This article describes the relationship between central government and municipalities and to what extent this relationship has an impact on local decision-making. The commonly used characterization of this relationship as a principal-agent relationship offers many leads but has some shortcomings. That is why this is compared with the stewardship theory, assuming a more equal and constructive cooperation. Both theories have been incorporated into a broader model on management styles, which creates a more nuanced description of the cooperation in public administration. The article focuses on the case of Rotterdam in 2015, at a time of political turmoil in the Netherlands about the shelter of people without residence permit. The analysis is carried out using a measuring instrument for policy freedom, as policy freedom is a good determinant for which management style is used. The research is conducted from a local perspective, with emphasis on the position of councilors. The national government sometimes profiles itself as a principal to them, but in practice council members resist and turn the relationship around, hereby holding the government accountable for its role and responsibility.

Because of the existing conservative-religious set of values in a dominant bourgeois culture, as historian Von der Dunk concluded in 1975, a conservative political party never came to fruition. In this article the author examines this observation on the basis of politically pivotal years: 1868, 1917, 1950, 1972 and 2002. At these moments the connection of the conservative-religious values with the age-old regent administrative culture appears to be cast in iron.
The author considers Von der Dunk’s conclusion to be proven: in the Netherlands a conservative party has never been viable as long as the Christian political parties represent conservative values adequately. Today’s right-wing populist parties adorn themselves with conservative values, but are essentially and act non-conservative.

Research integrity has received increased attention, in the literature as well as in policy. A host of initiatives is supporting its promotion. However, misconduct will not cease to exist and needs to be reported, by whistleblowers. It takes a lot of courage to blow the whistle as it can have an enormous impact on the whistleblower’s career and personal well-being – and that of colleagues and researchers associated with the perpetrator. Therefore, it is important to be cognisant of the stressful process that accompanies the act of whistleblowing, to provide clear and accessible procedures to report misconduct, and to support whistleblowers throughout the process. Furthermore, it is essential that appropriate whistleblower protection measures are in place and enforced. Based on the current review of the literature, we provide some recommendations for policy and argue that an obligation to report scientific misconduct would currently do more harm than good.