Social media monitoring is a topical and relevant phenomenon. It enables civil servants and politicians to gauge the sentiments voiced on social media, on the basis of which they are in a better position to take into account the wishes and needs of citizens. Social media monitoring is primarily used for rational and strategic purposes. In terms of democratic legitimacy, it may enhance the quality of the processes on the output side of the political system, i.e. authorities can be more responsive and can fine tune public policies. There also threats for the relation between citizens and government. When citizens communicate on networks they perceive as private, social media monitoring can be seen as an intrusion into their private sphere. This not only concerns individual privacy but also an interpersonal private sphere in terms of the right that people have to define a domain within which they can exchange experiences with peers. Transparency and accountability are therefore important conditions for the application of this instrument.

Cybersecurity is becoming increasingly vulnerable. DDos attacks, phishing e-mails, ransomware, Russian hacker attacks on the head office of a political party are all part of our daily online businesses, for governments too. Governments play various roles here. They are internet users and rely on information on the internet. They are also suppliers of online information and in these roles they are connected to citizens, companies and other governmental organisations. Because of the role they play in society, the government possesses huge quantities of – often sensitive – information. They have the legal and moral obligation to be careful with this information and to secure it properly. Providing adequate security for information, however, is not an easy task for governments, especially because they usually do not operate in isolation. What factors threaten the security of government information and the systems involved? And who is accountable for the security of the information chains that are becoming complex as a consequence of cooperation between organisations?

Transparency is a token of modern governance and is said to serve many different goals. Earlier research has shown that the disclosure of information will only be seen by the public and serve its goals if ‘transparators’, such as news media, pay attention to the information. The news media cannot be expected to be uncritical implementers of transparency policies; they will only do so when the policy and ensuing story fit their criteria for newsworthiness. This paper analyzes when and how news media pay attention to different types of policies serving different types of goals. It does so on the basis of quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 8 important cases of transparency-policies in the Netherlands in the past decade. The analysis shows that, even for these high profile cases, the amount of media attention for disclosed information is limited. The analysis also suggests that the media primarily tend to treat items in neutral or critical frames. Particularly in cases where the disclosed information is about the government itself, media stories seem to be primarily negative. These results suggest, in line with prior research, that transparency-policies may easily fail to be effective.

In this article we show that theories and methods from psychology are valuable for public administration scholars and practitioners. We advocate the development of an interdisciplinary approach entitled ‘Behavioral Public Administration’. It is not the intention that Behavioral Public Administration replaces traditional public administration research. It is an addition. We start with an analysis of the background of Behavioral Public Administration research via a historical overview of the work of Herbert Simon among others. After that, we demonstrate that Behavioral Public Administration can be valuable (a) to test public administration theories and refine these; (b) to encourage methodological sophistication of public administration research; and (c) to improve the interaction between science and practice. We hope that this article contributes to a fruitful conversation that leads to a scientific and practical research area where public administration scholars and psychologists work together and learn from each other.

The evaluation purpose is decisive for how a policy evaluation is eventually used and deserves more attention in policy evaluation studies. In the present article, we investigated the motives underpinning concrete evaluations, as outlined in four series of Flemish ministerial policy notes that altogether span a 20-year policy period. The most important key finding is that the evaluation purposes are not sensitive to certain modes, neither are they strongly influenced by reforms and corresponding discourse. Despite the introduction of New Public Management oriented reforms in the Flemish public sector and the financial crisis, the relative share of attention that each of the evaluation purposes get has remained relatively unchanged across time. There seems to be a stable demand for ex ante and ex post evaluations and associated evaluation purposes. The common perception of a trend towards ever more evidence-based policy can hence not be confirmed. Remarkable as well is the low share of attention given to ‘accountability’, at least in discourse.

Policy evaluation has two main functions: it should lead to policy oriented learning and facilitate accountability. Rendering account is considered an important democratic duty but is not very popular with politicians and, hence, public officials. Learning is popular, but in practice it is often difficult to organize or, indeed, witness.
This contribution addresses the question how, in both functions, policy evaluation could be better utilized. As a starting point we the tension between scientific and political rationality and the barriers associated with these different worlds to the development of knowledge.
As indispensable for sound and productive knowledge management in government the article outlines the importance of societal values, policy effectiveness as a research angle, and the independence of researchers at major evaluations. In addition, relevant research questions, high methodological quality, responsiveness, good timing, and clear and accessible reporting are indispensable. It is argued that these are by no means abstract notions but can be brought into real day-to-day practice.
The conclusion is that a knowledge agenda for policy evaluation that is based on the search for effective policy interventions and societal values can help to bridge politics and science.

In this article, we explore how evaluations are managed by Dutch policy departments in terms of six aspects of evaluation capacity: institutions, programming, budgeting, evaluation process and content, and finally, evaluation use. We also sketch how international organisations and a number of larger countries deal with these issues of evaluation capacity. Internationally, a variety of norms, checklists and procedures demonstrate that the commissioning party is considered to play a key role in the realisation of evaluations as well as their use. Here, evaluation and evaluation knowledge are often viewed as part of the policy process rather than as a separate exercise. Our description of evaluation practices in Dutch policy departments reveals that several capacity-enhancing initiatives were developed in the past few years, such as new evaluation institutions or structures and programs to promote the commissioning of effectiveness evaluations. It also suggests, however, that accountability is an important driving force behind evaluation, perhaps more powerful than learning.

One of the classic issues in literature on policy evaluation is that of utilization: how can we make sure the results of evaluative inquiry are used more and better? Traditionally, the answer to this question is often searched in improvement of evaluation quality (accuracy, reliability, independence of the researcher) or evaluation processes (more interaction and responsiveness). Although these are and remain crucial elements for any evaluation, the focus remains on the supply side of evaluation. The psychological insight that people tend to learn more from positive feedback and success is not taken into account.
In this article, we ask whether and how a more positive form of evaluation may contribute to a more effective cycle of learning and accountability. What if – instead of failure, compliance, and accountability – the main focus of monitoring and evaluative inquiry would be to identify and foster achievements that were successful and effective? How would such a positive approach look like and how can it help the actual utilization and usefulness of evaluation? On the basis of theory and international case studies the article describes how focusing on the positive elements of policy and/or implementation may contribute to the demand for and utilization of evaluations.

Public administrations have always dealt with large volumes of data. They are now increasingly adopting sophisticated big data technologies to further leverage the data. Data provided by citizens, observed by sensors, deduced and inferred from diverse data sets are being used for decision making and making (pre-emptive) predictions about the behaviour of citizens and groups of citizens. The data and algorithms are not neutral nor flawless, but contain biases and may induce harms to individuals, such as discrimination, loss of autonomy, infringing their privacy. Big data decision making systems are usually opaque. Providing transparency about input, process, and even outcomes may be difficult due to the complexity inherent to the technology and even undesirable because it could affect the effectiveness of the system. This lack of transparency is at odds with the Rule of Law, which requires transparency and accountability of government action. What transparency should entail in the context of predictive analytics, however, is unclear. This short article points out some of the issues at stake.

Governments throughout the whole world feel the need to cut spending due to the current financial crisis. The Netherlands are no exception in this matter. Top civil servants are up to the task to implement these cutbacks within their own organizations. However, not much is known about what influences their choice for certain implementation strategies. One factor of interest are the values of top civil servants, which are supposed to be influenced by their work experience. This is a relevant factor, since the introduction of New Public Management made it more common for managers from the private sector to reach the higher echelons of government. Top civil servants with different backgrounds and from different Dutch ministries were interviewed for this study. It seems that using across-the-board cuts are present within Dutch ministries, sometimes combined with targeted cuts. Surprisingly, no differences in values and implementation strategies were found between managers with and without experience in the private sector, contrary to expectation. The implementation strategies used seem mainly influenced by values such as soberness and thrift, values which are not present in current public values literature.

The city is hot: solutions to the world’s everyday problems are increasingly sought at the local level. Local administrations are handed more responsibilities through decentralizations and much is expected of the pragmatic skills of mayors. A great deal of hope is directed at the self-organizing abilities of cities, which can be seen as laboratories for social change and improvement. In this themed issue we will critically review these high expectations of cities and the local level. Can cities live up to these expectations, and at what point does ‘hope’ become ‘hype’? This introductory article mainly focuses on the concept of living labs, which are presented as an accessible, innovative and pragmatic way to address social issues in neighbourhoods.

A profession can be defined as a group of workers with shared knowledge, skills and quality standards. To maintain its professional status, the professional community needs to be relatively autonomous. However, while performing their tasks, many pressures jeopardize the professional worker’s autonomous position. Here, the professional community can make a difference.
Subordination to the political principal characterizes the position of the civil servant. What margin of professional independence do political leaders allow their civil servants? Recent academic empirical reports in the Netherlands show conflicting outcomes.
This essay describes how civil servants from a Dutch ministry deal with their professional standards and argues that, in the process of professionalization, more clarity is required with regard to how autonomy and independence for civil servants are safeguarded. This is especially relevant in a contemporary context where new ways to account for the professional behavior of civil servants need to be sought.