In 2003, the WRR suggested in the ‘Deciding on Biotechnology’ report that individuals should not be given ownership of their personal genetic information (DNA) to prevent risk selection and exclusion. Yet, that does not seem politically and ethically feasible. From that perspective, the research question of this article is how to regulate ownership and use of genetic information. Better predictability of health and longevity risk, through genetic information and thanks to new developments in geno-economics, possibly in combination with ‘big data’, makes risk selection by insurance companies attractive. That holds more specifically for the pension system. In addition to insurance for investment risk, the pension system also offers insurance for longevity risk. In itself, selection for longevity risk via premium setting is not unwarranted since the ‘bad risks’ with long life expectancy are the highly educated, so that the current implicit risk solidarity in pension insurance in The Netherlands, unlike in health insurance, brings about more inequality. But an unrestricted risk selection does raise ethical and social questions and does not fit into the new pension system in the Netherlands. That is why good and extensive legislation is needed for property rights and the utilization of genetic information of individual citizens. A similar focus on regulation is also in order for the use of DNA information of the government in criminal cases. Here the question is what additional options the government should have to use the information to solve crimes.

In the Netherlands and surrounding countries, there is reason to ask the question whether levels of segregation according to country of origin (mainly non-western) and in terms of socioeconomic position (mainly social arrears) are sufficiently high to legitimate anti-segregation policy. When will segregation become problematic? If segregation is regarded a problem, what, then, would be the best remedy? Spatial intervention? Or broader societal intervention? In this article developments and mechanisms will be discussed that lead to segregation; also political views on segregation and the framing of segregation will be scrutinized. A confrontation of knowledge, insights, visions, and framings offers material for new perspectives on residential segregation and is reason to argue for a more relaxed attitude towards segregation. We should acknowledge that the process of matching households to residential environments results in some – generally unproblematic – segregation. Only if segregation causes problems that pass certain intensity and/or a certain spatial range, non-spatial or spatial interventions are becoming a necessity. Levels of segregation are relatively moderate still. We ought to be more aware of the fact that strong negative framing actually stimulates segregation, social exclusion, division, discrimination, marginalisation, stigmatisation, fear, estrangement, and the development of first- and second-rate citizens.

Dutch mayors are expected to act both as moral person and as moral managers. However, the extent to which council members express such requirements when selecting candidates remains underexplored. To identify possible changes in these expectations following the implementation of a 2016 integrity law, which made the mayor responsible for ‘advancing the administrative integrity of the municipality’, the current article quantitatively analyses 349 vacancy texts for Dutch mayoralty for the time period 2008-2019. Unexpectedly, the authors find that moral person requirements still feature prominently in job advertisements, but that attention is declining. In addition, they find a significant shift from moral-person requirements to moral-management requirements, which indicates that vacancy texts mirror the increasing importance of moral leadership requirements for Dutch mayors. Further, whereas the complex integrity concept requires tailoring to the unique circumstances in municipalities, the authors find that councilors make little effort to provide their own definition of integrity in vacancy texts, which leaves ample room for local customization.

In this article we discuss the role and position of different types of low income households in Dutch renewable energy transition processes using the concept of energy poverty. We explore which benefits and/or (dis)advantages (unintentionally) result from energy policies and regulations. And to what extent the distribution of these (dis)advantages benefit the position of different types of households. To this end we present an analytical perspective that enables us to evaluate renewable energy transition policies and governance on procedural and distributional aspects: paying attention to issues of recognition, equity and justice. The perspective draws on ideas in environmental justice literature and on ideas in social resilience literature. Combining these ideas in a new analytical framework proved to be useful in articulating some major policy challenges in relation to energy poverty in the Netherlands today.

Een reflexieve kijk op beleidsonderzoek gaat uit van continue dynamiek tussen kennisontwikkeling en beleids- en uitvoeringspraktijken. Beleidsonderzoekers zoeken naar houvast om gedegen en relevant onderzoek te blijven doen, onderwijl inspelend op onzekerheden, onvoorspelbaarheid en kritische geluiden die kenmerkend zijn voor de huidige kennissamenleving. Via omgevingsbewust werken kunnen zij hun onderzoeksaanpak leren afstemmen op de kenmerken en maatschappelijke context van beleidsdossiers. Via kwaliteitsbewust werken kunnen zij leren inspelen op de verwachtingen rondom een bepaalde expertrol en onderzoeksaanpak binnen de eigen contexten van onafhankelijkheid en wetenschappelijke verantwoording.
Aan de hand van een casus – de lerende evaluatie van het Natuurpact, een innovatieve evaluatiestudie bij het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving – laten we zien hoe een reflexieve aanpak helpt om onderzoek in de nabijheid van de dynamische beleidspraktijk uit te voeren. Doordat deze aanpak buiten de comfortzone van onderzoekers ligt, is omgevingsbewust en kwaliteitsbewust werken voor onderzoekers geen vanzelfsprekendheid. We roepen beleidsonderzoekers zelf, de organisaties waar ze werkzaam zijn en beleidsmedewerkers op om hun reflexieve vaardigheden verder te ontwikkelen via het inrichten van lerende processen, effectieve kennisdeling via Communities of Practice en leerwerktrajecten, en open en adaptieve kennis-beleidsarrangementen.

Nederland staat voor forse en complexe beleidsopgaven. Deze opgaven vragen om een bijzondere beleidsaanpak met een aansluitende wijze van beleidsevaluatie – namelijk één die leren ondersteunt om iteratief de kwaliteit van het beleid te verbeteren en de weg naar de beleidsambities te vinden. Beleidsonderzoekers en beleidsbetrokkenen werken in lerende evaluaties samen om kennis te produceren voor het gelijktijdig verantwoorden en leren van beleid. Verondersteld wordt dat de kwaliteit en bruikbaarheid van de geproduceerde kennis met deze benadering groter zijn dan bij reguliere, op verantwoording georiënteerde, evaluatiemethoden. Als gevolg daarvan zou lerend evalueren meer impact hebben op beleid voor complexe opgaven. In dit artikel wordt aandacht besteed aan de waarde van lerend evalueren vanuit het perspectief van beleidsbetrokkenen en beleidsonderzoekers van de lerende evaluatie van het Natuurpact (2014-2017), uitgevoerd door het PBL en de WUR. Geconcludeerd wordt dat lerend evalueren de kwaliteit, bruikbaarheid en impact (minder aantoonbaar) van de geproduceerde kennis vergroot, maar onder specifieke voorwaarden: namelijk wanneer onderzoekers erin slagen om leren en verantwoorden, met de bijbehorende rollen en kwaliteitsstandaarden, te benaderen als wederzijds versterkend in plaats van tegenstrijdig. Onderzoekers hebben voelsprieten nodig voor de wisselwerking tussen het proces van kennisproductie en de politiek-bestuurlijke context waarin deze kennis wordt gebruikt. Zowel in de beleids- als onderzoekspraktijk is ruimte nodig voor een verbrede kijk op de functie van beleidsevaluatie om lerend evalueren toe te kunnen passen.

De focus op effectiviteit en vooral ook efficiëntie in beleid leidt wellicht tot beleidsuitvoering die efficiënt is voor de overheid, maar of dat ook zo is voor andere stakeholders, wordt misschien uit het oog verloren. Dat laat de huidige coronacrisis zien, maar blijkt ook uit andere voorbeelden. Voor beleidsonderzoek is het relevant om beleid te evalueren binnen de bredere maatschappelijke context en met de vraag voor wie beleid efficiënt is.

In this article, we investigate the moderating role of political sophistication on the vote for populist parties in Belgium. Building on the literature about the diverse determinants of populist party support, we investigate whether issue considerations and populism-related motivations play a bigger role in the electoral calculus of politically sophisticated voters.
Using data from the 2019 general elections in Belgium, we focus on the cases of Vlaams Belang (VB) and Parti du Travail de Belgique- Partij van de Arbeid (PTB-PVDA). We find evidence suggesting that political sophistication enhances the impact of populism-related motivations on populist party support, although the effects are contingent on the party. Moreover, we show that, for issue considerations, the moderation effect only comes into play for VB voters: the impact of anti-immigrant considerations is greater at increasing levels of political sophistication.

Recent research demonstrates that political parties in western Europe are generally structured along one dimension – and often take more or less similar ideological positions on the economic and cultural dimension – whereas the policy preferences of voters are structured two dimensionally; a considerable part of the electorate combines left-wing stances on one dimension with right-wing stances on the other. These ideologically ‘unserved’ voters are the main focus of this study. Using data from a large-scale survey in Flanders and Wallonia, we demonstrate how the salience of the two dimensions explains whether these unserved voters ultimately end up voting for a right-wing or a left-wing party. Specifically, we show that these voters elect a party that is ideologically closest on the dimension that they deem most important at that time. To summarise, the findings of this study confirm that salience is a key driver of electoral choice, especially for cross-pressured voters.

This study investigates how protest attitudes and ideological considerations affected the 2019 election results in Belgium, and particularly the vote for the radical right-wing populist party Vlaams Belang (VB) and for the radical left-wing populist party Partij van de Arbeid-Parti du Travail de Belgique (PVDA-PTB). Our results confirm that both protest attitudes and ideological considerations play a role to distinguish radical populist voters from mainstream party voters in general. However, when opposed to their second-best choice, we show that particularly protest attitudes matter. Moreover, in comparing radical right- and left-wing populist voters, the article disentangles the respective weight of these drivers on the two ends of the political spectrum. Being able to portray itself as an alternative to mainstream can give these parties an edge among a certain category of voters, albeit this position is also difficult to hold in the long run.

This Research Note investigates party advertising in newspapers and on social media (Facebook) during the 2019 general elections in Flanders, the largest region of Belgium. The 2019 elections saw a marked increase in the use of social media advertising by parties, whereas newspaper advertising saw a decline. Prior research that compares multiple types of advertising, particularly advertising on social and legacy media remains limited. As such, based on a quantitative content analysis we investigate not just the prevalence of party advertising on both types of media, but also compare the level of negativity, presidentialisation, and issue emphasis. Our analysis reveals substantial differences: we find that not only the type of advertisements varies across the platforms, but also that social media ads tend to be more negative. Finally, parties’ issue emphasis varies substantially as well, with different issues being emphasized in newspaper and Facebook advertisements.