2004
Volume 93, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0025-9454
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2816

Abstract

Abstract

The current retrenchment of European welfare states is putting more emphasis on citizen participation as an alternative for public services. This study examines differences in neighbourhood participation between urban neighbourhoods in Rotterdam in which, given their population composition, active citizen’s participation is expected to differ. We also examine to which extent neighbourhood characteristics such as neighbourhood deprivation, ethnic diversity and organizational infrastructure and individual characteristics of residents explain variations in neighbourhood participation between neighbourhoods. Using a large survey dataset, bivariate analyses show strong associations between neighbourhood characteristics and average levels of citizen participation. Multilevel regression analysis reveals that these differences in citizen participation are predominantly explained by individual characteristics such as education and age. Our findings show that the current focus on civic participation may result in more inequality: citizens in advantageous positions are at least better equipped to adapt to the retrenchment of the welfare state than those in disadvantaged positions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2018.1.SNEL
2018-03-01
2021-08-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/00259454/93/1/03_MEM2018.1.SNEL.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2018.1.SNEL&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abascal, M., & Baldassari, D. (2015). Love thy neighbor? Ethnoracial diversity and trust reexamined. American Journal of Sociology, 121(3), 722–782.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3): 847–904.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anheier, H.K., & Salamon, L.M. (1999). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Initial comparisons. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4): 43–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakker, J., Denters, B., & Klok, P. (2011). Welke burger telt mee(r) in de doe-democratie ?Beleid en Maatschappij, 4(38), 402–418.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Borgonovi, F. (2008). Doing well by doing good: The relationship between formal volunteering and self-reported health and happiness. Social Science and Medicine, 66(11): 2321–2334.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Borgonovi, F. (2008). Doing well by doing good: The relationship between formal volunteering and self-reported health and happiness. Social Science and Medicine, 66(11): 2321–2334.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Butler, T., & Robson, G. (2001). Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood change in London: a comparison of three south London neighbourhoods. Urban studies, 38(12), 2145–2162.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dekker, P., & De Hart, J. (2009). Vrijwilligerswerk in meervoud. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Denters, S.A.H., Tonkens, E., Verhoeven, I., & Bakker, J.H.M. (2013). Burgers maken hun buurt. Den Haag: Platform31.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dinesen, P.T., & Sønderskov, K.M. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social trust: Evidence from the micro-context. American Sociological Review, 80(3): 550–573.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Faulk, L. (2009). In gesprek met vrijwilligers: Effecten van de levensfase op vrijwillige inzet. In: Dekker, P. & Hart, J. de(red.), Vrijwilligers in meervoud, Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, pp. 83–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Galster, G.C. (2012). The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. In: van HamM, ManleyD, BaileyN, e.a. (eds), Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 23–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gemeente Rotterdam
    Gemeente Rotterdam (2014). Wijkprofiel Rotterdam, toelichting. Rotterdam. Beschikbaar op: http://wijkprofiel.rotterdam.nl/nl/2016/uitleg.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gesthuizen, M., van der Meer, T. & Scheepers, P. (2008). Education and dimensions of social capital : Do educational effects differ due to educational expansion and social security expenditure?European Sociological Review, 24(5), 617–632.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilster, M.E. (2014). Putting activism in its place: The neighborhood context of participation in neighborhood focused activism. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(1), 33–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hedman, L., & van Ham, M. (2012). Understanding Neighbourhood Effects: Selection Bias and Residential Mobility. In M.van Hamet al. (eds.), Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 79–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ishizawa, H. (2015). Civic participation through volunteerism among youth across immigrant generations. Sociological Perspectives, 58(2): 264–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S.V., & Kim, D. (2008). Social Capital and Health. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kempen, R., & Bolt, G. (2012). Social consequences of residential segregation and mixed neighbourhoods. In: D.Clapham, W.Clark & K.Gibb(red.), The SAGE Handbook of Housing Studies, 439–460.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kisby, B. (2010). The Big Society: Power to the people?The Political Quarterly, 81(4): 484–491.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Leidelmeijer, K., Schulenberg, R., & Noordhuizen, B. (2015). Ontwikkeling van ruimtelijke verschillen in Nederland. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Letki, N. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods. Political Studies, 56: 99–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Manzo, L.C., & Perkins, D.D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4): 335–350.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Markham, W.T., & Bonjean, C.M. (1996). Employment status and the attitudes and behavior of higher status women volunteers, 1975 and 1992: A case study. Sex Roles, 34(9-10): 695–716.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McCabe, B.J. (2013). Are homeowners better citizens? Homeownership and community participation in the United States. Social Forces, 91(3): 929–954.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Merton, R.K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79: 606–623.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Miltenburg, E.M. (2015). The conditionality of neighbourhood effects upon social neighbourhood embeddedness: A critical examination of the resources and socialisation mechanisms. Housing Studies, 30(2), pp. 272–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mohan, J. (2012). Geographical foundations of the Big Society. Environment and Planning, 44, 1121–1129.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Musick, M.A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A Social Profile. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Musterd, S. (2005) Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: Levels, causes, and effects. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(3), 331–348.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Musterd, S., & van Gent, W. (2016). Changing welfare context and income segregation in Amsterdam and its metropolitan area. In: Tammaru, T., van Ham, M., Marcińczak, S.e.a. (red.), Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities: East Meets West, London: Routledge, pp. 55–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Musterd, S., Deurloo, R., & Ostendorf, W. (1999). Het omgevingseffect: De problematiek van het vaststellen van ‘getto-effecten’. In: Musterd, S. & Goethals, A.(red.), De Invloed van de Buurt, Amsterdam: SISWO, pp. 13–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Musterd, S., & Slot, J. (2016). De ongelijke stad. Mens en Maatschappij, 9(4), 305–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. North, P. (2011). Geographies and utopias of Cameron’s Big Society. Social and Cultural Geography, 12(8): 817–827.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Perkins, D.D., Brown, B.B., & Taylor, R.B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment: Predicting participation in community organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52: 85–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Permentier, M. (2009) Reputation, neighbourhoods and behaviour. Universiteit Utrecht: Faculteit Geowetenschappen (Proefschrift).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Putnam, R.D. (2007). ‘E pluribus unum’: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2): 137–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Putters, K. (2015). Voorbij Den Haag. Opgaven in en van de gedecentraliseerde verzorgingsstaat. (Overheidslezing 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Rodrıguez, G., & Elo, I. (2003). Intra-class correlation in random-effects models for binary data. The Stata Journal, 3(1): 32–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2003). Work histories and voluntary association memberships. Sociological Forum, 18(4), 603–619.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sampson, R.J. (2012). Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sampson, R.J., Mcadam, D., Macindoe, H., & Weffer-Elizondo (2005). Civil society reconsidered: The durable nature and community structure of collective civic action. American Journal of Sociology, 111(3): 673–714.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Slocock, C., Hayes, R., & Harker, D. (2015). Whose society: The final Big Society audit. London: Civil Exchange.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sluiter, R., Tolsma, J., & Scheepers, P. (2015). At which geographic scale does ethnic diversity affect intra-neighborhood social capital?Social Science Research, 54: 80–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Snijders, T.A.B., & Bosker, R.J. (2012). Multilevel Analysis. London: Sage Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Stoll, M.A., & Wong, J.S. (2016). Immigration and civic participation in a multiracial and multiethnic context. International Migration Review, 41(4), 880–908.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Swaroop, S., & Morenoff, J.D. (2006). Building community: The neighborhood context of social organization. Social Forces, 84(3): 1665–1695.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tammaru, T., van Ham, M., Marcińczak, S., & Musterd, S.(red.) (2016). Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities: East Meets West, London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tolsma, J., van der Meer, T., & Gesthuizen, M. (2009). The impact of neighbourhood and municipality characteristics on social cohesion in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 44(3): 286–313.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Tonkens, E., & Verhoeven, I. (2011). Bewonersinitiatieven: proeftuin voor partnerschap tussen burgers en bewoners. Een onderzoek naar bewonersinitiatieven in de Amsterdamse wijkaanpak. Amsterdam: UVA.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Uitermark, J. (2012). ‘De zelforganiserende stad.’ In: Essays Toekomst van de Stad. Den Haag: Raad voor de Leefomgeving p. 5–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. van der Klaauw, B. & Van Ours, J.C. (2003). From welfare to work: does the neighborhood matter?. Journal of Public Economics, 87(5), 957–985.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. van der Meer, T. & Tolsma, J. (2014) Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40: 459–478.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. van der Zwaard, J. & Specht, M. (2013). Betrokken bewoners, betrokken overheid: Condities en competenties voor burgerkracht in de buurt. Rotterdam: Kenniswerkplaats Leefbare Wijken.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. van Deth, J., W., Montero, J.R., & Westholm, A. (Eds.). (2007). Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. van Ham, M., Manley, D., Bailey, N.(red.) (2012) Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. van Houwelingen, P., Boele, A. & Dekker, P. (2014) Burgermacht op eigen kracht? Een brede verkenning van ontwikkelingen in burgerparticipatie. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. van Noije, L. (2016) ‘Ertoe doen in de buurt. Toegenomen ongelijkheid in buurtparticipatie tussen buurten en bewoners?’ Mens en Maatschappij, 9(4), 319–355.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Veldheer, V., Jonker, J.J., van Noije, L. & Vrooman, C. (2012). Een beroep op de burger: Minder verzorgingsstaat, meer eigen verantwoordelijkheid. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Verba, S., Lehman Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1993). Citizen activity: Who participates? What do they say?The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 303–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Verba, S., Lehman Schlozman, K., Brady, H. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wilson, W.J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wilson, W.J. (1996). When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Alfred a Knopf.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2018.1.SNEL
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2018.1.SNEL
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ethnic diversity; neighbourhood participation; urban neighbourhoods

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error