Civic engagement and the attention to it is worldwide. Though, we see that the scholarly literature tends to specialize and diverge. Actually, there are three different waves of civic engagement which are studied by different scholars, and sometimes these three waves are closely ‘layered’ (Streeck & Thelen, 2005). In some countries or academic communities people are studying the first wave, which is what Schofer and Fourcade-Gourinchas (2001) call the old ‘social movements’. In other countries or communities, scholars are studying the ‘new’ (and more specialized) social movements which appeared to the stage, e.g. environmental groups and women rights movements. Currently, we see again new forms of civic engagement. Not clustered in umbrella organizations, or around specific issues - these are slightly different - we call them ‘community self-organization initiatives’ (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011; van Meerkerk, Boonstra, & Edelenbos, 2013). What appeared to be a temporary phenomenon in the Netherlands at first - partly the result of a withdrawing government under pressure of the financial and economic crisis - now seems to be a fundamental change. Next to the pressure of cutting costs, new forms of civic engagement are developing, which might lead to alternate roles for established organizations and movements (Boons & Gerrits, 2008; Nederhand, Bekkers, & Voorberg, 2015).
The core of this paper will deal with distinguishing the different waves. This part will address the question: how we can understand these waves, e.g. is it a difference in degree of civic engagement, or are these three waves a difference in kind? Secondly, we will explore how we can study the patterns and underlying conditions in a comparative way. All three waves are studied with different frameworks, for instance with Lijpharts’ Framework for Assessing Democratic Forms (Lijphart, 2012), the work of Putnam (Putnam, 1995) and for instance the level of statism and cooperateness by Schofer & Fourcade-Gourinchas (2001). What can we learn from these established frameworks?
Bibliography
Boons, F., & Gerrits, L. (2008). Between self-organization and government: a complexity perspective on the rise and fall of the hierarchical state. In Conference Proceedings: European Consortium for Political Research ECPR: Essex (2008, januari 01). Citeseer.
Boonstra, B., & Boelens, L. (2011). Self-organization in urban development: towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Research & Practice.
Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of democracy : government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press.
Nederhand, J., Bekkers, V., & Voorberg, W. (2015). Self-Organization and the Role of Government: How and why does self-organization evolve in the shadow of hierarchy? Public Management Review, 18(7), 1063–1084.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Schofer, E., & Fourcade-Gourinchas, M. (2001). The structural contexts of civic engagement: voluntary association membership in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 806–828.
Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. A. (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford University Press. van Meerkerk, I., Boonstra, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2013). Self-Organization in Urban Regeneration: A Two-Case Comparative Research. European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1630–1652.
D1 - Community self-organization: how is it shaped in different political-administrative c
