In maart 2020 verscheen het boek Beleidsevaluatie in theorie en praktijk van Peter van der Knaap, Valérie Pattyn en Dick Hanemaayer. Joost Fledderus bespreekt de inhoud van het boek en geeft aan welke meerwaarde het biedt voor (aankomende) beleidsonderzoekers.

The Dutch central government has a long history in its search to meaningfully present policy effects. One of the instruments that was developed to this end is the Policy Conclusion (beleidsconclusie). This part of the annual report, which has been mandatory since 2013, should provide a judgement for every policy article on its results in the year 2017. To what extent has the Policy Conclusion been successful in its aims? And how do various governmental departments give substance to it? For this article, all policy conclusions that were composed for the most recent reporting year were examined. Among others, our analysis shows that departments differ greatly in their interpretation of what the Policy Conclusion should include, such as the usage of sources and the way in which intended results are (re)addressed. In addition, it was found in the Policy Conclusions that a tendency exists to put a strong focus on positive outcomes.

Regularly, doubts about the independence of research leads to heated discussion. This is especially true if things have gone wrong. This issue explores the question how research organizations and researchers can defend themselves against improper influence: the conscious and active pursuit of too positive research results by commissioners or government officials. This article outlines a number of dimensions of how establishing good, independent research can be structured in a systematic and sensible manner. Independent inquiry manifests itself in position, judgment, and appearance or image. Institutional safeguards form the basis for professional roles and responsibilities that can fulfill the requirements of independent research in the political arena.

Citizens and scholars excel in identifying and analysing government failure. It is important indeed to understand public sector, but while governments in the Low Countries are doing well on average and very well from an internationally perspective, most attention is focused on the errors and mishaps. This article argues for a robust positive perspective on the public sector as a complement to existing research. From a scientific perspective, public administration must set itself the ambition to connect and aggregate existing positive insights even better. From a social perspective, the discipline must prevent the gap from being filled by a wholesale rejection of democratic government or the use of unproven miracle cures. This article elaborates the starting points for Positive Public Administration, arguing that this perspective should be comprehensive, context related, inter-subjective, learning-oriented, and robustly scientific in nature. The article also introduces the other contributions in this special issue, which together give an initial interpretation of positive public administration.

New insights from the field of positive psychology led to the insight that people learn more effectively from positive feedback. Policy evaluation aims to improve public policy programmes through contributing to both accountability and learning. This ambiguous ambition has contributed to a considerable body of research into the impact of policy evaluation. Too often the conclusion is that the outcomes of policy evaluations – which are often negative by nature – are sparsely used by policy makers. This has led to series of improvements in the way we carry out evaluations. First through technical improvements and then by more responsive approaches. Both have not led to the desired breakthrough. Building on a number of positive evaluation studies, we advance a more positive approach in policy evaluation. Focussing on the successes in policy programmes rather than on its failures may contribute to evaluation impact. Consequently, we think a more positive, appreciative approach and using data to find success in policy making is necessary for policy evaluators to be more effective. This article presents practical examples of positive policy evaluations and successful use of data in the domain of policy evaluation.

Lack of safety leading to death or injury has many aspects: personal violence, traffic, accidents at home or the work place, not to mention other external sources as radiation and fine dust or internal sources like diseases. In this paper we restrict ourselves to the lack of safety in traffic as a system, and address the following questions: (1) Is traffic a system with one dominant responsible actor (Ministry of Traffic)? (2) What explanations are offered for the lack of safety? (3) Who is responsible for safety? (4) What sort of interventions are suitable for enhancing safety? and (5) What type of process/consultancy is most appropriate for answer the preceding questions?
The paper arrives at its conclusions via an indirect way, namely a short analysis of what a system comprises and what constitutes an explanation, responsibility and effectiveness. It appears that we are all causally involved in the lack of safety, and we are all responsible at all levels of society: micro-individual, meso-organizational and macro-societal. Therefore a promising route to maximize safety is a governance perspective comprising multiple stakeholder co-responsibility. It remains to be seen whether this perspective should replace the predominant command and control governance or complement it.

De positieve benadering van evaluatie in relatie tot het bereiken van succes is een frisse wind. Het wordt inderdaad tijd dat evaluatoren gebruikers meer helpen en stimuleren om van (beleids)ervaringen te leren. En: dat geëvalueerden zich daarvoor vanaf het begin openstellen. Aandachtspunt is wel dat de evaluator daarbij zijn of haar waardevolle kritische (kennis)blik niet verliest.

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.

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.

Een lerende overheid heeft behoefte aan beleidsevaluaties die niet alleen van betekenis zijn voor het onderwerp waarop deze primair gericht zijn, maar ook bijdragen aan bredere, systematische opbouw van kennis en ervaring. Het interdepartementaal verbinden van expertise verruimt daarbij het zicht op factoren die het leren bevorderen of belemmeren.
Een centrale vraag is of de door het beleid beoogde publieke belangen inderdaad bevorderd worden. Beleidsevaluatie moet dan niet alleen gericht zijn op effectiviteit en doelmatigheid ten aanzien van relatief gemakkelijk meetbare indicatoren, maar ook op lastig te kwantificeren essentiële waarden zoals subjectief welzijn, rechtvaardigheid en maatschappelijke aanvaardbaarheid. Het verdient aanbeveling kostbare evaluatie-energie te concentreren op belangrijke kwesties waarover vooraf discussie of onzekerheid bestaat.
Uit een oogpunt van doelmatige beleidsvoorbereiding, en omdat de uitwerking van wetgeving en beleid ex post niet altijd eenvoudig is vast te stellen, is veel aandacht nodig voor ex ante evaluatie. Van onderzoek naar werkingsmechanismen van beleidsmaatregelen wordt in dit verband terecht veel verwacht.
Er is sprake van een paradoxaal spanningsveld tussen verwetenschappelijking en politisering van beleid. Daarom is stevig verankerde, onafhankelijke en onpartijdige beleidsevaluatie onmisbaar. Hoge methodologische kwaliteit biedt extra houvast om deze functie geloofwaardig te kunnen vervullen.
In het streven naar systematische opbouw van kennis en ervaring naast dossier-specifieke doelbereiking kan het helpen als evaluaties zowel een specifiek als een breder geldend algemeen deel bevatten. Belangrijk is ook te sturen op een evenwichtige evaluatieportfolio per beleidsterrein, met aandacht voor ex ante en ex post methoden, uiteenlopende waarden, en verschillende informatiebronnen. Naast best practices moet daarbij ook minder geslaagd beleid in beeld worden gebracht. Voor de bruikbaarheid van evaluaties voor de praktijk is goede vertegenwoordiging van het bottom-up perspectief noodzakelijk.
Evaluatie van beleid vereist gedegen inbedding binnen de nationale kennisinfrastructuur, effectieve samenwerking met kennisinstellingen en het up-to-date houden van het evalueren zelf. Dat is cruciaal voor het evaluatievermogen van de lerende overheid.

On April 8^th 2015, Jan Schrijver got his PhD at Maastricht University (Arno Korsten was his doctoral thesis supervisor) on research into 40 years of Dutch administrative policy (1969 to 2009). This period largely coincided with his career as a senior civil servant (1976 to 2003). The expectation often predicted in Public Administration was that a shift from government to governance (from cockpit thinking to a network society) would occur in the dominant administrative theory. However, this shift was not detected in the Departments of Home Affairs and Agriculture during the research period. In the literature on Dutch local administration, qualitative (and often ambivalent) information is generally to be found. On the one hand, this literature emphasizes the inevitability of this shift and offers a lot of case descriptions. On the other hand, Dutch handbooks on local administration devote little attention to this development and contain many views that point to stubborn administrative methods employed by old-style governors. The author concludes that Dutch national administration converges to one firm, while local administration diverges into a leading group of municipalities and a group of followers.

The economic crisis is forcing Dutch government to deliberate decisions that lead to effective public policy.
There seems to be a trend for the involvement of behavioral insights in the policymaking process, in order to achieve more effective public policy. The Government Strategy Board organized several conferences on this topic and the Scientific Council for Government policy researches this subject.
To what extent can behavioral insights be considered a success formula for policy? This article offers a critical consideration from the findings of the thesis ’Two sides of the coin’, that deals with the relationship between the policymaking process and the effectiveness of public policy and makes it clear that behavioral insights are an important condition for successful policy. However, success demands an update of the current dominant scientific perspective on public policy as well as a realistic judgement of the high requirements on policy makers to involve behavioral insights in the policymaking process.

The Netherlands enjoys a long-standing reputation in the field of road safety. Following the ‘Sustainable Road Safety’ program of the 1990s, the infrastructural layout considerably reduces the risk of accidents while at the same time many measures are in place to improve road user behavior. In recent years, however, there have been several developments that may affect the success of the approach. In addition to an ageing population, urbanization, and the rise of new technologies, there is a combination of decentralization, policy integration, and budgetary restraints.
This contribution presents the philosophy behind the sustainable road safety program and describes its key elements. It discusses policy and societal developments, and the continuing need to improve road safety, especially at a decentralized level. The article argues in favor of a continued systematic approach towards safer road traffic, also in periods of decentralization and limited budgets. It presents a concrete perspective of the role of policy analysis and policy evaluation to develop a proactive approach to road safety under the new conditions. In this, evidence-based interventions, an active use of safety performance indicators, and a focus on success are key elements.

Na het aantreden van Rutte II heeft de bestuurlijke opschaling van gemeenten en provincies twintig maanden lang op de agenda gestaan. Zoals bekend hebben de plannen van het kabinet de eindstreep niet gehaald. Vooral bij de meest betrokken provincies bestond er kritiek op het ontbreken van een visie en onderbouwing. In dit artikel wordt onderzocht in hoeverre een netwerkanalyse van het verplaatsingsgedrag daarin zou kunnen voorzien. Voor een volgende ronde, die zich mogelijk al snel weer aandient. De uitkomsten van verschillende algoritmes voor netwerkanalyse worden vergeleken. Het begrip daily urban system, gekoppeld aan welvaartstheoretische inzichten (Tordoir), dient als inhoudelijke leidraad. Netwerkanalyse blijkt zakelijke argumenten op te leveren die behulpzaam kunnen zijn bij het trekken van (nieuwe) bestuurlijke grenzen, ook al zullen deze om verschillende redenen nooit alleenzaligmakend zijn.

De laatste jaren is de beleidsmatige en wetenschappelijke aandacht voor ex ante onderzoek toegenomen. De vraag is of dit ook is terug te zien in het aantal studies naar concrete plannen, en in het gebruik van de uitkomsten van ex ante studies in de beleidsontwikkeling. Om dit na te gaan verrichtten we een metastudie van ex ante onderzoeken over beleid op rijksniveau, verschenen in de periode 2005 tot en met 2011. In deze bijdrage beschrijven we eerst hoe vaak en met welk doel ex ante onderzoek wordt verricht en om wat voor typen studies het gaat. Daarna nemen we het gebruik in het beleidsontwikkelings- en besluitvormingsproces onder de loep door in te zoomen op vijf ex ante onderzoeken. Een eerste conclusie is dat er inmiddels een aanzienlijk aantal ex ante studies is verschenen; een tweede dat in alle vijf casus het onderzoek belangrijke actoren in het beleidsproces bereikt heeft, maar dat de uitkomsten niet altijd doorklinken in het uiteindelijke beleid.

Achter opdrachtresearch gaat de veronderstelling schuil dat de tussen- en eindresultaten van beleidsonderzoek vroeg of laat ook benut worden en onderdeel worden van een proces van bezinning op beleid. Dit artikel handelt hierover. Diverse aspecten van benutting van onderzoek komen aan bod, zoals de definitie en vormen van benutting. Er worden vier richtingen onderscheiden om de omvang en vorm van benutting of onderbenutting op te sporen. Het artikel geeft voorts verklaringen voor achterblijvende benutting en bevat adviezen om te komen tot meer benutting. Voor ambtenaren, bestuurders en partners in beleidsnetwerken biedt deze beschouwing aanknopingspunten om researchresultaten desgewenst beter te benutten. En voor onderzoekers bevat dit artikel tal van aanzetten tot hypothesevorming voor verder onderzoek.

In dit artikel wordt het evaluatieonderzoek van overheidsbeleid kritisch onder de loep genomen. De auteur bespreekt vier alternatieven: responsieve en multipele evaluatie, argumentatieve evaluatie, netwerkgericht evalueren en lerend evalueren. De bevindingen kunnen positief inwerken op het ‘leren van evalueren’ in organisaties.