Zoekresultaat: 3 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid x Jaar 2011 x
Artikel

Regulering in een hybride veiligheidszorg

Over de bewaking van een publiek goed in een deels geprivatiseerd bestel

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 4 2011
Trefwoorden regulation, security, privatization, public good, self-regulation
Auteurs Jan Terpstra
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper deals with the question of how a partly privatized security sector could be regulated. A central aim of this regulation should be the control of security as a public good. Three models of regulation are analyzed. The current practice of this regulation in the Netherlands shows a serious lack of effectiveness. One of our main conclusions is that neither the state nor the private sector is able to enforce this regulation on their own. However, it is assumed that the state should have a central and integrated regulatory role in this field, with more attention paid to the practical implementation of it, with the power and will to sanction private agencies if necessary. In addition managers of private security companies should adopt a role as public managers with a public moral duty. Regulation of security is faced with a double problematic, not only the horizontal fragmentation of the field, but also the vertical fragmentation, often resulting in a serious gap between managers and those in the field, both in the public and the private sector. This implies that the regulation should not only rest on the state and on self-regulation by the sector at management level, but also on the promotion of a practical ethic for security workers to steer and regulate their daily work.


Jan Terpstra
Prof. dr. ir. J.B. (Jan) Terpstra is werkzaam bij het Criminologisch Instituut, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen. E-mail: j.terpstra@jur.ru.nl
Artikel

Zijn Nederlandse burgers écht enthousiast over de nieuwe antiterrorismemaatregelen?

Een vergelijking van attitudes en willingness to pay

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 3 2011
Trefwoorden counterterrorism policy, public opinion, willingness to pay, legitimacy
Auteurs Johan van Wilsem en Maartje van der Woude
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Since 2001, the Netherlands have broadened their array of antiterrorism legislation and policies. However, there is hardly any insight into the level of public support for them. This article assesses the Dutch public opinion on four measures that were recently made effective: enhanced possibilities for stop-and-search, broadening of possibilities for special investigative resources, increased obligations for identification, and body scans in airports. Two randomly selected, comparable groups were asked different questions about these issues: attitudes or willingness to pay. The results show that respondents have positive attitudes towards newly introduced antiterrorism measures, yet simultaneously, they have low willingness to pay. Both groups were also asked how they would allocate an imaginary fixed budget to various criminal justice policies and tax rebate. These results show similar relations for both attitudes and willingness to pay, suggesting they both measure the relative importance assigned to antiterrorism policies. A right political orientation predicts both positive attitudes and high willingness to pay. Furthermore, people with high income have higher willingness to pay. The results underline the necessity to pay attention to the subtleties underlying public opinion on crime control.


Johan van Wilsem
Dr. J.A. (Johan) van Wilsem is universitair hoofddocent criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht & Criminologie van de Universiteit Leiden. E-mail: J.A.van.Wilsem@law.leidenuniv.nl.

Maartje van der Woude
Mr. dr. M.A.H. (Maartje) van der Woude is universitair docent criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht & Criminologie van de Universiteit Leiden. E-mail: m.a.h.vanderwoude@law.leidenuniv.nl.
Artikel

Integrale veiligheidszorg en de burgemeester

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 1 2011
Trefwoorden integraal, burgemeester, veiligheidsbeleid, religie
Auteurs Ruth Prins en Lex Cachet
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Changing public safety problems as well as an increasing societal demand for public safety made way for new policy approaches. During the 1990s, the so called ‘integral safety approach’ was introduced in the Netherlands. This approach manifested itself mainly on the municipal level where the mayor is being held responsible for managing public safety and order. The central question raised in this article is: what are the consequences of an integral approach to public safety problems for the mayor when managing local order and public safety? We will demonstrate that ‘integrality’ is no clear cut concept. Careful inspection of the concept learns that it has multiple meanings. Of these various meanings, especially the ambition to address public safety problems by means of ‘new alliances’ characterized the actual implementation of integral policies. However, working together within these new alliances uniting various more or less independent actors from both the public and private sector, seemed to be hampered by a lack of coordination and control. In that sense, the introduction of the integral approach had consequences for steering and control of public safety policies. These consequences have to be addressed, especially by the mayor who is accountable for local order and safety. The mayor had attributed to him – first in practice, soon by law as well – the role of director of public safety policy on the municipal level. However, as we will demonstrate in this article, the mayor lacks an important trait needed for effective directorship: decisive powers. Therefore the mayor is not able to realize effective cooperation between partners within the new alliances of the integral approach to public safety problems. As a potential solution, we will describe the characteristics of a ‘model of anticipation’ granting the mayor a certain level of decisive powers to be used as an ultimum remedium.


Ruth Prins
Ruth Prins MSc is promovendus Burgemeester en Veiligheid, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Contactadres: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Burg. Oudlaan 50 (kamer M7-06), Postbus 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam. Tel. 010-4088714, e-mail: prins@fsw.eur.nl

Lex Cachet
Dr. Lex Cachet is Universitair Hoofddocent Bestuurskunde aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Opleiding Bestuurskunde. E-mail: cachet@fsw.eur.nl
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.