This special issue answers the question of whether council members of local political parties are ‘different’ in a number of respects from the elected representatives of non-local groups in Dutch municipal councils. In ‘being different’ we focus primarily on the politically relevant views of the office holders and sometimes also on their actions. In answering the questions, we mainly used data from the Basic Monitor of Political Office Holders 2019 (BPA-2019) as collected among office holders at municipalities (councillors, aldermen and mayors) between 23 September and 10 November 2019 on behalf of the University Twente (UT) and Tilburg University (TiU). This research was carried out with financial support from the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.

Despite their differences, local parties in the Netherlands share a strong degree of localism: they focus more than national parties on specific problems in their municipality. However, less is known about the representatives of local parties in the municipal council. The fact that their parties as well as their voters have different views could mean that council members of local parties fulfil their functions in a different way. This article examines the extent to which this is the case. The data from the Dutch Basic Monitor for Political Office Holders (BPA) was used to answer this question. Council members of local parties appear to be less strongly oriented towards their administrative role and to focus more on their representative activities. Compared to council members of national parties, representatives of local parties are generally more critical of the various aspects of local democracy and of the problem-solving capacity of local government. Their more centre-right position in the political spectrum is also reflected in the left-right positioning of their councillors.

The municipal governance model in the Netherlands (as in 2000) is still based on the primacy of a representative body directly elected by the residents. In 2019, among their other duties, councillors attach the utmost importance to the representation of residents. This article focuses on whether ‘local’ councillors and ‘non-local’ councillors differ in their ideas about this important representative role of the city council. When discussing their views on the style and focus of the representation, the satisfaction of council members with the functioning of the municipal council is first discussed. Subsequently, it is also examined how much importance local and non-local councillors attach to a certain style or focus. This provides insight into the role perceptions of council members: which style and focus are important for the proper fulfilment of their representative role? In general it must be concluded that on average the differences between local and non-local councillors discussed here are relatively modest. Nevertheless, in some respects there are some differences in emphasis between the two groups of councillors. For example, it has been established that the representatives of local parties attach slightly more importance to their representative task than other council members.

Seven years after the introduction of the Youth Act and the Appropriate Education Act in the Netherlands, the desired cross-domain cooperation between the two sectors has not yet been sufficiently achieved. In this article we try to understand why this is the case by reflecting from the perspective of cooperation and network theories on the reconstructed policy theory for this cooperation and the three policy instruments introduced; the agreement-oriented consultation, individual case consultation and the geographical reclassification. Based on this analysis, we examine the extent to which the existing policy instruments of the Appropriate Education Act and the Youth Act provide sufficient tools to realise cross-domain cooperation in which agreement is reached. We study the policy theory based on a document analysis of the Youth Act and the Appropriate Education Act. We then reflect on this on the basis of theoretical success and risk factors for successful cross-domain collaboration. Our analysis shows that the three instruments offer an insufficient basis for sustainable cooperation due to (1) the excessive non-committal character for the complex context in which it is applied, which means that there is a risk of ‘agree to disagree’; (2) the limited contact, which means that agreement is limited; and (3) the high number of actors involved as a result of the mismatch between geographical areas of schools and municipalities.

Every four years in the Netherlands, after the municipal elections, there are an average of twenty local parties (and ten local branches of national parties) that become the largest in their municipality, but do not end up in the coalition. In this study, in which we looked for the main reasons for this, substantive differences between parties and a lack of experience proved only provided a limited explanation. In almost all cases where the largest local party does not participate, (disturbed) political and personal relations between parties are the main reason. Here we have in mind, for example, aldermen who do not work well together, disagreements about certain files or parties, or persons on the council whose political style arouses disgust among other parties and politicians. This emphasis on the importance of political and personal relations leads to some important lessons for political parties who want to avoid being side lined prematurely when forming a local coalition in the future. These can be summarised as investing proactively in relationships with other parties, not underestimating the importance of relationships, guarding against pride and being alert in negotiations.