ook voor de kabinetsnota over de 'doedemocratie’ en voor het tijdschrift ‘Tijdschrift over de veranderende relatie tussen samenleving en overheid’, thema: gemeente en gemeenschap heeft het Ministerie gemeenten geïdentificeerd die ten opzichte van andere gemeenten veranderingen hebben doorgevoerd (zowel politiek als ambtelijk) op het gebied van vermaatschappelijking en actief burgerschap. De geselecteerde ambtenaren hebben binnen de gemeente de taak om aan deze nieuwe ontwikkeling vorm te geven. In dit onderzoek zal de volgende onderzoeksvraag worden beantwoord: Hoe geven de koploopgemeenten vorm aan de verschillende rollen van de participatietrap, kloppen de vooronderstellingen gemaakt door de Raad voor Openbaar Bestuur met de werkelijke situatie in de koploopgemeenten, en zo niet; kan er een ander model worden voorgesteld?

2. Theoretisch kader 2.1 Verhoudingen tussen de overheid en de burger De veranderende verhoudingen tussen de overheid en de burger zijn niet alleen van deze tijd, ook in de laatste decennia zijn de verhoudingen aanzienlijk veranderd. Lenos et al. (2006) heeft drie generaties onderscheiden op het gebied van de verhoudingen tussen overheid en actieve burgers. De eerste generatie kwam in Nederland op in de jaren ‘70. Burgers kregen steeds meer formele en directe inspraak; zo is het referendum in deze periode in de wet opgenomen. Burgers mochten meer reageren op het beleid dat door de overheid werd gemaakt. De tweede generatie kwam op in de jaren ’90. Burgers mochten door interactieve beleidsvorming en coproductie steeds meer participeren in de beleids- en besluitvorming. Bij 100

deze tweede generatie is de burgerparticipatieladder ontworpen. Deze ladder bevat vijf treden: informeren, raadplegen, adviseren, coproduceren en (mee)beslissen. Meebeslissen is de hoogste trede waarbij burgers de meeste zeggenschap krijgen. Van de gemeente werd verwacht dat zij de ladder steeds verder beklommen en dat zij steeds meer overlieten aan burgers. Burgers kregen dus al in een vroege fase de gelegenheid om mee te denken in het beleid. Een voorbeeld hiervan is dat de gemeente samen met de burgers een bezuinigingsplan opstelt. De derde generatie burgerparticipatie kwam op rond de eeuwwisseling. Van de Wijdeven et al. (2013) geven aan dat burgers het heft in eigen hand nemen en ideeën zelf tot uitvoer brengen. Deze vorm van participatie staak haaks op de voorgaande vormen van participatie, omdat hier de burger haar ideeën niet via het beleid van de overheid tot uitvoer brengt, maar het heft in eigen hand neemt. Zij hebben rechtstreeks invloed op het maatschappelijk middenveld (WRR, 2012). Dit maakt dat in deze generatie niet de burgers aan moeten sluiten bij de procedures van de overheid, maar de overheid moet aansluiten bij de initiatieven die opkomen vanuit de samenleving. De derde generatie wordt daarom ook wel omschreven als overheidsparticipatie in plaats van burgerparticipatie (ROB, 2012). Deze drie generaties bestaan naast, zoals generaties in families ook naast elkaar kunnen bestaan (Van de Wijdeven et al., 2013). Deze drie generaties duiden dus op de drie rollen van burgers ten opzichte van de overheid. De ontwikkeling van vermaatschappelijking is van een andere aard en is bezien vanuit het perspectief van de overheid. Daar waar de overheid in de jaren ’80 taken overhevelde naar de markt, wordt er nu steeds meer gekeken naar de burger voor oplossingen in het publieke domein (Kuiper et al., 2012). Op deze manier is actief burgerschap niet alleen iets wat vanuit de burger komt, maar wat ook gewenst is vanuit de overheid. Deze ontwikkeling loopt dus gelijk op met de ontwikkeling van de derde generatie burgerparticipatie.

2.2 Actief burgerschap Het begrip burgerschap wordt in veel verschillende contexten gebruikt. Zoals eerder vermeld kan actief burgerschap worden bezien vanuit de trend van de vermaatschappelijking als een gewenste vorm van burgerschap. Door burgers actief te maken kan de overheid namelijk haar doelen bereiken. In dit onderzoek zal actief burgerschap echter op een andere manier worden benaderd: het wordt bezien als een ontwikkeling vanuit onderop. Actief burgerschap duidt op ontwikkeling waarbij burgers zelf het heft in eigen hand nemen zonder dat de overheid daarom heeft gevraagd. De WRR (2012) geeft aan dat burgers steeds mondiger worden en een steeds directere invloed willen hebben op het maatschappelijke middenveld zonder tussenkomst van bestuurders. Het is moeilijk een eenduidige definitie van het begrip burgerschap te formuleren. Het begrip burgerschap kan met termen zoals ‘goed’, ‘volwaardig’ en ‘verantwoordelijk’ of ‘actief’ een andere betekenis met zich mee brengen (Van de Wijdeven, 2012). In dit onderzoek zal de definitie van Van den Brink (2007) worden gehanteerd: ‘Burgerschap verwijst naar het vermogen en de bereidheid om zich op één of meerdere gebieden van het maatschappelijke leven in te zetten voor de publieke zaak’. Actief burgerschap wijst dan ook op de inzet van burgers voor de publieke zaak op één of meerdere gebieden van het maatschappelijke leven. 101

Actief burgerschap kent vele vormen. Bakker et al. (2012) geven aan dat het moeilijk is hier zicht op te krijgen. Burgers kunnen individueel of in groepsverband een initiatief opzetten en de initiatieven komen op alle terreinen voor. Zo zijn er burgers die zelf het initiatief nemen bijvoorbeeld op het gebied van voedsel, energie, sociale cohesie, opleiding en ontwikkeling (Brannan et al., 2006). Wijdeven et al. (2013) geven aan dat de vele vormen het begrip ook karakteriseren. Ze komen van onderop op lokaal niveau, hebben daardoor een plaatselijke invulling en zijn verbonden met het persoonlijke leven van burgers. Daarnaast geven Denters et al. (2013) aan dat deze vormen ook vaak weer snel veranderen. De WRR (2012) vergelijkt de ontwikkeling met een mierenhoop die één kant op te lijkt te bewegen. Als men het echter van dichtbij bekijkt, gaat elke mier een andere richting op, maar stemt zijn daden wel voortdurend af met de andere mieren. Bakker et al. (2012) geven aan dat er een aantal kenmerken zijn die actief burgerschap karakteriseren. Ten eerste is het een collectieve actie. Ondanks dat een persoon het idee bedenkt, is het meestal een groep die het idee verder uitwerkt en uitvoert. Daarnaast is het idee zelforganiserend: de doelen en de uitvoering worden bepaald door de burgers zelf. Ook is een burgerinitiatief in principe onafhankelijk van publieke organisaties en functioneert het onafhankelijk. Vaak vindt het initiatief plaats in wijkgemeenschappen en heeft daarom ook vaak betrekking op veiligheid, leefbaarheid, sociale activiteiten, kunst en sport. Actief burgerschap kan in alle lagen van de bevolking voorkomen, maar toch wijzen verschillende auteurs (Verba et al., 1995; Bovens & Wille, 2011; Denters et al., 2013) erop dat de hoogopgeleide burgers, die daarnaast ook man, blank en van middelbare leeftijd zijn, oververtegenwoordigd zijn bij de actieve participatie van burgers. Het SCP (2009) geeft aan dat Nederland altijd al een rijke traditie in vrijwilligerswerk heeft gehad. Zo werd er bijvoorbeeld na de tweede wereldoorlog in kerkverband veel vrijwilligerswerk verricht, maar ook na de ontzuiling is het aantal leden dat als vrijwilliger is aangesloten bij een maatschappelijke organisatie redelijk constant gebleven. Van de Wijdeven et al. (2013) geven echter aan dat recent steeds meer burgers los van maatschappelijke organisaties zelfstandig het initiatief nemen. Ook de WRR (2012) geeft aan dat burgers steeds vaker zonder tussenkomst van bestuurders activiteiten uit willen voeren. Dat burgers meer zelfstandig initiatieven ondernemen wordt door verschillende auteurs op een andere manier onderbouwd. Bornstein & Davis (2010) geven aan dat een hoger opleidingsniveau en toegenomen toegang tot informatie ertoe hebben geleid dat burgers meer zelf ondernemen. Rosenthal (2002) geeft aan dat er sprake is van een vertrouwensbreuk waardoor burgers minder vertrouwen hebben dat politici hun problemen op een snelle en effectieve manier oplossen. Van de Walle et al. (2008) tonen echter aan dat er geen bewijs is voor een structurele daling van het publieke vertrouwen in de overheid. De ROB geeft daarnaast aan dat met de verzuiling en individualisering de kerk of gelijksoortige verenigen als intermediair tussen de overheid en de burger zijn verdwenen. De overheid kan hierdoor de burger moeilijker bereiken en het is moeilijker om beleidsdoelen op individueel niveau te bereiken, wat tot minder tevredenheid leidt onder burgers. Maurice Specht (2012) spreekt van een kritisch enthousiasme onder burgers. Het enthousiasme en de energie waarmee burgers deelnemen in de nieuwe democratische vormen is aanstekelijk. Als men dit enthousiasme kritischer gaat bekijken, is er een kritische houding bij burgers te vinden ten opzichte van bepaalde situaties in de samenleving. Internationaal wordt het ‘CLEAR-model' veelvuldig 102

gebruikt om te begrijpen waarom burgers participeren in de samenleving (Lowndes et al., 2006) en bestaat uit vijf factoren: ‘Can do’, Like to’, ‘Enabled to’, ‘Asked to’ en ‘Responded to’.

2.3 Vermaatschappelijking Vanaf de jaren ’80 lijken de verhoudingen tussen de overheid, de markt en de samenleving te veranderen. Met de oliecrises van 1973 en 1982 liep de verzorgingsstaat tegen haar grenzen aan; er moest bezuinigd worden. De hoop werd gevestigd op de markt, die op een efficiënte en effectieve manier in publieke waarden kon verzorgen (ROB, 2012; Kuiper et al., 2012). Publieke taken werden geprivatiseerd en de managementbenadering van het ‘new public management’ werd ingevoerd in publieke organisaties (Skelcher, 2007; Barzelay, 2001). De ROB (2012) beschrijft dat na de eeuwwisseling een eind lijkt te komen in het vertrouwen in de markt. Zeker na de kredietcrisis en de financiële crisis komt het marktdenken in een negatief daglicht te staan. De focus verschuift naar de maatschappij en de burgers. Steeds vaker wordt gekeken naar wat burgers zelf kunnen en wordt gepoogd burgers meer verantwoordelijkheid te laten nemen voor de eigen omgeving. Zo werden in het regeerakkoord van het kabinet Rutte I strategieën omschreven die tot een compactere overheid zouden moeten leiden. Deze overheid zou efficiënter, effectiever en kleiner moeten zijn. Een van de strategieën om tot een kleinere overheid te komen, is door in de beleidsuitvoering meer ruimte te geven aan de samenleving. Burgers zouden bijvoorbeeld meer betrokken kunnen worden bij de beleidsuitvoering (ROB, 2012). Diverse auteurs geven aan dat in beleid de nadruk steeds meer wordt gelegd op de eigen verantwoordelijkheid van burgers met betrekking tot werk, gezondheid en financiën (Borgi & Van Berkel, 2007; Fuller et al., 2008). De trend van vermaatschappelijking is geen nieuwe en unieke trend. De trend is ook terug te vinden in onder andere Canada, de Verenigde Staten, Zweden en het Verenigd Koninkrijk (Verhoeven & Tolkens, 2013). In de afgelopen twee decennia lijkt er sprake te zijn van een heroriëntatie op de kerntaken van de overheid. Er wordt steeds vaker van burgers verwacht dat zij door middel van vrijwilligerswerk taken uitvoeren die voorheen tot overheidstaken behoorden, zoals het geven van steun en zorg aan kwetsbare groepen in de samenleving. Ook Uitermark en Van Beek (2010) geven aan dat de overheid actieve burgers steeds vaker als verlengstuk van beleid heeft gemaakt. Trommel (2010) plaatst een kritische noot bij het beleid tot een compactere overheid en stelt dat door het besef dat de overheid niet meer alles zelf op kan lossen het geloof in de maakbaarheid logischerwijs af zou moeten nemen. Trommel stelt dat een tegengestelde ontwikkeling gaande is in het beleid om burgers meer eigen verantwoordelijkheid te geven, en zo lijkt de maakbaarheidsidealen juist te worden aangesterkt.

103

De ontwikkelingen van actief burgerschap en vermaatschappelijking zijn door Van der Steen et al. (2013) in de onderstaande figuur overzichtelijke weergeven. Overheid

Vermaatschappelijking

Actief burgerschap

Samenleving

Privatisering

Sociaal ondernemerschap

Markt

Figuur 2. Veranderende verhoudingen tussen overheid, markt en gemeentschap. Bron: Van der Steen et al. (2013)

2.4 Twee beleidslijnen Oude Vrielink & Verhoeven (2011) wijzen op de recente en groeiende belangstelling van beleidsmakers voor het fenomeen actief burgerschap, een begrip dat dus zowel duidt op de trend van vermaatschappelijking als op de bottom-up initiatieven. In het beleidsveld lijken twee tegengestelde beleidslijnen te bestaan. De eerste lijn is een generieke beleidslijn waarin de overheid vertrouwt op het initiatief en de creativiteit van burgers om actief te zijn in het publieke domein. Ook de WRR (2012) wijst met haar publicatie ‘Vertrouwen in burgers’, de ROB met ‘Loslaten in vertrouwen’ en de RMO met ‘Terugtreden is vooruitzien’ dat de overheid meer moet loslaten en meer vertrouwen moet tonen in burgers. Ambtenaren moeten een aanvullende houding hebben in plaats van een invullende houding, zoals Van de Wijdeven en Geurtz (2009) beargumenteren. Deze generieke beleidslijn is ingevuld vanuit een liberale positie ten aanzien van burgers. Vanuit dit perspectief worden burgers gezien als individuen die naar eigen inzicht hun leven inrichten. De burger heeft relatief veel rechten en weinig plichten. Mits een burger zich aan de wet- en regelgeving houdt, mag de burger veel zelf ondernemen (Beiner, 1995; Van Gunsteren, 1998; Dekker & De Hart, 2002). Van de Wijdeven et al. (2013) geven aan dat de stelling binnen deze beleidslijn is: ‘Laat burgers een eigen verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor de eigen en de publieke zaak en zit daar als overheid zo min mogelijk in de weg’ (p. 28). Ambtenaren moeten dus een stapje terug zetten, op hun handen zitten en pas stappen ondernemen als de burger daarom vraagt. Door ruimte te geven aan het initiatief zullen er meer initiatieven ontstaan, zo is de vooronderstelling. Anderzijds is er een meer specifieke beleidslijn. Deze legt de nadruk op ‘meedoen’ en ‘eigen verantwoordelijkheid’ (Oude Vrielink & Verhoeven, 2011). De kracht van de burgers wordt gebruikt om het beleid uit te voeren (Uitermark en Van Beek, 2010). Zo wordt de kracht bijvoorbeeld gebruikt ter bevordering van de sociale cohesie en de leefbaarheid in de wijk (Bakker et al., 2012). Dit beleid lijkt een meer communitaristische benadering van het begrip burgerschap te hebben. In het communitaristische perspectief op burgerschap staat niet 104

het individu maar de gemeenschap centraal. Individueel burgerschap is dus als het ware een onderdeel van een groter geheel. Door burgers actiever te maken zullen zij gezamenlijk meer publieke problemen aanpakken en zal de gemeenschap als geheel daarvan profiteren. Van de Wijdeven et al. (2013) geven aan dat de stelling binnen deze beleidslijn is: ‘Zorg dat burgers onderling actief worden om de sociale gemeenschap te versterken en problemen daarmee aan te pakken’ (p.28). Gemeenten lijken dus te moeten balanceren tussen de twee verschillende uitgangspunten en in de juiste situatie de juiste rol te moeten kiezen.

2.5 De rollen van de overheid De verhoudingen tussen de burgers en de overheid veranderen. De ROB (2012) heeft binnen deze ontwikkeling vijf rollen geïdentificeerd die gemeenten aan kunnen nemen in de nieuwe situatie. De vijf rollen zijn: reguleren, regisseren, stimuleren, faciliteren en loslaten (zie figuur 1). Deze rollen worden echter zeer beknopt toegelicht in het rapport van de ROB (2012). In een regulerende rol bepaalt de overheid door wet- en regelgeving of een initiatief toegestaan kan worden. De overheid kan ook processen regisseren; hierbij hebben andere partijen ook een rol, maar de overheid behoudt de regie in het proces. De overheid kan bijvoorbeeld een regisserende rol aannemen door verschillende partijen bij elkaar te brengen. Het is in dit geval dus de overheid die andere partijen betrekt en de overheid neemt dus het initiatief. De overheid kan ook een stimuleerde rol aannemen; hierbij bedenkt de overheid zelf het beleid, maar laat de uitvoering aan andere partijen over. De overheid probeert andere partijen over te halen om een taak op zich te nemen. Ook bij deze rol neemt de overheid dus het initiatief. Wanneer de overheid een faciliterende rol heeft, is het initiatief gekomen vanuit de samenleving en steunt de overheid het initiatief waar nodig. De overheid ziet er belang in om het initiatief mogelijk te maken. De laatste stap op de participatietrap is loslaten. Dit is het geval wanneer de overheid het initiatief vanuit de samenleving volledig loslaat zonder enige vorm van bemoeienis. Over het thema loslaten is onlangs veel gepubliceerd. De overheid moet ruimte geven aan de ‘vitaliteit’ (ROB, 2012) en ‘energie’ (Hajer, 2011) van de samenleving. De rollen van reguleren, regisseren en stimuleren zijn er dus opgericht om te zorgen dat burgers binnen bepaalde kaders activiteiten ondernemen of om activiteiten uit te lokken. Burgers worden dus uitgelokt om zelf meer te ondernemen in het publieke domein. Deze manier van interactie met burgers is dus sturend en past binnen het communitaristische standpunt, omdat burgers worden gezien als een onderdeel van de gemeenschap die gezamenlijk tot de realisatie van publieke waarden moeten leiden. De rollen van faciliteren en loslaten wijzen op een terugtredende interactie van de overheid. De overheid ondersteunt alleen in de gevallen waarin het initiatief daarom vraagt. De overheid mengt zich zo min mogelijk in het initiatief, het individu staat centraal. Deze rollen passen daarom binnen het liberale standpunt. De ROB (2012) heeft in de trap niet duidelijk gedefinieerd of de rollen verschillen per initiatief. Als de gemeente de groenvoorziening overlaat aan een bepaalde wijk (vermaatschappelijking) of burgers nemen vanuit eigen initiatief de verantwoordelijkheid voor plantsoenen in de wijk (actief burgerschap), dan zal dit een andere rol voor de gemeente met zich mee brengen. De gemeente kan in beide gevallen de groenvoorziening ‘loslaten’ en 105

zich niet (meer) mengen in de groenvoorziening. Gemeenten kunnen dus zelf bepalen vanuit welke invalshoek zij een bepaalde rol invullen. Van de Wijdeven et al. (2013) wijzen erop dat ambtenaren per situatie moeten kijken wat een geschikte rol is. Ook andere auteurs wijzen op de contextafhankelijke rolbepaling van de overheid (WRR, 2012, ROB, 2012, Oude Vrielink & Verhoeven, 2011). Uyterlinde et al. (2007) stellen dat er met deze flexibele rolbepaling veel gevraagd wordt van de publieke professional. Zo dienen zij enerzijds initiatieven te ‘empoweren’ en uit te lokken en anderzijds moeten zij initiatieven op een gepaste manier faciliteren. Het is in de praktijk voor ambtenaren vooral een zoektocht naar een passende rol (Van de Wijdeven, 2013, ROB, 2012; van der Steen et al., 2013).

3. Methoden 3.1 Methoden Voor dit onderzoek is gebruikgemaakt van een kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethode in de vorm van interviews. Voor deze interviews is een topiclist (bijlage I) geformuleerd waarin de verschillende rollen worden besproken die de overheid ten opzichte van initiatieven kan aannemen. De respondent kreeg de ruimte om binnen de kaders van het gespreksonderwerp andere facetten van het onderwerp toe te lichten. Om de positie van de gemeenten beter te leren kennen in een onderzoek dat vooral exploratief van aard is, is het gebruik van interviews geschikt (Field, 2009; Boeije, 2010; Silverman, 2006). In de interviews kon de context en de geschiedenis van de gemeenten worden toegelicht, wat een beter inzicht geeft in de huidige werkwijzen van de gemeenten.

3.2 Casusselectie Deze interviews zijn gehouden in het kader van het project ‘De kennismakelaar: ruimte voor initiatief’ van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties. Dit project heeft als doel meer zicht te krijgen op de ontwikkelingen in het brede kader van ‘minder overheid, meer burger’. Voor het project is gesproken met diverse organisaties die burgerinitiatieven steunen (Nudge, Greenwish, Kracht in Nederland, Bouwen voor Sociaal, Stadslab Leiden) en banken die bezig zijn met de ondersteuning van burgerinitiatieven in financiële zin (ABN AMRO, Rabobank). Ook is er gesproken met 9 ambtenaren binnen ‘koploopgemeenten’. Het team burgerschap binnen het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties heeft deze gemeenten geïdentificeerd. Deze zogenaamde ‘koploopgemeenten' zijn volgens het ministerie met meest vooruitstrevend in de ontwikkeling van ‘minder overheid, meer burger’. Het team burgerschap houdt zich bezig met de verhoudingen tussen de samenleving en de overheid en het optimaliseren van de relatie daartussen. Het team burgerschap heeft deze koplopers op verschillende manieren geïdentificeerd: - Intensieve contacten met verschillende gemeenten die zich bezig houden met de zogenoemde transitie ‘minder overheid, meer burger’; - Twee maandelijkse leerkringen waarin vraagstukken rondom de transitie worden besproken;

106

Verschillende projecten waarin, in samenwerking met de VNG, ‘best practices’ werden verzameld voor de vermelding in het tijdschrift ‘Tijdschrift over de veranderende relatie tussen samenleving en overheid’. - De kabinetsnota over de doe-democratie, waarin voorbeelden zijn verzameld van gemeenten die op een vernieuwende wijze bezig zijn met de verhoudingen tussen overheid en samenleving. De koploopgemeenten zijn dus vastgesteld aan de hand van de ervaringen en vaststelling van het team burgerschap dat zich bezig houdt met de begeleiding van gemeenten in de transitie. -

3.3 Casus beschrijving De volgende acht gemeenten zijn geïdentificeerd: Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Enschede, Peel en Maas, Amersfoort, Berkelland, Zeist en Schijndel. De interviews met deze gemeenten dienen als basis voor dit onderzoek. De andere interviews zullen gebruikt worden als achtergrondinformatie. De geselecteerde gemeenten verschillende in grootte en context. Met dit gegeven zal rekening worden gehouden in het onderzoek. Binnen de geselecteerde gemeenten zijn ambtenaren geselecteerd (bijlage II) die de taak hebben om de nieuwe verhoudingen tussen de overheid en de burgers binnen een gemeente vorm te geven. Binnen de gemeente Rotterdam is gesproken met een beleidsadviseur binnen de bestuursdienst van de gemeente. De bestuursdienst binnen de gemeente helpt de politieke ambities te vertalen naar beleid voor de stad. Binnen de bestuursdienst worden dus verschillende beleidsvraagstukken behandeld. Binnen de gemeente Amsterdam is gesproken met een beleidsadviseur van de Dienst Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling (DMO). Onder DMO valt kunst & cultuur, onderwijs, jeugd, sport, burgerschap en diversiteit. De taak van de dienst is in brede zin om te zorgen dat alle burgers participeren (www.amsterdam.nl). Binnen de deelgemeente Amsterdam-Oost is gesproken met een participatiemakelaar. Deze participatiemakelaar schakelt tussen initiatieven van burgers en de (deel)gemeente. De participatiemakelaar werkt dus op verschillende terreinen en met alle initiatieven die zich voordoen in de stad. Binnen de gemeente Enschede is gesproken met een beleidsadviseur binnen de afdeling opleiding en participatie. Deze afdeling houdt zich bezig met zowel onderwijs als met beleid om alle burgers te laten participeren in de samenleving. De gesproken ambtenaar is eerder actief geweest als initiatievenmakelaar in Enschede, die net zoals de participatiemakelaar in Amsterdam-Oost een brug vormt tussen de gemeente en de initiatieven. Binnen de gemeente Peel en Maas is gesproken met een strateeg op het gebied van participatie. Deze strategisch adviseur geeft advies op het gebeid van participatie aan het college van B&W. Binnen de gemeente Amersfoort is gesproken met een projectleider wijkgericht werken. Deze beleidsadviseur houdt zich bezig de participatie van burgers in specifieke wijken. Er wordt zowel gekeken naar welke taken overgedragen kunnen worden aan de wijken als welke initiatieven er in de wijk opkomen. Binnen de gemeente Berkelland is gesproken met een algemeen directeur die zich vooral bezig houdt met de transities binnen de gemeente. De gemeente Berkelland moest in 2009 drastisch bezuinigen en de gemeente heeft toen veranderingen doorgevoerd waarbij burgerbetrokkenheid expliciet naar voren komt. De transitie in Berkelland van minder overheid naar meer burgers is nog steeds gaande. Binnen de gemeente Zeist is gesproken met de manager van de afdeling strategie en bestuur. Deze 107

manager geeft advies aan het college van B&W. Ten slotte is binnen de gemeente Schijndel gesproken met de gemeentesecretaris die in brede zin kijkt naar de transitie in de gemeente. De geïnterviewde ambtenaren houden zich dus bezig met een tal van activiteiten binnen de gemeenten. De ambtenaren zijn niet expliciet verbonden aan één beleidsgebied waardoor zij een breed beeld hebben van de situatie in de gemeente. Het onderzoek is vooral exploratief van aard en zal daardoor het brede veld van ‘minder overheid, meer burger’ verkennen en minder ingaan op specifieke beleidsterreinen. De ROB (2012) heeft één overheidsparticipatietrap ontwikkeld zonder in te gaan op specifieke beleidsterreinen en de consequenties daarvan op de verschillende rollen.

3.4 Data analyse Tijdens de interviews zijn schriftelijke aantekeningen gemaakt die direct na de interviews zijn uitgewerkt tot een verslag. De data is in drie stappen geanalyseerd. Eerst zijn de kenmerken van de verschillende rollen beschreven (tabel 1) aan de hand van de definities van de ROB (2012). Aan de hand van deze kenmerken konden de vijf rollen op een systematische manier worden onderzocht. De ambtenaren lichtten in de interviews veelal aan de hand van voorbeelden toe waarom zij voor een bepaalde rol hebben gekozen. Deze voorbeelden belichten dan ook duidelijk de context en de overwegingen van de gekozen rol. In de verslagen zijn de verschillende rollen in verschillende kleuren gemarkeerd. In sommige gevallen liepen de rollen door elkaar heen en werden in verschillende volgorden meerdere rollen in één situatie gebruikt. In deze gevallen is binnen één situatie/voorbeeld per zin bekeken welke rol er aangenomen werd door de gemeente. Tabel 1. De kenmerken van de rollen van de participatietrap Rollen Reguleren Regisseren

Stimuleren

Faciliteren Loslaten

Kenmerken - De overheid legt andere partijen kaders op, andere parijen zijn genoodzaakt zich te gedragen binnen deze kaders - De overheid stuurt andere partijen door andere partijen te begeleiden in het proces - De overheid laat de uitkomst van het proces open - De overheid hecht er belang aan om de regie te behouden - De overheid heeft een wens dat bepaald beleid/ bepaalde interventie van de grond komt - De overheid laat de uitvoer aan andere partijen over - Het initiatief ligt bij andere partijen, maar de overheid steunt/helpt waar nodig - De overheid ziet belang in de realisatie van een initiatief - De gemeente is op de hoogte van het initiatief - De overheid mengt zich niet (meer) in het initiatief

In de tweede fase zijn er subthema’s gekoppeld aan de verschillende rollen om zo de overwegingen en context van een situatie goed te begrijpen. Zo kwamen de termen ‘besparingen’, ‘op handen zitten’, ‘risico’s’ en ‘politiek’ vaak naar voren. Er is met deze termen geprobeerd zo dicht mogelijk bij de woorden van de respondenten te blijven. Er kwamen ruim 65 termen naar voren die verbonden zijn aan de verschillende rollen. 108

In de derde fase zijn de verschillende termen onderverdeeld in grotere categorieën. Zo bleek bij elke rol er een ‘motivatie’, een ‘houding’ en ‘middelen’ naar voren te komen: - ‘Motivatie’ duidt op het doel van de houding. Een besparing kan bijvoorbeeld een motivatie zijn. - ‘Houding’ duidt op de relaties die de ambtenaar heeft ten opzichte van de burger. Als een ambtenaar aangeeft ‘op zijn/haar handen te zitten’ dan kan dat een houding zijn. - ‘Middelen’ duiden op de manier waarop de gemeente een initiatief stuurt of ondersteunt. Dit is dus niet het geval bij de rol van loslaten. Een middel kan bijvoorbeeld geld zijn. De verschillende termen zijn in deze categorieën onderverdeeld om zo beter onderscheid te kunnen maken tussen het doel en het middel en de houding die daarbij aansluit. Sommige termen zijn weer verder onderverdeeld in kleinere categorieën. Zo is binnen de regulerende rol in de categorie ‘motivatie’ het subthema ‘risico’s’ weer verder ingedeeld in politieke en legale risico’s. Tijdens de analyse zijn de data dus in steeds kleinere categorieën ingedeeld om de invulling van de verschillende rollen en de relaties tussen de verschillende thema’s beter te kunnen begrijpen.

4. Resultaten 4.1 De rollen Reguleren De gemeenten gaven aan dat een basiscriterium voor het toestaan van een initiatief is dat het binnen de legale en beleidskaders past. Deze kaders bepalen dat initiatieven op bepaalde terreinen en domeinen gereguleerd worden. Bij alle gesproken gemeenten kwamen de thema’s schoon, veilig en de openbare orde naar voren als thema’s die in elk geval niet losgelaten kunnen worden. Op het gebied van deze thema’s kunnen geen mislukkingen toegestaan worden. Vooral binnen een grote stad zijn er veel verschillende belangen en heeft een initiatief al snel invloed op andere actoren. Daarnaast wijzen verschillende gemeenten op de politieke overwegingen om een initiatief al dan niet toe te staan. Democratische principes zijn zeer belangrijk en alle belangen moeten worden afgewogen. Ook moet er goed naar de bestemmingsplannen worden gekeken. Niet elke voetbalclub kan bijvoorbeeld een horecagelegenheid starten, omdat dit de balans in de gemeente zou verstoren. De gemeente moet dus rekening houden met de belangen van alle actoren binnen de gemeente en moet ervoor zorgen dat publieke waarden gewaarborgd blijven. Het verstoren van deze waarden is dus een basisvoorwaarde om tot het reguleren van een initiatief over te gaan. De gemeenten wijzen op het feit dat de gemeenteraad binnen de gemeente steeds meer probeert over te laten aan burgers, maar dat dit politiek soms zeer lastig is doordat sommige onderwerpen moeilijk losgelaten kunnen worden. Een interessant voorbeeld waar verschillende gemeenten op wijzen is het opzetten van een kinderopvang. Wanneer is er sprake van een informele kinderopvang en wanneer moet de gemeente deze reguleren? Is er 109

een bepaald aantal kinderen dat een ‘oppasadres’ tot een ‘kinderopvang’ maakt? Verschillende gemeenten geven aan dat hier geen concrete richtlijnen voor zijn en dat het voor een gemeente moeilijk te bepalen is wanneer er gereguleerd moet worden. Daarnaast kan de kinderopvang buiten het gezichtsveld van de overheid plaatsvinden waardoor de overheid geen zicht heeft op het bestaan van het initiatief. De kinderopvang blijkt politiek een gevoelig thema en zorgt er dus voor dat gemeenten strikter reguleren rondom deze initiatieven. In sommige gevallen wil een gemeente een initiatief loslaten, maar zijn zij door procedurele en soms bureaucratische regels genoodzaakt om te reguleren. Een illustratief voorbeeld is een bankje dat was geplaatst door burgers in een openbaar parkje in de woonwijk IJburg in Amsterdam. De gemeente gaf aan dat er in principe zonder toestemming geen objecten mogen worden geplaatst in de openbare ruimte, maar had besloten om dit kleinschalige initiatief door de vingers te zien. Een buurtbewoner was het niet eens met de aanwezigheid van het bankje en besloot een formele klacht in te dienen, waardoor de gemeente genoodzaakt was een formele procedure te starten. In sommige gevallen wil de gemeente dus wel loslaten, maar bepalen procedures en de bureaucratie dat de gemeente een initiatief moet reguleren. Ook de gemeente Zeist geeft aan last te hebben van de formele regelgeving bij het loslaten van initiatieven. Ze geven aan dat sommige gemeentelijke wetten wel 150 jaar oud zijn en niet altijd antwoord geven op hedendaagse problemen. De context en de aard van het initiatief bepalen dus of de gemeente aan de hand van wetten, regels, beleid en procedures een initiatief zal reguleren. De regulerende rol lijkt dus een basisrol voor andere rollen; als een initiatief gereguleerd moet worden zal niet overgegaan worden tot regisseren, stimuleren, faciliteren of loslaten. Regisseren De rol van regisseren betekent dat ook andere partijen een rol hebben, maar dat de gemeente de regie blijft behouden. De gemeente formuleert geen einddoelen of gewenst beleid, maar behoudt wel de leiding over een proces en/of taak. Deze rol kwam bij de interviews beperkt naar voren. Enkele gemeenten kozen voor deze rol omdat zij in de politiek gekozen hadden om een ‘stapje terug te zetten’. De gemeenten wilden niet meer de leidinggevende partij zijn in samenwerkingsverbanden, maar wilden ervoor zorgen dat andere partijen meer met elkaar zouden samenwerken. Enerzijds doordat dit besparingen met zich mee zou brengen en anderzijds doordat de problemen en vraagstukken in de gemeenten zeer complex zijn, waardoor de gemeente individueel niet tot passende oplossingen zou kunnen komen. Verschillende gemeenten hebben een regisserende rol gebruikt om een project op te zetten om verschillende partijen bij elkaar te brengen. Zo probeert de gemeente Rotterdam partijen bij elkaar te brengen die samen leiden tot een betere stad, bijvoorbeeld met het programma duurzaam. Voor dit programma brengt de gemeente partijen zoals banken en energieleveranciers aan tafel rondom het thema duurzame energie. De gemeente vertegenwoordigt de belangen van de stad en zet in de gesprekken in op de kosten, betrouwbaarheid en duurzaamheid van energie. De gemeente leidt het proces en heeft dus ook de regie over de vorm van de dialoog, maar heeft niet de regie over de uitkomsten van het beleid. Ook de gemeente Amersfoort heeft verschillende partijen rondom energie bij elkaar gebracht om hen gezamenlijk tot een samenwerkingsverband te laten komen. Voor de

110

gemeente is het van belang om verschillende partijen bij elkaar te brengen die gezamenlijk tot oplossingen komen die gegrond zijn in de samenleving. De gemeenten behouden dus de regie in de regisserende rol. Andere partijen krijgen een rol in de uitkomsten en resultaten, maar de gemeenten bepalen de vorm van het proces. In veel gevallen besluit de gemeente een stapje terug te zetten, maar wil de regie niet volledig verliezen en kan door deze rol nog sturend zijn in een samenwerkingsverband. Stimuleren Als de gemeente een stimulerende rol aanneemt, heeft de gemeente bepaalde doelstellingen, maar wil de realisatie van deze doelstellingen aan een andere partij overlaten. Daar waar het accent bij regisseren vaak ligt op het proces, ligt bij stimulering de focus ook op de uitvoering van het beleid of proces. De stimulerende rol heeft twee kanten; enerzijds proberen de gemeenten initiatieven uit te lokken in de samenleving en anderzijds proberen verschillende gemeenten burgers te stimuleren taken over te nemen van de gemeente. De gemeenten stimuleren actief burgerschap op terreinen die zij zelf niet (meer) kunnen voltooien. Het uitlokken van initiatieven in de samenleving kan bijvoorbeeld door het uitschrijven van prijzen of door een investeringsfonds op te zetten waar burgers die een duurzaam initiatief op willen zetten een lening met een relatief lage en vaste rente kunnen afsluiten. Verschillende gemeenten stimuleren burgers taken van de overheid over te nemen door bijvoorbeeld te kijken of burgers het onderhoud van de stad over kunnen nemen en dan met name de groenvoorziening. De gemeente kijkt hoeveel de buurt zelf kan doen en stelt hier een bedrag voor beschikbaar. Hierbij wordt uitgegaan van de kracht in de samenleving en dat er in elke wijk bijvoorbeeld een architect of een aannemer beschikbaar is die een rol zou kunnen spelen in het project. In andere gemeenten bekijkt men of de burgers (voormalige) publieke taken kunnen overnemen, zoals het zwembad en de bibliotheek, om zo te stimuleren dat burgers verantwoording nemen in het publieke domein. In andere gevallen is enkel het terugtrekken van de overheid uit publieke voorzieningen voor burgers een reden om zich in te zetten voor de publieke zaak. In deze gemeenten wordt aangegeven dat het sluiten van een publieke voorziening, zoals een buurthuis, kan leiden tot opstand onder burgers die vervolgens zelf het heft in handen nemen en het buurthuis overnemen van de gemeente. Doordat de gemeente zich dus terugtrekt kunnen burgers gestimuleerd worden een taak over te nemen. De stimulerende rol wordt vormgegeven vanuit het belang van de overheid; de overheid stimuleert de opkomst van initiatieven of stimuleert de overname van publieke taken/ verantwoordelijkheden. Deze rol is dus sturend ten opzichte van burgers. Faciliteren De ROB geeft aan dat gemeenten vooral kiezen voor een faciliterende rol als het initiatief van elders komt, maar de gemeente er belang in ziet om het initiatief mogelijk te maken. De meeste gemeenten geven aan dat wanneer er een initiatief in de samenleving opkomt ambtenaren zolang mogelijk op hun handen moeten blijven zitten. De gemeente moet wachten totdat het initiatief zelf om hulp vraagt. Gemeenten moet zich afwachtend opstellen. Verschillende gemeenten geven aan dat de gemeente geen initiatieven in leven kan en dient te

111

houden. De gemeente kan een initiatief helpen en een initiatief aanvullen, maar dient het niet over te nemen. In sommige gemeenten werd er vanuit een politieke invalshoek gekozen om een initiatief te ondersteunen. Steeds meer gemeenten proberen ambtenaren te stimuleren om niet de ambtenaar te zijn die zegt ‘zoek het maar uit’, maar die zegt ‘we zoeken het samen uit’. De gemeenten hopen zo beter aan te sluiten bij de samenleving en responsief te kunnen zijn aan de samenleving. In andere gemeenten stimuleert men initiatieven om zo de stad verder te helpen. Een gemeente kan bijvoorbeeld een netwerk ter beschikking stellen als daarmee een initiatief waarde kan leveren aan de samenleving. Dit kan zowel economische als sociale waarde zijn. Zo kan een initiatief goed voor het imago van de stad zijn, maar ook de leefbaarheid in een wijk vergroten. Ook faciliteren gemeenten initiatieven door wel of juist geen vergunningen af te geven. Een voorbeeld hiervan is dat de gemeente Amersfoort een groep burgers gefaciliteerd heeft door geen vergunning te geven. In Amersfoort was er een braakliggend terrein en de eigenaar van het stuk terrein wilde pas weer wat met dit stuk grond gaan doen als er een nieuw project zou starten. De buurtbewoners wilden dit stuk grond graag gebruiken om een buurttuin te bouwen. Deze buurttuin paste niet in het bestemmingsplan van de gemeente en de gemeente heeft besloten om geen vergunning af te geven voor een buurttuin, maar het initiatief wel toe te staan. De gemeente gaf aan dat vergunningen ook handhaving met zich mee brengen en geen vergunning geven is dan soms makkelijker. Vervolgens heeft de gemeente een brief gestuurd aan alle inwoners van de wijk waarin zij aangaven dat zij het initiatief toestaan, maar dat als de projectontwikkelaar iets met de grond wil doen, de bewoners dit direct met deze projectontwikkelaar af moeten stemmen. De gemeente heeft dus als intermediaire partij opgetreden en staat toe dat er activiteiten plaatsvinden die buiten het bestemmingsplan vallen. De gemeente krijgt hier een buurttuin voor terug en wellicht ook een verhoogde tevredenheid van de burgers. Bij de faciliterende rol proberen de ambtenaren binnen de gemeente zoveel mogelijk op hun handen te zitten. Alleen als het een initiatief zelf niet lukt dan zal de gemeente helpen. De gemeente moet er belang bij hebben om een initiatief te ondersteunen. Loslaten Loslaten blijkt binnen veel gemeenten moeilijk te zijn. Loslaten impliceert dat de gemeenten eerst bepaalde taken wel vast hadden. Toch kan de rol van loslaten ook inhouden dat een gemeente een initiatief dat vanuit de gemeenschap komt loslaat. De verschillende gemeenten geven op een andere manier vorm aan de rol van loslaten; sommige gemeenten leggen de nadruk op het loslaten van de regie en invloed, andere gemeenten maken alle banden los met een initiatief. Alle gemeenten benadrukten dat niet alle taken losgelaten kunnen worden. Sommige taken moeten namelijk ook gereguleerd worden. Zoals eerder aangegeven, kunnen taken met betrekking tot de waarden schoon, veilig en orde niet losgelaten worden. Initiatieven moeten binnen het legale kader passen. Verschillende gemeenten experimenten steeds vaker met het loslaten van taken in de groenvoorziening van wijken. Deze taak brengt weinig risico en overlast voor andere omwoners met zich mee. 112

Daarnaast moeten initiatieven binnen het politieke kader passen. Loslaten kan namelijk risico’s met zich meebrengen; als er iets misgaat, kan de gemeente en meer specifiek de politiek daarop aangesproken worden. Verschillende gemeenten kijken op een steeds rationelere manier naar risico’s: kan de gemeente alle risico’s wegnemen of is het soms gewoon botte pech? Is de gemeente wel de hoeder van alle risico’s? Het vraagt wel om politieke rugdekking als ambtenaren meer risico’s nemen. Illustratief hiervoor is het voorbeeld in de gemeente Amersfoort van een door burgers zelfgemaakt klimrek in een bosachtig gebied. Als het klimrek gekeurd zou moeten worden dan zou het waarschijnlijk afgekeurd worden. De burgermeester van Amersfoort is vervolgens met een aantal ambtenaren bij het klimrek gaan kijken en gaf aan dat de gemeente met dit soort initiatieven met verstand om moet gaan. Als iemand uit het zelfgemaakte klimrek valt dan is de gemeente verantwoordelijk. Maar een stuk verder staat een boom, daar klimmen de kinderen ook in. Als ze daaruit vallen is het pech, maar als ze uit het klimrek vallen is het de schuld van de gemeente. De burgermeester gaf aan dat de kans dat er daadwerkelijk iets gebeurt zeer klein is. De gemeente besloot daarom het initiatief los te laten en de verantwoordelijkheid aan de burgers te geven. Daarnaast moet een gemeente geen belang hebben in het initiatief en/of vertrouwen dat het initiatief ook tot stand komt zonder inmenging van de gemeente. Als een gemeente een economisch of politiek belang ziet in het initiatief, zal een gemeente eerder besluiten om te interacteren met het initiatief. Toch heeft de gemeente niet altijd de keuze om iets al dan niet los te laten. Verschillende gemeenten geven aan soms ‘snel te moeten lopen’ om bij een initiatief te zijn. In sommige gevallen waren de gemeenten trekker van het initiatief en daarna waren zij slechts één van de partijen omdat het ook sterk begon te leven bij andere partijen. Deels was dit een gewenst resultaat, deels was dit een vreemde positie omdat de gemeenten geen regie meer over het initiatief hadden. Gemeenten laten initiatieven dus alleen los wanneer zij binnen de politieke en legale kaders vallen en wanneer de overheid geen belang ziet om verbonden te blijven met het initiatief.

4.2 De vooronderstellingen In de inleiding zijn twee vooronderstellingen die horen bij de participatietrap van de overheid. Deze vooronderstellingen zijn: 1. De overheid kiest één rol in een bepaalde situatie, wat impliceert dat de rollen los staan van elkaar; 2. De treden sluiten op elkaar aan, wat impliceert dat er een orde bestaat binnen de treden. Uit de analyse blijkt dat gemeenten de vijf rollen combineren. Gemeenten kunnen in de faciliterende rol partijen stimuleren om door te gaan of juist een initiatief faciliteren door los te laten. De rollen bleken moeilijk te onderscheiden en de intentie van een bepaalde rol kon ook een andere rol tot gevolg hebben. De rollen zijn staan hierdoor niet los van elkaar en de gemeenten kunnen verschillende rollen met elkaar combineren. Ook kunnen gemeenten binnen één situatie meerdere rollen gebruiken. Zo kunnen zij in het begin een initiatief 113

reguleren en als het initiatief dan binnen de politieke en legale kaders valt een initiatief faciliteren. Daarnaast blijkt uit de analyse van de interviews dat de verschillende rollen uit de participatietrap niet unidimensionaal zijn. ‘Eén rol’ blijkt niet te bestaan in de werkelijkheid omdat gemeenten in verschillende mate kunnen kiezen voor een bepaalde rol. Gemeenten kunnen bijvoorbeeld in meer of mindere mate een initiatief stimuleren of faciliteren. Binnen de onderscheiden rollen zijn er dus nog verschillende gradaties waarin een gemeente voor een bepaalde rol kan kiezen. Met deze bevindingen is de eerste vooronderstelling weerlegd. Uit de analyse blijkt dat ook de tweede veronderstelling weerlegd is. De rollen sluiten niet zozeer op elkaar aan, maar lijken vanuit een andere invalshoek gekozen. Zo is de regulerende rol een basisrol voor de andere rollen. De regulerende en stimulerende rollen zijn sturend ten opzichte van de burgers en hebben vooral een invullende houding ten opzichte van de taken en verantwoordelijkheden van burgers. De regisserende rol brengt namelijk mensen bij elkaar en vanuit de stimulerende rol probeert de gemeente initiatieven uit te lokken of burgers te stimuleren meer taken en verantwoordelijkheden op zich te nemen. De faciliterende rol en de rol van loslaten geven meer ruimte aan het initiatief. Bij de faciliterende rol komt het initiatief vanuit de burgers en de gemeente bepaalt of zij het initiatief zal ondersteunen. Als de gemeente een initiatief loslaat, kan dit zowel een taak/verantwoordelijkheid zijn die de gemeente ooit vasthad, zoals de groenvoorziening, als een initiatief dat vanuit de samenleving opkomt waarbij de gemeente besluit zich niet te mengen in het initiatief. De treden lijken dus niet op elkaar aan te sluiten, maar het initiatief komt vanuit een andere hoek. Dit zorgt voor een andere benadering van burgerschap. Beide vooronderstellingen bij de metafoor van de overheidstrap zijn aan de hand van dit onderzoek dus weerlegd.

4.3. Een voorstel voor een nieuw model De assumpties die behoren tot de participatietrap van de overheid blijken uit dit onderzoek niet houdbaar. Om deze reden stel ik een nieuw model voor dat beter inzicht geeft in de participatierollen van de gemeenten: Liberale benadering

Loslaten

Passief

Faciliteren

Reguleren Regisseren

Actief

Stimuleren

Communitaristische benadering Figuur 3. Participatierollen voor gemeenten :‘zorgen voor’ 114

Uit de analyse blijken de rollen niet unidimensionaal te zijn; een gemeente kan in meer of mindere mate voor een bepaalde rol kiezen, waardoor een rol meer richting een andere rol kan neigen. Een matrix met verschillende assen is daarom geschikter om de rollen van de gemeente weer te geven. In de gesprekken met de gemeenten werd duidelijk dat gemeenten niet alle publieke taken los kunnen laten en niet alle initiatieven vanuit de gemeenschap kunnen tolereren. De initiatieven en de losgelaten taken moeten binnen de legale en politieke kaders van de gemeente passen. Om deze reden vormt de regulerende rol een basisvoorwaarde om tot de andere rollen te komen. De regulerende rol is om deze reden in het midden van de matrix geplaatst. De verschillende rollen binnen de gemeenten komen voort uit twee verschillende standpunten. De rollen van ‘loslaten’ en ‘faciliteren’ passen binnen de liberale benadering van burgerschap. Hierbij geeft de gemeente meer ruimte aan de initiatieven en interacteert niet of slechts in beperkte mate met een initiatief. Een gemeente kiest voor een actieve rol wanneer zij economische en/of politieke belangen ziet in het vanuit de gemeenschap opgekomen initiatief en de burgers hulp nodig hebben bij het uitvoeren van het initiatief. Een gemeente kiest binnen het liberale standpunt voor het loslaten van een initiatief wanneer het initiatief binnen de legale en politieke kaders past. Daarnaast kiest de gemeente voor deze rol wanneer de gemeente vertrouwt dat het initiatief zonder de hulp van de overheid ook tot stand zal komen of wanneer er geen economische en/of politieke belangen zijn. De overheid neemt in dit geval een passieve rol aan. De rollen ‘regisseren’ en ‘stimuleren’ passen binnen de communitaristische benadering van burgerschap. De gemeente probeert de burgers (onderling) te activeren en te motiveren om meer te ondernemen en zich meer te mengen in het publieke domein. Deze rollen zijn dus topdown geïnitieerd. De gemeente kiest voor een regisserende rol wanneer zij partijen bij elkaar poogt te brengen die gezamenlijk tot een resultaat kunnen komen. De regisserende rol is relatief passief omdat de gemeente slechts het proces begeleidt, maar het proces en de uitkomst niet stuurt. De gemeente kiest voor een stimulerende rol wanneer zij wenst dat doelen gerealiseerd worden, maar de realisatie aan andere parijen overlaat. De gemeente probeert op verschillende manieren andere partijen te stimuleren om taken over te nemen van de gemeente en publieke doelen te realiseren.

5. Conclusie en discussie De ROB is een belangrijk adviesorgaan voor regering en parlement. De door de ROB onderscheiden overheidsparticipatietrap wordt door verschillende overheden gebruikt (VNG, 2013; Kabinetsnota Doe-Democratie, 2013). Zo waren in de interviews alle respondenten op de hoogte van deze trap. Uit deze analyse blijkt de metafoor van de trap niet te kloppen. De vooronderstellingen waarop de overheidsparticipatietrap is gebaseerd blijken niet te kloppen, waardoor de metafoor van een trap niet overeen lijkt te komt met de werkelijke invulling van de rollen. De eerste vooronderstelling dat de overheid kiest voor één trede per situatie en dat de treden van de trap los staan van elkaar blijkt niet te kloppen. Gemeenten combineren verschillende rollen in één situatie: zo kan een gemeente door te faciliteren tegelijkertijd ook 115

initiatieven stimuleren in een bepaalde richting. Of als de gemeente taken loslaat, kunnen burgers worden gestimuleerd om actie te ondernemen. De treden lopen in de werkelijkheid dus door elkaar heen en de rollen zijn in de werkelijkheid minder strikt te onderscheiden. De rollen blijken niet unidimensionaal te zijn. Zo kan de faciliterende rol bijvoorbeeld op vele manieren worden ingevuld, waarbij men in de ene situatie actiever handelt dan in de andere situatie en waarbij men in de ene situatie meer sturend is dan in de andere situatie. Een matrix met verschillende assen past daarom beter bij de omschrijving van de rollen. Ten tweede vooronderstelt de trap dat er een logische volgorde bestaat in de treden. De vooronderstelling dat hoe minder de overheid de trap beklimt, hoe meer ruimte wordt gelaten aan de samenleving blijkt uit de analyse te kloppen. De treden loslaten en faciliteren laten de meeste ruimte aan de samenleving. Daarop volgen de rollen stimuleren en regisseren, die meer sturend zijn in de activiteiten van burgers. Bij de laatste regulerende rol kan de overheid een initiatief volledig beperken. Toch lijkt de volgorde van de trap niet te kloppen: de rollen sluiten niet op elkaar aan, maar worden gekozen vanuit een andere invalshoek. Aan de ene kant probeert de overheid in de trend van de vermaatschappelijking meer taken en verantwoordelijkheden aan de samenleving over te laten en bijvoorbeeld te stimuleren en of regisseren dat bepaalde initiatieven opkomen. Aan de ander kant probeert de overheid initiatieven die opkomen vanuit de samenleving meer eigen verantwoordelijkheid te geven en de initiatieven alleen te faciliteren als daarom wordt gevraagd. Door deze verschillende invalshoeken en beleidslijnen heeft de overheids-participatietrap, onderscheiden door de ROB (2012), geen logische volgorde; de ene trede volgt niet uit de andere trede maar komen voort vanuit een andere benadering. Beide vooronderstellingen die verbonden zijn aan de metafoor van de overheidsparticipatietrap blijken dus niet te kloppen. In dit onderzoek is een nieuw model in de vorm van een matrix voorgesteld. Dit model kan gemeenten meer inzicht geven in de verschillende toepassingen van de rollen. Binnen het beleid rondom participatie bestaan twee verschillende beleidslijnen, namelijk de liberale en de communitaristische beleidslijn. Zoals eerder gesteld zorgen deze twee beleidslijnen volgens Vrielink & Verhoeven (2011) voor een paradox waar gemeenten mee moeten werken. Het voorgestelde model geeft meer inzicht in de rollen die verbonden zijn aan de verschillende beleidslijnen. Per beleidslijn kan men andere rollen toepassen. Dit onderzoek heeft meer duidelijkheid gebracht in de verschillende discussies van actief burgerschap en vermaatschappelijking die vaak door elkaar heen lijken te lopen. Beide vooronderstellingen die verbonden zijn aan de overheidsparticipatietrap zijn met dit onderzoek weerlegd. Daarnaast is er een voorstel gedaan voor een nieuw model dat inzicht geeft in de keuze voor een bepaalde rol. Om de resultaten en het model te kunnen bevestigen/weerleggen moet er meer onderzoek worden verricht naar de praktische invulling van de verschillende rollen van de gemeente. Voor dit onderzoek zijn 9 ambtenaren geïnterviewd. Meer gemeenten zouden moeten worden geïnterviewd om de rollen beter te kunnen onderbouwen en de resultaten uit dit onderzoek te kunnen weerleggen/ bevestigen. Daarnaast kan vervolgonderzoek zich richten op de twee beleidslijnen binnen de gemeenten, waarbij onderzocht moet worden in hoeverre beide beleidslijnen binnen één gemeente aanwezig zijn. In dit onderzoek zijn vijf rollen onderzocht. Om preciezere resultaten te kunnen krijgen zou onderzoek zich moeten focussen op de individuele rollen.

116

6. Reflectie In de gesprekken met de ambtenaren liepen de verschillende rollen sterk door elkaar heen. Het afstaan van taken aan de samenleving is geïnitieerd vanuit de overheid, terwijl de maatschappelijke initiatieven vanuit burgers geïnitieerd worden. Gemeenten spraken tegelijkertijd over het afstaan van taken aan de samenleving en het loslaten van initiatieven, wat het in sommigen gevallen moeilijk maakte om onderscheid te kunnen maken tussen de rollen. Daarnaast was het in het onderzoek moeilijk om rollen van de overheidsparticipatietrap te onderscheiden die door de ROB (2012) zeer beknopt zijn omschreven. De ROB (2012) heeft de rollen gedefinieerd maar niet toegelicht, waardoor de precieze opvatting van de rollen onduidelijk was. In dit onderzoek is dit opgelost door op basis van de definitiecriteria te herleiden waaraan een bepaalde rol ten minste moet voldoen. Het relatief kleine aantal respondenten zorgde ervoor dat het in sommige gevallen lastig was de invulling van de rollen te onderscheiden. Zo waren er weinig gemeenten die de regisserende rol toepasten, wat het moeilijk maakte deze rol te omschrijven. Er is dus meer onderzoek nodig om de toepassing van de rollen te bevestigen/weerleggen. Ook kwam het verschil tussen grote en kleine gemeenten in de interviews sterk naar voren. In de kleine gemeenten zijn de lijnen van de ambtenaren naar de burgers korter. Ook gaf de respondent in Berkelland aan dat de cultuur van het dorp bepalend was voor de relatie tussen de gemeente en de burgers. De gemeente is van oudsher een Noaber-gemeenschap. In deze gemeenschappen is het een plicht om de andere Noabers bij te staan waar nodig. Deze gemeenschap is van oudsher dus zeer hecht en onderneemt zelf veel activiteiten. Er wordt relatief weinig naar de gemeente gekeken voor oplossingen. In Rotterdam gaf men aan dat de gemeente zich relatief veel in moet zetten om de burgers actief te krijgen, ook kunnen er in een grote stad geen mislukkingen worden toegestaan omdat er veel belangen spelen. Er lijken dus meerdere factoren van invloed op de rolbepaling van de gemeenten. Factoren zoals de geschiedenis, de grootte en de context van de gemeente kunnen dus van invloed zijn op de rolbepaling.

117

Bronnen

Acheson, N. (2001). Service delivery and civic engagement: disability organizations in Northern Ireland. Volutas. 12 (3). P. 279-293. Ansell, C. & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administrative research and theory. 18. P. 543-571. Bakker, J., Denters, B., Oude Vrielink, M. & Klok, P-J. Citizens’ initiatives: how local governments fill in their facilitative role. Local government studies. 38 (4). P. 395-414 Bang, H.P. & Sorensen, E. (1999). The everyday maker: a new challenge to democratic governance. Administrative theory & Praxis. 21 (3). P. 325- 342. Barlzelay, M. (2001). The new public management. Berkely: University of California Press Beiner, R. (1995). Introduction: why citizenship constitutes a theoretical problem in the last decade of the twentieth century. In R. Beiner (ed.), Theorizing citizenship. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Bloom, R. & Kilgore, D. (2003). The volunteer citizen after welfare reform in the United States: an ethnographic study of volunteerism in action. Voluntas. 14 (4). P. 431-453. Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. London: SAGE publications Ltd. Borgi, V. & Berkel, R. Van. (2007). Individualized service provision in an era of activation and new governance. International journal of sociology and social policy. 27 (9/10). P. 413424. Bornstein, D. & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: what everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bovens, M.A.P., & Wille, A. (2011). Diplomademocratie. Over de spanning tussen meritocratie en democratie. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker. Bovens, M.A.P., Hart, P.’t. & Twist, M. van. (2012). Openbaar bestuur: beleid, organisatie en politiek. Deventer: Kluwer. Brannan, T., John, P. & Stoker, G. (2006). Active citizenship and effective services and programmes: how we can know what really works? Urban studies. Vol. 43 (5/6). P. 993-1008 Brink, G. van den. (2007). Moderniteit als opgave. Een antwoord aan relativisme en conservatisme. Amsterdam: SUN. Cook, B.J. (2007). Woodrow Wilson’s Idea about local government reform: A regime perspective on the new push for citizen engagement in public administration. Administration and Society. 39 (2). P. 596-624.

118

Dekker, P. & Hart, J. de. (2002). Burgers over burgerschap. In R.P. Hortulanus & J.E.M. Machielse (eds), modern burgerschap. Den Haag. Elsevier. Denters, S.A.H., Tonkens, E.H., Verhoeven, I. & Bakker, J.H.M. (2013). Burgers maken hun buurt. Den Haag: platform 31. Farrelly, M. (2009). Citizen participation and neighbourhood governance: analysing democratic practice. Local government studies. 35 (4). P. 237- 400. Field, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. Edition 4. London: SAGE. Fuller, S., Kershaw, P. & Pulkingham, J. (2008). Constructing active citizenship: single mother, welfare and the logics of voluntarism. Citizenship studies. 12 (2). P. 157-176. Gunsteren, H.R., van. (1998). A theory of citizenship. Organizing plurality in contemporary democracies. Boulder, Colorado: Westview press. Hajer, M. (2011). De energieke samenleving. Op zoek naar een sturingsfilosofie voor een schonen economie. Den Haag. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. Hannan, M.T., Polos, L. & Carroll, G. (2007). Logics of organization theory: audiences, codes and ecologies. Oxford: Princeton university press. Hendriks, F. & Tops, P.W. (2002). Het sloeg in als een BOM: vitaal stadsbestuur en modern burgerschap in een Haagse stadsbuurt. Tilburg: Universiteit van Tilburg. Huysmans, F. (2006). De betere bibliotheek. Over de normatieve grondslagen van het openbaar bibliotheek in het internettijdperk. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Ilcan, S. & Basok, T. (2004). Community government: voluntary agencies, social justice and the responsibility of citizens. Citizenship studies. 8 (4). P.129-144. Kuiper, M., Velde, B. van de. & Zuydam, S. van. (2012). Leren van vermaatschappelijking in het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Australië en Scandinavië. Raad voor Openbaar Bestuur. Lenos, S., Sturm, P. & Vis, R. Burgeparticipatie in gemeenteland. Quick scan van 34 coalitieakkoorden en raadsprogramma’s voor de periode 2006-2010. Amsterdam: instituut voor Publiek en Politiek. Lownes, V. Pratchett, L. & Stoker, G. (2006). Locality matters: making participation count in local politics. London: institute for public policy research. Lundstorm, T. (1996). The state and voluntary social work in Sweden. Voluntas. 7 (2). P.123146. Marinetto, M. (2003). Who wants to be an active citizen? The politics and practice of community involvement. Sociology, 37 (1). P. 103-120. Marshall, T.H. & Bottomore, T. (1950). Citizenship and social class. Londen: Pluto press. 119

Niskanen, W.A. (1973). Bureaucracy, servant or master? Lessons from America. London: institute of economic affairs. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. Oude Vrielink, M. & Verhoeven, I. (2011). Burgerinitiatieven en de bescheiden overheid. Beleid en maatschappij 38 (4). Oude Vrielink, M. & Wijdeven, T. van de. (2011). Ondersteuning in vieren. Zichtlijnen in het faciliteren van burger initiatieven in de buurt. Beleid en maatschappij. (38) 4. Peters, G. (2010). The politics of bureaucracy: an introduction to comparative public administration. London: Routlegde. Perry, J.L. (1996). Handbook of public administration. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Raad voor Openbaar Bestuur (2012). Loslaten in vertrouwen. Naar een nieuwe verhouding tussen overheid, markt én samenleving. Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling. Terugtreden is vooruitzien. Maatschappelijke veerkracht in het publieke domein. Rainey, H.G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey- bass. Rosenthal, U. (2002). Het democratisch tekort. Tekortkomingen en remedies. Den Haag: Elsevier. Schelcher, C. (2007). Public- private partnerships and hybridity. In Ferlie, E., Lynn, L.E. & Pollitt, C. (2007). The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford University Press. SCP (2009). Vrijwilligers vanuit de civil society. In Dekker, P. & Hart, J. De. Vrijwilligerswerk in meervoud, civil society en vrijwilligerswerk. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. SAGE: Londen. Snellen, I. (2002). Conciliations of rationalities: the essence of public administration. Administrative of public administration. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 323- 346. Specht, M. (2012). De pragmatiek van burgerparticipatie. Hoe burgers omgaan met complexe vraagstukken omtrent veiligheid. Leefbaarheid en stedelijke ontwikkeling in drie Europese steden. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Steen, M. Van der., Bruijn, H. de. & Schillemans, T. (2013). De grote samenleving. Over vitaliteit en nieuwe verhoudingen tussen overheid en burgers. Bestuurskunde (22) 1. P. 5- 12. Thiel, S. Van. (2001). Quango’s: Trends, Causes and Consequences, Ashgate, Aldershot etc.

120

Trommel, W.A. (2010). De activerende staat: in de schermerzone tussen verheffen en vernederen. In Verhoeven, I. & Ham, M. (red.) Brave burgers gezocht! De grenzen van de activerende overheid. Amsterdam, van Gennep. Twist, M. van., Steen, M. van der. & Karré, P.M. (2009). Als burgers het heft in eigen handen nemen: van representatieve naar doe-het-zelf democratie. Res Publica 2009 (4) p.521- 534 Uitermark, J. & Van Beek, K. (2010). Gesmoorde participatie. Over de schaduwkant van ‘meedoen’ as staatsproject. In Verhoeven, I. & Ham, M. (red) Brave burgers gezocht. De grenzen van de activerende overheid. Amsterdam: Van Gennep. Uyterlinde, M. Neefjes, K. & Engbersen, R. (2007). Welzijn versterkt burgerschap. Utrecht: Movisie. Verba, S., Schlozmann, K.L. & Brady.H.E. (1995). Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard: Harvard University press. Verhoeven, I. (2010). Ruimte geven aan initiatieven van burgers. De actieve burger wil eerder zeggenschap dan mee beslissen. Rooilijn. 43 (4). Wal, Z. Van der. (2010) The content and context of organizational ethics. Blackwell publishing. Walle, S. Van de., Roosbroek, S. Van. & Bouckaert. (2008). Trust in the public sector: is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International review of administrative sciences. Vol. 74 (1). P. 47-64. Wijdevan, T. van de. (2009). Betrokkenheid en verbonden verantwoordelijkheden in de Smederijen van Hoogeveen. In H. Van Duivenboden., E. Van Hout, van Montfort, C. & Vermaas, J. (2009). Verbonden verantwoordelijkheden in het publieke domein. P. 185-312. Den Haag. Uitgeverij Lemma. Wijdeven, T. van de. (2012). Doe democratie. Over actief burgerschap in stadswijken. Delft: Eburon. Wijdeven, T. van de., Graaf, L. van de. & Hendriks, F. (2013) Actief burgerschap. Lijnen in de literatuur. Tilburgse school voor politiek en bestuur. WRR (2012). Vertrouwen in burgers. Amsterdam University Press. Aanvullende beleidsdocumenten De Doe -Democratie. Kabinetsnota ter stimulering van een vitale samenleving (2013). Ministerie van binnenlandse zaken en koninkrijksrelaties. Bijlage I: Vragenlijst Vragen voor gemeenten

121

-

Op welke manier is uw gemeente bezig met de beweging van minder overheid naar meer burger? Vb. Reguleren, regisseren, stimuleren, faciliteren, loslaten. Welke afdelingen of onderdelen binnen de gemeente zijn bij deze beweging betrokken? Op welke manier? Welke partijen / organisaties zijn in uw gemeente betrokken bij deze beweging? Op welke manier? Zijn het al. leen lokale partijen / organisaties? Of ook regionale? Welke? Op welke manier? Waar ligt het initiatief? Bij de gemeente? Bij organisaties, zoals het welzijnswerk? Bij burgers zelf? In welke vorm?

De beweging van minder overheid naar meer burger komt tot uiting in een veelheid van initiatieven. Sommige initiatieven komen van bewoners, andere van gemeenten of organisaties. -

-

Welk initiatief springt er uit in uw gemeente? Waarom? Wat maakt het tot een goed voorbeeld? Op welke manieren is de gemeente betrokken bij dit initiatief? Doorvragen op welke partijen binnen gemeente. Politiek? Bestuur? Ambtelijk apparaat? Op welke manier zijn andere partijen bij dit initiatief betrokken? Welke andere partijen? Wordt het initiatief actief ondersteund? Door wie?

De transformatie vraagt een andere houding en een andere werkwijze van alle betrokken partijen. -

-

Wat vind u in uw gemeente lastig aan de verandering? Wat verloopt moeizaam? Waarover bent u tevreden? Wat loopt goed? Waar bent u trots op? Wat is er vooral niet nodig om de verandering gestalte te geven? En wat helpt juist? Welke hulpbronnen zijn nodig? Ev. als voorbeeld noemen: financiën, de juiste competenties, vaardigheden, visie van B&W, steun van de raad, voldoende deskundigheid, bereidheid van partners om samen te werken en om te veranderen, goede voorbeelden, best persons, steun van de rijksoverheid, maatschappelijk betrokken ondernemers, etc. Zijn er voldoende hulpbronnen beschikbaar? Verbondenheid wordt wel gezien als een voorwaarde voor samenwerking. Vind u dat mensen en organisaties in uw gemeente zich met elkaar verbonden voelen? Waaraan merkt u dat?

Bijlagen II: Respondenten Gemeente Schijndel - Frank van Geffen Gemeente Amersfoort - Nico Paap Gemeente Enschede - Ypkje Grimm Gemeente Peel & Maas - Geert Schmitz Gemeente Zeist - Arno Schepers Gemeente Berkelland - Judith Harmsen 122

Gemeente Rotterdam - Wim Reijierse Gemeente Amsterdam – Rob van Veelen (Amsterdam- Oost) en Hettie Politiek

123