Compuestos fenólicos

A grouping based on the three citizen types of liberal, communitarian and neo-republican citizens does not account for differences in willingness among respondents, as is shown in paragraph 4.1. Therefor each basic type of citizen is split in two types, one willing to participate and one unwilling, creating 6 types of citizens based on willingness for citizen participation. The next step towards finding ways in which the local government of Borne can increase willingness for citizen participation is to uncover obstacles for willingness to participate. The following step of describing ways to remove these obstacles will be addressed in paragraph 4.3. In this paragraph obstacles for willingness to participate will be put forth and addressed for each of the three basic citizen types. For the 6 refined types of citizens obstacles will be described specifically. Central to this paragraph is the question why particular types of citizens have especially low willingness and are hard to motivate by the local government.

In order to answer the sub question about obstacles for willingness to participate for specific types of citizens the subject of actual participation needs to be looked into a bit more. Participation in Mijn Borne 2030 among respondents was shown in table 5 in paragraph 4.1. The division between participants and non-participants, respectively 11 and 13, was made. These groups can be subdivided in groups of liberal, communitarian and neo-republican citizens. Doing so results in the numbers provided in table 10 and reveals a number of interesting things. First it shows that none of the liberal citizens participated in Mijn Borne 2030. From this it can be concluded that liberal citizens encounter a number of obstacles keeping them from participating as a citizen participant. Second, 3 out of 11 communitarian citizens do not participate. Communitarian citizens are expected to have a basic willingness for citizen participation, so for these three respondents there must be obstacles withholding them from participating. Third, the total of 6 neo-republican citizens is divided equally over participating and not participating respondents. For the 3 non-participants obstacles for willingness for citizen participation should be in play, based on the assumed positive inclination of neo-republicans towards citizen participation. In table 10 these numbers are presented.

45

Participation in Mijn Borne 2030 among types of citizens

Participants Non-participants Total

Liberal 0 0% 7 29% 7

Communitarian 8 33% 3 13% 11

Neo-republican 3 13% 3 13% 6

Total 11 13 24

Table 10

The three indications about obstacles rendered from this table have to do with the distribution of actual participation over the three types of citizens. The main focus of this study is on willingness for citizen participation. Therefor the next step is to look at the distribution of willingness to participate over liberal, communitarian and neo-republican citizens. This is presented in table 8 in paragraph 4.1. When looking at indications for obstacles based on willingness to participate this shows an entirely different picture for liberal citizens then when looking at actual participation. All 7 respondents show some form of willingness to participate in contrast to neither of them actually participating in Mijn Borne 2030. This indicates either the presence of obstacles or the absence of stimuli for liberal citizens. For communitarian citizens the picture is almost the same as when looking at distribution of actual participation over citizen types. One participant shows a basic unwillingness and two non-participants show the willingness to participate. Both indicate that there are obstacles for citizen participation to be found. For neo-republicans the picture is exactly the same, three unwilling non-participants versus three willing participants. The first group of three respondents can be seen as an indication for obstacles for willingness to participate. The next step is to go into detail and identify actual obstacles for different types of citizens. To do so these obstacles will be discussed for liberal, communitarian and neo-republican citizens and for the subdivision of every of these three types presented in table 9 in paragraph 4.1. Starting with the group of liberal citizens, which can be seen as the most ambivalent group of citizens, there is one major obstacle for participating and it is the basic view of liberal citizenship. Liberal citizens base their view of citizenship on individual rights and interests and on representation of citizens by the government. In other words, liberal citizens are busy looking after themselves and consider local government to implement, execute and ensure rules, regulations and policy to enable citizens to do so. These characteristics are the main obstacle for willingness to participate among liberal citizens. When this basic obstacle is found in combination with the absence of stimuli this respondent can be classified as a benchwarmer. In this study there are no respondents classified as bench warmers which limits the possibility for further discussion of this type of citizen.

When liberal citizens do have willingness to participate this is based on the pursuit of specific individual results or in other words selective material benefits. This is based on their inclination towards individual rights and interests. Citizens showing this inclination are categorized as soloists. When looking into obstacles for the willingness to participate, basically the assumption is that these obstacles will be working against the stimulus of selective material benefits. An obstacle that predominates for soloists is the relationship between the pursuit of selective material benefits and collective outcomes within the public domain and specifically within citizen participation. The soloist is driven by the sole purpose of getting selective material benefits. Citizen participation processes are a way to serve the public interest trough collective outcomes. When, in practice, the individual goals of the soloist do not align with the collective goals of citizen participation the willingness for citizen participation will drop, often resulting in an exit from citizen participation for the soloist. The following statement is an example of self-interest and public interest diverging in case of the soloist. The way in which the public interest is being served through citizen participation does not match the way the respondent wants his self-interest to be served: “[…] Dat ik het niet van belang vind en dat ik de antwoorden en uitkomsten van het project ook niet op waarde wil schatten. Als ik me goed herinner was een van de vragen; wilt u in Borne meer industrie of meer recreatie? Ja, wat moet ik daarmee? Daar heb ik niks aan […]” The mismatch between the pursuit of selective materials benefits by the soloist and the goals of reaching collective outcomes of the participation process leads to tension.

46 When the soloist is faced with a diverging self-interest and public interest this first leads to becoming more active. The soloist will increase the efforts to reach selective material benefits until a breaking point is reached when withdrawal and exit is the only option left. This process emerges clearly from the next quote: “[…] Concreet hebben we een aantal randvoorwaarden gesteld, er van uit gaande dat die weg er komt. Met 80 kilometer […] Dan zie je in het volgende rapport weer staan, het is een weg van 80 kilometer, met bomen omzoomd, dan denk ik wel jongens kom op waarvoor zitten we hier eigenlijk. Dan wordt ik wat geïrriteerd en dan ga ik er nog harder tegenaan, want je wilt wel je zin hebben. Als dan uiteindelijk het definitieve plan er ligt waar geen invloed meer op kan worden uitgeoefend en er is niks van onze input in terug te vinden dan denk ik jongens hier doe ik niet meer aan mee, want je zit daar gewoon voor spek en bonen […]” This process of trying to reach selective material benefits through a public process and the exiting from the participation process when these two goals diverge too much is an obstacle for willingness to participate characteristic for the soloist.

When looking into obstacles for citizen participation for communitarian citizen the first thing that strikes is the fact that communitarian citizens have a strong willingness based on solidarity with, responsibility for and will to improve the community. For one type of communitarian citizens, the team player, this basic willingness to participate finds its expression into citizen participation, for the other, the water carrier, it finds its expression not into citizen participation but into other forms of participation like social participation. So to speak in term of this study, water carriers show no willingness to participate as a citizen participant and team player do show that willingness. Out of 11 communitarian respondents 2 are classified as water carriers opposed to 9 that are classified as team players. Because of the division between water carriers that are unwilling and team players that are willing, there is a basic difference in the nature of obstacles that are found in these two types of citizens. For water carriers the obstacles found work through keeping them from participation up front, before the start of a participation project. For team players the obstacles found play a role not before the start but during the participation process, in determining whether or not they cease participating in the participation process when coming into contact with these obstacles.

For the water carrier the question is which obstacles keep this type of citizen from participating as a citizen participant. Obstacles found have to do with competences, unfamiliarity with citizen participation, the absence of certain stimuli and the lack of visible results. The working of competences as an obstacle for participating for the water carrier has to do more specifically with the lack of competences. Participants need certain skills, qualities and abilities and self- knowledge about these competences in order to be willing to participate. The water carrier encounters obstacles in the area of competences needed to be able or confident to participate as a citizen participant, which shows in the following statement: “Nee, ik heb daar niet zoveel gedaan eerlijk gezegd. Ik had het idee van die mensen weten allemaal veel beter dan ik wat er aan de hand is […] omdat ik niet weet hoe dat moet […] Nou daar heb ik dus helemaal niets van begrepen[...]”. Not understanding certain information given and decisions made are in this case obstacles for the water carrier. Another obstacle for the water carrier that has to do with a lack of competences for citizen participation is the preference for practical tasks. The water carrier sees citizen participation as based on talking, deliberation, bargaining and such and does not see the need for these processes essential for reaching certain goals, which shows in this quote: “[…]Ja dat is prima, maar met bij mekaar zitten kom je er niet, ik wil graag wat actie zien. Dat gaat niet zo snel, het moet praktisch, de handen aan de ploeg. Het moet voorbereid worden, dat snap ik ook wel […] ja, ik ben een man van het doe-werk[...]”. The assumption is that a preference for practical tasks is based on the possession of competences needed for carrying out those tasks and a lack of actual competences or the confidence needed for citizen participation.

Unfamiliarity with citizen participation processes can also be an obstacle for water carriers. Lacking knowledge about citizen participation in general, about participation processes that are running, about actual actions that are undertaken within these processes and the unfamiliarity of the inner workings of citizen participation because of a lack of information can cause water carriers to be unwilling to participate: “[…] Als niemand meedoet dan schiet het ook niet op. Ik

47 vind het wel een vaag gebeuren hoor […] Ik zit op dit moment niet te springen, ik heb al genoeg te doen en het blijft voor mij toch een vaag gebeuren. Waar is dan de ingang? Stel dat ik het spoor weg wil, waar gaat de burger dan heen? Dan komt ie toch bij de politiek terecht of niet?[…] Het is me wat te zweverig […]”. An assumption can be made that unfamiliarity with citizen participation is related with a lack of competences, similar to the assumption about the relationship between a lack of competences and the preference for practical tasks aversion of citizen participation. When citizens do not feel able to participate they will not be interested in citizen participation, thus not participate and maintain the unfamiliarity with it.

The absence of certain stimuli in water carrier, that are found in team players, can also be seen as obstacles for citizen participation. These are the absence of selective social gratifications and the absence of influence as a stimulus. Lacking these stimuli causes lower willingness for citizen participation in an absolute sense and relative to team players. As stated, the drive for selective social gratifications does not show as a stimulus for water carriers. This type of citizen is willing to commit itself to the betterment of the community. Not seeing the betterment of the individual by means of selective social gratifications like being in contact with the mayor, politician and government officials can be seen as an obstacle for the willingness to participate, as shows in the following statement: “[…] Iets doen voor de maatschappij of de gemeente. Niet zo van kijk mij eens, ik zit nu in de groep huppeldepup […]”. Along with this obstacle the absence of an urge to influence the policy making process is another obstacle for willingness to participate for the water carrier, driving this type of citizen towards exit and not participating in citizen participation. An obstacle related to being and feeling unable to influence local governmental policy through citizen participation is a lack of results to pursue. Results are important for water carriers. The absence of visible and regular results also shows to be an obstacle for willingness for citizen participation: “[…] Nou nee, ik heb het gewoon gedaan en doordat er vooruitgang in het proces zat ben ik steeds doorgegaan […] Nee, dan was ik gestopt. Er waren natuurlijk ook echt deadlines[…]” Obstacles for water carriers influence willingness to participate in such a way that they do not start participating. Most of the obstacles found for team players play a role not before starting to participate, because the team player shows a basic willingness to participate, but during the participation process. There is one obstacle found for the team player that does work up front. This obstacle is about the conflict between different forms of participation. A particular kind of conflict is found between citizen participation and client participation. Obstacles that work during the participation process play a role for team players in lowering willingness to participate and determining whether or not they cease participating in the participation process. These obstacles are a lack of trust, a lack of influence the relationship between citizen participation and the political process.

Team players are motivated to participate based on a communitarian view of citizenship. They are willing to participate based on solidarity with, responsibility for and will to improve communities they feel part of. In this study the community of the town of Borne is central, but there are different communities of which citizens of Borne feel part of. When team players are directly or indirectly involved with healthcare organisations and they feel part of this community their willingness to participate can find its outlet in client participation.

Client participation is a form of participation that takes place within healthcare organisations. In practice it involves clients or relatives of clients in informing decision makers and assisting and reflecting on different policies that are in place within the healthcare organisation. The next quote shows how these different forms of participation can compete for the efforts of the team player: “[…] 30 jaar geleden was het not done om als burger mee te praten met de gemeente. Nu is dat anders, je spreekrecht staat in artikelen in bladen. Ik zou er best aan mee willen doen. Als ik niet actief was binnen cliëntenparticipatie dan zou ik zeker aan burgerparticipatie doen […]”.

48 A lack of trust is also an obstacle for citizen participation in team players. When trust is low the team player is more inclined to stop participating. The obstacle of a lack of trust, that has its effect during the participation process, seems to be based on three characteristics of the participation process. These are the quality of the participation process, the progress of the participation process and the degree and continuity of involvement of government officials and politicians. A lack of quality or perceived quality in the organisation and content of the participation process causes trust to lower and can become a deciding obstacle for ceasing to participate, as shows in the following statement: “[…] als men niet nakomt wat men afspreekt, dus er gebeurt iets of bepaalde afspraken worden niet nagekomen [...]. The progress of the participation process is important for team players because when they are involved in citizen participation they are focused on results. These results don’t necessary need to be the results they themselves want to reach but team players need to have the perception that there is progress in the participation process towards getting results. A lack of progress or the perception of the absence of progress is in this way an obstacle for the willingness for citizen participation for the team player: “[…] Als de gemeente te lui is om zaken aan te pakken dan zeg ik, dan haak ik af[…]”. The degree and continuity of involvement of politicians and government officials influences trust in government in that a lack of involvement leads to lower trust in government which in turn can lead to citizens exiting the participation process. Low involvement or a lack of presence and input of involved politicians can be classified as an obstacle for the team player: “[…] Stel dat een burgemeester na de tweede of derde keer niet meer komt opdagen dan zou dat een obstakel voor mij zijn om door te gaan […]”.

Another obstacle that shows to be a factor for the team player is a lack of influence or the perception of a lack of influence on the participation process and its outcomes. Central to this obstacle is the impact a participant has or senses he has on the outcome of the participation process. This notion of having an impact is twofold. On the one hand team players have the need of being heard by government officials and politicians in order to feel like they can have an impact: “Als de burger naar zijn mening gevraagd wordt en er wordt niet naar geluisterd dan zeg ik van ho dan stop ermee. Daar heb ik geen zin in om tegen een muur op te kletsen“. When team