Search results

Purpose – Based on a case study of citizens’ summits in Amsterdam, this chapter examines competing aims bound up in attempts to create an in-between space where participants struggle to obtain a sense of belonging against the background of (non)diversity.

Methodology/Approach – A qualitative case study approach is used based on participant observation, informal talks with participants, and interviews with the summit organizers.

Findings – A citizens’ summit can be seen as an in-between space where narratives of citizens should dominate instead of (local) governmental rhetoric. Citizens´ summits create a voice for citizens who are normally less heard in the public debate. To what extent this can be achieved depends on how a summit enables a diversity of participants to practice dialogue, create common ground and share ownership of ideas, problems and solutions. Our findings provide insight into contested belonging within the democratic system in the Netherlands and elsewhere.

Social Implications – We suggest that belonging, space and diversity affect social boundaries between those in the electoral democratic system and those participating in citizens’ summits. Focussing on these can lead towards more inclusive democratic systems for all.

Originality/Value of the Paper – Citizens’ summits are often seen as a democratic tool that supplements the electoral democracy. This study looks at the interactions between participants, revealing much about the functioning of deliberative space in citizens’ summits. We also focus on the issue of participant diversity and how senses of belonging include or exclude sections of society.

Fiscal stress has forced Ohio local governments to pay increasing attention to the importance of revenue forecasting. This paper identifies and examines two Ohio local governments’ revenue forecasting approaches and forecasting accuracy using the case study method. It compares the differences in forecasting methods used. This research finds that informal forecasting methods are used by the county and formal forecasting methods are used by the city, that forecast accuracy varies by level of revenue aggregation using the informal method, and that depending on the revenue source, simple methods are more appropriate than complex methods.

The purpose of this exploratory research is to identify key motivations, administrative costs, and instrumental benefits of translating data-rich budgets into user-friendly reports for citizens. This research draws from interviews with chief financial officers in local governments that are recognized by the Government Finance Officers Association for preparing additional financial reports that appeal to a citizen-based audience. Candid discussions and thoughtful reflections of respondents demonstrate that chief financial officers play a leading role in determining the style and extent to which financial information is communicated to external audiences. The research suggests that adopting this form of financial reporting, however, does not necessarily have an impact on citizen participation in the budget process. Recommendations from the point of view of the research participant are presented for practitioners interested in implementing citizen-based financial reporting. The research concludes with a discussion of the state of practice of citizen-based financial reporting of the research sample and areas for future study.

People who are “othered” confront an epistemic injustice that silences and discards their knowledge. Rather than being actors in their own future, people in positions of authority dictate prescriptive procedures, removing marginalized individuals – and often the communities that care about them – from participating in what could be real and sustainable solutions to harmful social conditions. These injustices create us/them narratives, which can become social landmines that may explode under pressure. Restorative practices prize shared learning and decision-making to harness collective energies around a common purpose to repair relationships. Dialogue facilitated in a circle format ritualizes acts of inclusion and utilizes the power of followership – those without formal authority – to create a shared understanding. Revealing complexities beyond a myopic us/them perspective expands cognitive empathy and refocuses participants on unmet needs to help defuse social landmines. This chapter illustrates three inclusive circle processes that can be employed to uphold human dignity by affirming belonging within a diverse community and honoring all people’s voice and agency. Dialogue circles respond to the injustice of being othered by granting people the right to interpret their own lives. In Detroit, Guatemala, and Singapore, facilitated circles create space for reciprocal storytelling and foster social connections among neighbors, police, and migrants. Most significantly, people become stewards of their future, not problems to be managed, kindling life-affirming resolve collectively supported within their communities.

This study aims to explore how the public perceives the effectiveness of surveillance technology, and how people’s views on privacy and their views on effectiveness are related. Likewise, it looks at the relation between perceptions of effectiveness and opinions on the acceptable cost of surveillance technology.

For this study, surveys of Dutch students and their parents were conducted over three consecutive years.

A key finding of this paper is that the public does not engage in a trade-off neither with regard to privacy-effectiveness (exchanging more effectiveness for less privacy and vice versa) nor with effectiveness-cost, but rather expects all three elements to be achieved simultaneously. This paper also found that the correlation between perceived effectiveness and perceived privacy was stronger for parents than for students.

Participants for this study were exclusively in The Netherlands. Survey questions on the effectiveness of surveillance technology focused on one type of technology, and on private mobile device use in two scenarios.

The public’s perceptions of the effectiveness of surveillance technology potentially influence its acceptance of the technology, which, in turn, can affect the legitimacy and use of the technology.

Within the much-discussed privacy-security debate lies a less-heard debate – that of the effectiveness of the surveillance technology in question. The public is one actor in this debate. This study examines the public’s perceptions of this less-heard debate.