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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Coproductie is niet meer weg te denken uit de Nederlandse bestuurspraktijk. Hierbij ligt de focus vooral op de lokale bestuurslaag, waar coproductie makkelijker te implementeren zou zijn. Toch bestaan er wel degelijk coproductie-initiatieven op regionaal en nationaal niveau. De lokale, regionale en nationale overheid vervullen echter staatsrechtelijk en institutioneel gezien andere functies en voeren andere taken uit. Daarnaast verschilt de (gepercipieerde) afstand tussen burger en overheid tussen de bestuurslagen, evenals het abstractieniveau van de onderwerpen die op de betreffende bestuurslaag worden behandeld. Bestaand onderzoek richt zich echter nauwelijks op de vraag of coproductie hiermee wel op dezelfde wijze wordt vormgegeven op de verschillende bestuurslagen. Dit exploratieve onderzoek verkent deze verschillen door het bestuderen van zes coproductie-initiatieven op het gebied van duurzaamheid en ruimtelijke ordening en pleit voor meer onderzoek naar coproductie op regionaal en nationaal niveau.

Beleidsonderzoekers kunnen niet alle patronen doorbreken die ons sociaal contract op de proef stellen, maar ze kunnen wel verschil maken door spiegels voor te houden en handelingsperspectieven te bieden. Te vaak wordt meer bewijswaarde gehecht aan rationeel-analytisch of positivistisch onderzoek, zoals doelmatigheidsonderzoek, en minder aan kwalitatief onderzoek, dat meerdere realiteiten benadrukt. Beleidsonderzoekers kunnen laten zien hoe dit elkaar aanvult en van betekenis is voor effectief en legitiem beleid. In dit essay laat de auteur zien wat een sterk sociaal contract vraagt van beleidsmakers en onderzoekers.

Het evalueren van maatschappelijke relevantie is niet altijd vanzelfsprekend voor financiers of onderzoekers. Dit lijkt vaak te abstract of verheven. Met name onderzoekers zijn gewend om de effectiviteit van een interventie op een bepaald doel of een bepaalde doelgroep te meten, maar breiden hun bevindingen niet uit naar hoe dit relevant kan zijn voor het veld. Aan de hand van een praktijkvoorbeeld, het ZonMw-onderzoeksprogramma Suïcidepreventie, wordt besproken hoe de maatschappelijke relevantie is geëvalueerd en welke uitdagingen dit met zich mee brengt. Zo is er geen eenduidige objectieve manier om maatschappelijke relevantie te evalueren. Ook waren de onderzoeksmethoden van de projecten binnen het onderzoeksprogramma erg verschillend. De aanbevelingen vanuit dit project kunnen toekomstige onderzoekers helpen om de maatschappelijke relevantie van hun onderzoek te evalueren. Verdere ontwikkeling en implementatie van gestandaardiseerde methoden of tools die de complexiteit binnen en tussen projecten vastleggen en maatschappelijke relevantie kunnen beoordelen, zijn nodig.

From 1964 (until 1990 globally) political science would become the dominant approach within the (local) administrative sciences in the Netherlands. This position took over from the legal approach. During this period, the concepts of politics, policy and decision-making were central to research and theory formation. In the period since 1990, we have seen a broader perspective emerging on institutions, management and governance in which Public Administration will increasingly profile itself as an independent discipline. This essay harks back to the importance of the legal approach for (local) administrative sciences from the time of the man who is regarded in the Netherlands as the founder of the discipline of Public Administration: Gerrit van Poelje. More specifically, the author addresses the question of the relationship between Public Administration and legal science in the more than one hundred years of (local) administrative science. After Gerrit van Poelje (his dissertation from 1914 is an important milestone in that history), the author discusses eleven other key persons who have made their own contribution to that history at various universities based on their legal expertise (in the broad senseHe concludes the essay with a brief discussion of the relevance of law and legal science for the future of public administration (the field) and Public Administration (the discipline).

Local policy freedom is often equated with the formal policy freedom of municipalities and thus with the formal boundaries that determine the local playing field. In this article, we question this approach. It is not clear to what extent formal policy freedom is a good measure for the ‘real’ policy freedom of municipalities, and thus for the policy freedom that municipalities use in policy implementation. Does more formal policy freedom necessarily lead to more used policy freedom? Moreover, not every municipality uses formal policy freedom in the same way. To indicate variance in policy discretion used, reference is often made to official capacity, scale and political changes. However, it is unclear to what extent these variables have an impact on local policy freedom. The authors investigate the link between formal and used policy freedom, official capacity, scale and political change on the basis of Flemish policy reform. Based on an analysis of financial data, they conclude that more formal policy freedom can be an incentive for more used policy freedom, but also that the explanatory power of administrative capacity, scale and political change is limited. In both research and policy, we need more attention for the value of social interaction, soft skills and networking.

The increasing datafication of society brings both opportunities and ethical dilemmas for public organisations. The aim of this research (in Dutch municipalities) is to gain insight into how ethical leadership can support professionals in a public organisation with ethical dilemmas about data use. Based on literature on data and ethical leadership, the authors have developed a conceptual model that indicates how an ethical leader can provide intrinsic and extrinsic support. The model was tested on the basis of 16 vignette interviews with municipal public professionals who work on providing insight into and combating subversion with data. Their findings show that ethical leaders can intrinsically provide support by being trustworthy and independent, leading by example, communicating about ethics and data use, and empowering others. In addition, ethical leaders can provide extrinsic support with ethical tools, such as ethical codes on data use, an ethics committee and training.

Municipalities are in a new phase of development. This requires rethinking how citizens can be involved in these developments. Instead of asking citizens to respond to municipal project initiatives, one of the (new) ways is to let citizens have their say about where, what and how urban improvements can be made. In this essay, the authors discuss what they mean by ‘areas for improvement’ and discuss two experiments – in two of the oldest Dutch cities: Maastricht and Nijmegen – of citizen participation that are intended to address such areas. In their view, in this way ‘a new, but obviously not the only, way to Rome is created’ in terms of citizen participation.