The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Six Interactive Processes in the Netherlands
Open accessAbstract
Initiatives to encourage and stimulate the involvement of citizens but also various societal organizations in decision making can be seen in a wide variety of European countries. Citizen panels, citizen charters, new types of participation, and other forms are being used to increase the influence of citizens on decision making and to improve the relation between citizens and elected politicians. In the Netherlands a lot of local governments have experimented with interactive decision making that is enhancing the influence of citizens and interest groups on public policy making. The main motives to involve stakeholders in interactive decision making are to diminish the veto power of various societal actors by involving them in decision making, improve the quality of decision making by using the information and solutions of various actors, and bridge the perceived growing cleavage between citizens and elected politicians. In this article six cases are evaluated. The cases are compared on three dimensions: the nature and organization of participation, the way the process is managed (process management), and the relation with formal democratic institutions. These organizational features (in terms of both formal organization and actual performance) are compared with the results of the decision-making processes in the six cases. The article shows that the high expectations of interactive decision making are not always met. It also shows that managing the interactions—called process management in network theory—is very important for achieving satisfactory outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS: COMPATIBLE OR NOT?
KLIJN, E., & SKELCHER, C. (2007) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00662.x · Cited by 469
Self-citationTHE LIMITATIONS OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT NETWORKS
McGUIRE, M., & AGRANOFF, R. (2011) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01917.x · Cited by 340
Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012) · Journal of Public Policy · doi:10.1017/s0143814x12000049 · Cited by 294
Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review
Alfredo, R., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Yan, L., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100215 · Cited by 281
Collaboration or Hierarchy: Experimental Evidence on Governance Modes and Legitimacy Perceptions
Hillo, J., Vento, I., & Sjöblom, S. (2024) · Journal of Public Affairs · doi:10.1002/pa.2952 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E.-H.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-07-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 417-446
- ISSN
- 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9803
- OpenAlex
- W2025467993
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Six Interactive Processes in the Netherlands. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jopart/mui049
- The paper
- Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E.-H. (2006). Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Six Interactive Processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui049
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.