The Influence of Participation in Civic Spaces on Perceived Political Trust: Lessons From Two Case Studies in the Netherlands
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54195/plc.23105Keywords:
local participation, sortition, community-based initiatives, active citizenship, political trustAbstract
As governments increasingly turn to participation to increase political trust among their citizens, it becomes urgent to understand the relationship between participation and trust. We explore how participants of two case studies – in invited spaces and citizens’ governance spaces – perceive the influence of their participation on political trust. We find that both government responsiveness and citizens’ expectations affect political trust. In the case of citizens’ governance spaces, governments can meet the expectations of citizens, and political trust increases. However, in the case study on invited spaces, citizens expect more of the government than it can deliver, which negatively impacts citizens’ trust. This challenges assumptions both about participation raising trust no matter what happens, and about the ‘Matthew-effect’, which predicts that savvy citizens will see their trust rise easily. Raising trust at the level of participatory spaces requires calibration of mutual ambitions rather than mere ‘expectation management’.
Downloads
References
Antonelli, M. A., & De Bonis, V. (2017). How do European welfare states perform? Social Europe.
Bennett, H., Escobar, O., Hill O’Connor, C., Plotnikova, E., & Steiner, A. (2022). Participation requests: A democratic innovation to unlock the door of public services? Administration & Society, 54(4), 605-628.
Bernard, H. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). AltaMira Press.
Bernhard, L. (2024). Does direct democracy increase civic virtues? A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Political Science, 6, 1287330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1287330.
Beste, S., & Wyss, D. (2019). Quantitative methods in democratic innovation research. In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (pp. 472-485). Edward Elgar.
Boswell, J., Hendriks, C. M., & Ercan, S. A. (2023). Beyond citizen assemblies: Expanding the repertoire of democratic reform. In M. Reuchamps, J. Vrydagh, & W. Welp (Eds.), De Gruyter handbook of citizens’ assemblies (Vol. 1, pp. 85-96). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110758269-009.
Boulianne, S. (2019). Building faith in democracy: Deliberative events, political trust and efficacy. Political Studies, 67(1), 4-30.
Brand, S., & Hurenkamp, M. E. (2022). Kwalitatief onderzoek naar gelote wijkcomités in Rotterdam 2018-2022. Gemeente Rotterdam. https://onderzoek010.nl/news/Kwalitatief-onderzoek-naar-gelote-wijkcomites-in-Rotterdam-2018-2022/364.
Bua, A., & Bussu, S. (2021). Between governance-driven democratisation and democracy-driven governance: Explaining changes in participatory governance in the case of Barcelona. European Journal of Political Research, 60(3), 716-737.
Bussu, S. (2019). Collaborative governance: Between invited and invented spaces. In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance, (pp. 60-76). Edward Elgar.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298.
Curato, N., Luís, A., Ross, M., & Veloso, L. (2025). Just sortition, communitarian deliberation: Two proposals for grounded climate assemblies. Environmental Science & Policy, 168, 104070.
De Swaan, A. (1988). In care of the state: Healthcare, education and welfare in Europe and the USA in the modern era. Oxford University Press.
De Tocqueville, A. (2003). Democracy in America and two essays on America (G. E. Bevan, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1831).
De Wilde, M., Hurenkamp, M., & Tonkens, E. (2014). Flexible relations, frail contacts and failing demands: How community groups and local institutions interact in local governance in the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 51(16), 3365-3382.
Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Prentice-Hall.
Elstub, S., & Escobar, O. (2019). Introduction to the handbook of democratic innovation and governance: The field of democratic innovation. In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (pp. 1-9). Edward Elgar.
Fernández-Martínez, J. L., García-Espín, P., & Jiménez-Sánchez, M. (2020). Participatory frustration: The unintended cultural effect of local democratic innovations. Administration & Society, 52(5), 718-748.
Fledderus, J. (2018). The effects of co-production on trust. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 258-265). Taylor & Francis.
Frambach, J. M., Van der Vleuten, C. P., & Durning, J. (2013). AM last page: Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research. Academic Medicine, 88(4), 552.
Gąsiorowska, A. (2023). Sortition and its principles: Evaluation of the selection processes of citizens’ assemblies. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 19(1).
Gaventa, J. (2019) Applying power analysis: Using the ‘Powercube’ to explore forms, levels and spaces.” Power, empowerment and social change. Routledge, 117-138.
Grasso, M., & Giugni, M. (2025). Intersectionality and inequalities in political participation in Europe: How do gender, class and age relate to political exclusion? Comparative European Politics, 1-26.
Harris, C. (2019). Mini-publics: Design choices and legitimacy. In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (pp. 45-59). Edward Elgar.
Hendriks, C. M., & Colvin, R. M. (2024). Spaces of public participation in contemporary governance. Australian Politics and Policy.
Hendriks, C. M., & Dzur, A. W. (2021). Citizens’ governance spaces: Democratic action through disruptive collective problem-solving. Political Studies, 70(3), 680-700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720980902.
Hendriks, F. (2023). Rethinking democratic innovation: Cultural clashes and the reform of democracy. Oxford University Press.
Hurenkamp, M., Duyvendak, J. W., & Tonkens, E. (2011). Citizenship in the Netherlands: Locally produced, nationally contested. Citizenship Studies, 15(2), 205-225.
Hurenkamp, M. & E. Tonkens (2011). De onbeholpen samenleving: Burgerschap aan het begin van de 21e eeuw. Amsterdam University Press.
International IDEA. (2023). The state of democracy in Europe: The new checks and balances. https://www.idea.int/gsod/2023/.
Igalla, M., Edelenbos, J., & Van Meerkerk, I. (2019). Citizens in action: What do they accomplish? A systematic literature review of citizen initiatives, their main characteristics, outcomes, and factors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(5), 1176-1194.
Igalla, M., Edelenbos, J., & van Meerkerk, I. (2020). What explains the performance of community-based initiatives? Testing the impact of leadership, social capital, organizational capacity, and government support. Public Management Review, 22(4), 602-632.
Isett, K. R., & Miranda, J. (2015). Watching sausage being made: Lessons learned from the co-production of governance in a behavioral health system. Public Management Review, 17(1), 35-56.
Jacobs, K. (2024). Have a little faith in deliberation? Examining the effect of participation in a citizens’ assembly on populist attitudes. Contemporary Politics, 30(4), 512-533.
Jacquet, V., Niessen, C., & Reuchamps, M. (2022). Sortition, its advocates and its critics: An empirical analysis of citizens’ and MPs’ support for random selection as a democratic reform proposal. International Political Science Review, 43(2), 295-316.
Jo, S., & Nabatchi, T. (2018). Co-production, co-production, and citizen empowerment. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 231-239). Taylor & Francis.
Junius, N. (2023). Legitimacy in the participants’ eyes: A call for participants’ authorship over minipublic design in Brussels. Critical Policy Studies, 17(4), 524-543.
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2013) “De doe-democratie. Kabinetsnota ter stimulering van een vitale samenleving.” Den Haag.
Mußotter, M., & Hjort Rapp, C. (2025). Nationalism and political support: Longitudinal evidence from The Netherlands. West European Politics, 1-23.
Norris, P. (2017). The conceptual framework of political support. In Handbook on political trust (pp. 19-32). Edward Elgar Publishing.
OECD. (2024). OECD survey on drivers of trust in public institutions 2024: Country notes - Netherlands. Parvin, P. (2018). Democracy without participation: A new politics for a disengaged era. Res Publica, 24(1), 31-52.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on politics, 10(1), 7-19.
Przeworski, A. (2019). Crises of democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Robert Bosch Stiftung. (2024a). Country report: Luxembourg (By R. Kies, L. Verhasselt, & E. Paulis). Robert Bosch Stiftung. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emilien-Paulis/ publication/382019806_Country_Report_Luxembourg_The_Significance_of_Citizen_Participation_in_Politics_and_Society/links/6687ff40714e0b03154911fe/Country-Report-Luxembourg-The-Significance-of-Citizen-Participation-in-Politics-and-Society.pdf.
Robert Bosch Stiftung. (2024b). Country report: Belgium (By R. Kies, L. Verhasselt, & E. Paulis). Robert Bosch Stiftung. https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/sites/default/files/documents/2024-06/Country-report-belgium.pdf.
Robert Bosch Stiftung. (2024c). Country report: The Netherlands (By R. Kies, L. Verhasselt, & E. Paulis). Robert Bosch Stiftung. https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/sites/default/files/documents/2024-06/Country-report-netherlands.pdf.
Ryan, M. (2019). Comparative approaches to the study of democratic innovation. In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (pp. 558-570). Edward Elgar.
Røiseland, A. (2022). Co-creating democratic legitimacy: Potentials and pitfalls. Administration & Society, 54(8), 1493-1515.
Smith, G., Introduction to the panel ‘beyond deliberative hegemony’, ECPR general conference, Prague, 2016.
Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2019). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American states. University of Michigan Press.
Spada, P. (2019). The impact of democratic innovations on citizens’ efficacy. In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (pp. 161-176). Edward Elgar.
Spit, N., Visscher, K., Hurenkamp, M., Tonkens, E., & Trappenburg, M. (2021). Burgerinitiatieven in tijden van crisis: Onderzoek naar de factoren die de bestendigheid van burgerinitiatieven beïnvloeden. Mens & Maatschappij, 96(3), 441-460.
Stack, S., & Griessler, E. (2022). From a “half full or half empty glass” to “definitely a success”: Explorative comparison of impacts of climate assemblies in Ireland, France, Germany and Scotland. (IHS Working Paper, 39). Wien: Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-78385-6.
Stoker, G., Evans, M. (2019). Does political trust matter? In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (pp. 120-134). Edward Elgar.
Sørensen, E. (2017). Political innovations: Innovations in political institutions, processes, and outputs. Public Management Review, 19(1), 1-19.
Talpin, J. (2019). Qualitative approaches to democratic innovations. In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (pp. 486-500). Edward Elgar.
Tonkens, E., & Verhoeven, I. (2019). The civic support paradox: Fighting unequal participation in deprived neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 56(8), 1595-1610.
Ubels, H. (2020). Novel forms of governance with high levels of civic self-reliance [Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen]. doi.org/10.33612/diss.111587565.
Van Bentum, H., Visscher, K.W., Hurenkamp, M. & Tonkens, E. (forthcoming) The overlooked politics of the mundane and the material in citizen initiatives’ quest for legitimacy.
Van Bochove, M., Tonkens, E., Verplanke, L., & Verhoeven, M. (Eds.). (2014). Kunnen we dat (niet) aan vrijwilligers overlaten? [Can’t we leave that to volunteers?]. Platform 31.
Van der Does, R., & Jacquet, V. (2023). Small-scale deliberation and mass democracy: A systematic review of the spillover effects of deliberative minipublics. Political Studies, 71(1), 218-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217211007278.
Verhoeven, I., & Tonkens, E. (2011). Bewonersinitiatieven: Partnerschap tussen burgers en overheid. Beleid en Maatschappij, 38(4), 419-437.
Verhoeven, I., & Van Bochove, M (2018) “Moving away, toward, and against: How front-line workers cope with substitution by volunteers in Dutch care and welfare services.” Journal of Social Policy 47, no. 4: 783-801.
Visscher, K. W., Hurenkamp, M. E., & Tonkens, E. H. (2023). The democratic potential of community-based initiatives. Politics of the Low Countries, 5(1), 36-57.
Warren, M. E. (2014). Governance-Driven Democratization. In S. Griggs, A. J. Norval, & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Practices of freedom: Decentred governance, conflict and democratic participation (pp. 38-59). Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kors Visscher, Susan Brand, Menno Hurenkamp, Evelien Tonkens (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
