Creating facade gardens, a street barbecue, a cleaning campaign in the street, homework assistance in the community center. Municipalities find it important that citizens are committed to their neighborhood. They therefore have funds to finance the best initiatives and try to motivate citizens to make use of them.
Municipal officials then advise which proposals will receive funding. Sociologist Vivian Visser (32) investigated why they reject one proposal and embrace another. She received her PhD for her research last week Who is invited? at Erasmus University in Rotterdam.
The reason for her research is that municipalities expect a lot from the initiatives, says Visser. And residents feel involved in their neighborhood and more connected to each other. This makes them feel more comfortable in the street, which also becomes more beautiful due to the initiatives. This is evident from various resident surveys. Visser: “But does it apply to all residents? And are all citizens reached? Could that be even better? That’s what I wanted to know.”
She did her research in Rotterdam. That city is a pioneer in rewarding and financing citizen initiatives that beautify and make streets and neighborhoods more beautiful. The city calls it ‘opzoomeren’, after the Opzoomerstraat where residents worked together to tackle their dilapidated street in the 1980s. Since then, the ‘opzoomer’ budget for neighborhood initiatives has existed. Officials from other cities come to look for inspiration.
Also read this article: Citizens’ initiatives often lead to disillusionment and cynicism. Can that be done better?
Shadow side
It is beautiful, says Vivian Visser. But, there is also a dark side. It is mainly residents with a high socio-economic status who walk the Opzoomerweg. “People who need it the least apply for the most.” Suppose, Visser explains, they apply for a subsidy to make their sidewalk greener, which means that parking spaces disappear, then this is to the disadvantage of the people who need a car every day to go to work in the port.
She interviewed nineteen civil servants after submitting fictitious proposals from Rotterdam residents. Her research showed that civil servants are well aware that most plans are submitted by affluent, highly educated people. They view these plans with suspicion and ask many critical questions. For example, they wanted to know from the applicants whether the application would benefit the entire neighborhood or only a specific group. And they wanted to know whether they would carry out the activities themselves or hire someone to do so.
“I didn’t expect that attitude beforehand,” says Visser. “I had previously thought that with these applicants they would think: that is fine.”
The higher educated never mentioned that they would learn from it
Vivian Visser sociologist
Initiatives from people with a lower socio-economic status were welcomed with open arms. Officials were much less critical of these plans and simply assumed that they would benefit the entire neighborhood. And that the petitioners themselves would roll up their sleeves. The officials told Visser that they expected it would be good for their self-esteem and the petitioners could learn from it. “It was never mentioned among the higher educated that they would learn from it,” says Visser. “They think it is so important that an application comes from that group [lageropgeleiden]that they approved it almost uncritically.”
Subsequently, lower-educated applicants had to deal with a lot of interference. They were offered much more unsolicited help than higher educated people. Officials wanted to help with, for example, drawing up the budget or applying for permits. They also interfered with the content of the activity, which they hardly did among higher educated people. Sometimes even in a pedantic way, says Visser. For example, the initiators of a street festival were told that there should not only be rapping, as was the plan. Officials then paired them with a local opera company so that that aspect of the music spectrum would also be covered.
Also read this article: Decades of policy and neighborhood initiatives in the deprived area of Schiedam
Taken seriously
In addition to civil servants for her PhD research, Visser also spoke with practically trained Rotterdammers; the citizens who hardly rely on the pot of money for neighborhood initiatives. Previous research shows that they have insufficient knowledge and time to make the applications, says Visser.
That’s right, she also heard during interviews – but there are more factors involved. For example, less educated citizens did not feel like submitting an application because they expected not to be taken seriously. They did not want to feel slighted in conversations with officials who, they assumed, came from a completely different background. They described people from that environment as ‘scoundrels’ and ‘fringers’. These are very different people, they play hockey and play an instrument, they said.
Others wanted nothing to do with the municipality, because they associated it with ‘dirty power games’. Visser: “That group would rather miss out on funding than have anything to do with a civil servant.”
It would be better if the officials who carry out the assessment and guidance paid more attention to the living environment of the target group they deal with. According to Visser, a diverse team of civil servants would also help. Most civil servants are white and highly educated. Visser: “Also make sure there are other people in your organization who are closer to the target group. Then you can achieve it a lot easier.”
Also read this article: ‘You can have a say, but you can’t participate’
A version of this article also appeared in the September 12, 2023 newspaper.