The housing crisis is a social, political and policy issue that has not been as topical in recent decades as it is today. Over the past 25 years, the housing crisis has grown from an orphaned dossier to a problem that even has people taking to the streets. Starting from the issue attention cycle, after the alarm phase we are now in the contemplation phase of this cycle. Although the diagnosis of the problem is shared in this phase and agreement begins to emerge about the solutions, we also see the beginning of reflections on the effectiveness of the intended policy instruments and doubts about the feasibility of the objectives. Nowadays, the question is regularly asked whether major institutional changes should not be made to tackle the housing crisis. This article uses the current contemplation phase to address important institutional issues. The conclusion is that without thinking about institutional transitions, no major breakthroughs can be expected in the housing crisis and related spatial issues.

Partly as a result of major problems on the housing market and in particular the large housing shortage, there is now a lot of attention for housing in both the press and politics. After many years of focus on more market forces and decentralization, the national government recently seems prepared to take more responsibility. In this contribution we try to interpret this turnaround by successively considering the main problems in the housing market, the development of government policy and possible solutions to the problems that have arisen. The emphasis is on the role of the national government. We conclude that, in view of the many spatial claims and the major investment tasks, it is important that the national government takes control and makes clear choices, which can then be worked out at regional and local level. By subsequently closely monitoring the developments and intervening if necessary, the central government can make adjustments on the intended housing policies.

What causes the delays in the building of sufficient new homes in the Netherlands? And why do housebuilding projects so often struggle with financial feasibility? The land market typically can be described as an imperfect market, while the performance of the land and housebuilding market are closely connected. This connection seems to cause, at least partially, delays in the building of new homes. To be able to build new houses, ownership of land is crucial. However, land does not always come available in time. Landownership also influences competition in the housebuilding market. Based on a review of scientific literature, policy documents and empirical research results, this paper discusses the performance of the land and housebuilding market and its possible impact on housing production. Additionally, the paper reviews recent proposals that have been suggested in the context of the on-going Dutch housing market debate that may improve the functioning of these markets. What might be the effects of these interventions on housebuilding production? The paper concludes with a couple of dilemmas governments face with regard to the functioning of the land and housebuilding market.

Legislation is seen both as a problem and a solution for the lengthy process of spatial decision-making. The new Environment and Planning Act aims to speed up and improve decision-making on spatial projects. That sounds promising as an answer to the housing shortage. Can we indeed expect the Act to speed up housing projects? Will legal problems such as the protracted nitrogen crisis and appeals by opponents of new construction be prevented from now on? To answer these questions, this contribution first examines the (im)possibilities of using the instrument of legislation to tackle (spatial) problems. The subsequent analysis of accelerating measures in the Environment and Planning Act shows that a great deal of time is actually spent on activities that are not affected by legislative measures. High expectations of acceleration should therefore be tempered.

The effectiveness and legitimacy of action strategies in the realm of spatial decision making Increasing spatial claims require careful decision-making. The question is where, from an institutional point of view, decision-making can best take place. Traditionally, balancing interests takes place in the political arena. Our legal system also guarantees legally anchored interests. In addition, we have expected for decades that participation processes stimulate participation, creativity and co-creation of citizens and entrepreneurs. Moreover, the arrival of the new Environment Act in the Netherlands gives participation a more compelling character: for private initiators, such as project developers, the organization of participation is even a hard requirement in a number of cases. Under the new Environment Act, policymakers, administrators, citizens and companies must constantly make a choice between participating, legalizing or politicizing in decision-making processes. This article analyses this choice from the perspectives of effectiveness and legitimacy. Is decision-making through participation more effective, or are parties better off in the courtroom, or the local council for effective and legitimate decisions? Theoretically, this question is interesting because the answer teaches us about effective and legitimate governance. For the practice of environmental decision-making, we consider when the participatory, legal or political route can best be followed to create both effective and legitimate decisions.

Both in a legal and in a practical sense, the tasks of executives in school boards are difficult to delineate. Consequently, credibility of boards and their members has become topical. What makes an executive board credible? How do executives become and remain credible? In this article we address these questions and present the results of our qualitative analysis of the way in which executives in primary education give meaning and substance to their efforts. Based on the empirical results, it appears that executives of the board are well aware of the need to be perceived credible. It also appears that they take this into account in their daily behavior and interactions.

In 2015, the three decentralizations in the social domain took place, a transfer of tasks and resources from the national government to municipalities in the Netherlands. Since then, the Dutch municipalities have been responsible for tasks related to work, care and youth. How the municipalities have tackled these tasks? What is the situation in the social domain seven years later? And what is the relationship between municipalities and national government?
It appears that municipalities are struggling with their new tasks, mainly because of the insufficient financial resources and the limited freedom of choice. With regard to the characterization of the transfer of tasks, it is better to speak of the three deconcentrations, instead of the three decentralizations. Municipalities have received new tasks, but experience little policy freedom to tackle those tasks. In order to achieve the goals associated with the transfer to municipalities, it is necessary to increase the scope for municipalities to make their own choices. In this way, national government and municipalities can work on more equal relations.

Public-private partnerships (PPS) are often used by public procurers. This article evaluates the application of PPS in the Netherlands by reflecting on the findings on a recently published report “Learning from 15 years DBFM-projects at the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management” (or “Leren van 15 jaar DBFM-projecten bij RWS” in Dutch).