Over the last decades, the number of European Union member states has significantly increased, resulting into a reduction of the relative formal power of the Dutch government. Improving Dutch influence in Brussels is therefore an important topic on the agenda of public administration scholars and advisory boards. Using experts at the various stages of the EU policymaking process is one option to increase the influence in the EU. This article evaluates the effectiveness of this strategy concerning one of the most complex and most controversial public policy issues in the history of the European Union: the revision of the EU's chemical policy (REACH). The article demonstrates that the 'expert strategy' has been successful in this case. However, the effectiveness of this strategy comes under pressure if the trend towards core departments will continue.

This article poses the question whether the Dutch system of organized interest representation faces a transformation from neo-corporatist mediation to lobbyism similar to Scandinavian countries. Its main claim is that this has so far not been the case, because two essential features of neo-corporatist interest mediation have remained prominent in the Netherlands. First, policies regarding labour conditions continue to be determined within a network of employers' organisations, trade unions, and the government that is essentially closed to outsiders. Second, the system continues to be hierarchical in nature: the government, often below the surface, demonstrates a considerable capacity to steer the participants in its preferred direction. Such a closed network still allows for lobbying the parliament by both network members and outsiders. Lobbying may thus be complementary to closed neo-corporatist networks rather than a substitute. The article offers a research agenda exploring the latter suggestion.

This article discusses the degree to which Dutch environmental policy exhibits a shift from corporatism to lobbyism. Based on a general analysis of environmental policy making in the Netherlands and two specific cases of environmental decision making, the author draws the conclusion that such a shift has not happened. At the level of policymaking it is rather the opposite: in the 1980s the Ministry of the Environment introduced a certain level of corporatism. This was possible because of a clear framework of environmental policy goals shaped by the National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM), because the environmental movement began to see the Ministry as an ally and because business interests preferred self-regulation (one element of corporatism) to government regulations. In two concrete case of environmental decision-making that are discussed here, environmental goals are being discussed once more. During such discussion, it appears that Dutch ministries have close connection to 'their' target groups. For the coming years, environmental policy will 'Europeanize' further and Dutch economic interest groups, although being remarkably late in responding to this shift, will start to influence the Brussels policymaking game instead of the Dutch implementation game.

Across Europe, urban education systems are struggling with the process of integration of immigrants in its schools. This article explores the most important aspects of this new urban phenomenon and its impact on urban school systems in the Netherlands. It clearly shows that ethnic segregation in elementary and secondary schools is widespread in Dutch cities. This ethnic segregation is caused by a combination of residential segregation, and, as our own studies prove, of parental choice. The article also deals with recent Dutch studies on the effects of segregation. Finally, it treats the question how schools and authorities, in a long-standing tradition of parental choice, are dealing with this segregation.

There is probably no other sector of the welfare state where the gap between citizen's expectations and government's opportunities is deepening so intensely and has such a complex and politicized reform agenda as the health care sector. Health care is a critical case par excellence to study the relation between efficiency and legitimization of welfare state reform. The leading question of this special issue of Beleid & Maatschappij is: how does the Dutch health care system and the connected public policymaking accommodate the different and often conflicting goals (input), organizing concepts (throughput) and outcomes (output)? With these questions in mind the dominant governance principles of Dutch health care, especially the system of regulated competition, are scrutinized. One of the findings is, that 'second best' solutions are the highest achievable in this field, a notion that reform policies should take into account.