Recently there is a renewed interest in citizenship education in the Netherlands. This interest is related to worries about the multi-cultural society, the lack of participation of specific groups in society and the lack of respect in daily life interactions (Van der Vaart 2003). Since two years, schools in primary and secondary education are legally obliged to introduce citizenship education. To organisations promoting global education (often NGOs) this interest is seen as a new possibility for stimulating the global dimension in citizenship education. Global citizenship is more and more used as an educational concept, for example in the documents and activities by the National Committee for Sustainable Development and International Cooperation (Béneker, van der Vaart & van Stalborch 2007). One might question whether the type of citizenship education promoted by the national government is comparable in aims and practice with the type of citizenship promoted by global education advocators (Davies & Reid 2005, Davies 2006). This paper will analyse and compare the type of (global) citizenship stimulated in official policy documents by the government and by NGOs. For this we will use the framework of Westheimer & Kahne (2004) based on their research in North America. From a study of educational programs that aim to promote democracy, they detail three conceptions of the type of ‘good’ citizens promoted – the personally responsible, the participatory and the justice oriented. They demonstrate a narrow political view on citizenship by neglecting the justice oriented citizen and overwhelmingly stimulating the personally responsible citizen. We might expect a comparable outcome for the citizenship promotion from the government while global education traditionally focuses more on participatory and justice oriented citizens.