In contradiction with the widespread and often reiterated statement that both (political) participation and social capital are declining in Western societies, the last decennia have witnessed the rise of a new type of citizen engagement – one that is indeed not focused on participating in political or democratic processes, but rather on the production, implementation or delivery of public goods and services. Traditionally, policy was considered a more or less neutral expression of political interests, articulated on the input side of the political system. Within this new forms of participation, citizens are looking to ‘do’, to take on projects and realize their own ideas and initiatives, rather than to discuss or deliberate. Citizens set up projects to solve common concerns or problems, usually in their own direct environment, that allow them to express their individuality and the values and interest that are important to them, in cooperation with others (Bang, 2009). Citizens articulate their values and opinions while contributing to the implementation of policy rather than (consensual) decision making (Bang & Esmark, 2009; Bang, 2009; Hurenkamp & Tonkens, 2008; Li & Marsh, 2008; Van de Wijdeven, 2012).
The transition from government to governance opened up the production of public goods and services for private and societal actors. Citizen self-organisation thus adds a new dimension to this process of hybridization. Governments one the one hand stimulate this development by using a discourse focused on active citizenship, responsibilisation and coproduction. However they also have difficulties when challenged by active citizens who try to realize their initiative. These initiatives do not necessarily fit into the policy agenda of public sector organizations and they ask for another role and strategy for public officials who are inclined to do what their political principals have decided.
Increasingly governments not only respond (reactively) to this kind of initiatives, but they even attempt to actively welcome this type of initiatives. In order to do so, they develop new kinds of invitational governance. With this governance strategy governments try to define “invited spaces” (Cornwall, 2004). These spaces not only define the kind of initiatives that are invited, but also the criteria they have to meet. Invitational governance is also about the instruments that are used to provoke initiatives and the rules and procedures that are used to handle them. Moreover, invitational governance is about the way in which policy frameworks are formulated and the modes of interaction that are developed to span the boundaries between governmental institutions and self-organizing initiatives.
In this paper we conceptually explore the concept of invitational governance and ask ourselves what its main characteristics are and how it relates to other conceptualizations of governance like community governance, new public governance or cultural governance. We unravel the various components that constitute the concept and conclude our paper with a research agenda.
Paper_IRSPM_2018_Hermus___Van_Buuren_invitational_governance.pdf 