Shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, a temporary law came into force enabling online deliberation and decision-making by decentralised governments. For the duration of the law, a committee evaluated its operation and implementation. The commission focused on legality, technology and security, and on political-administrative effects, since there were concerns about the consequences of the law in these three areas. This article shows that although no significant legal and technical problems arose, online deliberation did have an effect on the practices of deliberation and decision-making. Online deliberation during the pandemic was not good for local democracy, which was also due to society temporarily going into lock-down. At the same time, online deliberation also appears to have its advantages. In order to reap the benefits of digital deliberation, however, a permanent law that includes hybrid forms of deliberation and technical improvements to online conference systems is needed.

Dutch municipalities and provinces have been obliged to have an audit office or audit office function for about 20 years. How does the audit office work nowadays and what contribution does it make to decentralized administration? That is the question at the center of this article. To this end, the authors list the available knowledge about audit offices or committees and present the results of their own analysis of 982 audit reports from 234 audit offices or committees from 308 Dutch municipalities. The audit office or committee has been institutionalized in the vast majority of municipalities and in all provinces. Council members are increasingly less likely to (also) be members of this board and the output has increased slightly from approximately one to an average of one and a half surveys per year. Where initially mainly business management-oriented subjects were examined, some broadening to more policy-related themes has taken place. Municipal councilors are quite satisfied with their audit office or committee. At the same time, the actual social effects of policy are rarely measured in audit institutions. Moreover, council members make little use of audit reports in controlling the municipal board, and audit offices or committees also add little to their framework-setting role. Little is known about the extent to which the research of the audit offices makes a more objective contribution to the administration and strengthening of the functioning of the municipal council, which is also a theme for future research.

In this contribution, three entrepreneurs indicate how they are actively involved in the processes of re-designation of churches. Based on a number of tools, they try to offer prospects for the future of churches in close consultation with the parties involved. This is by no means easy and requires strategic, tactical and open action to bridge existing contradictions and guarantee a future for the religious heritage.

Given the increasing importance of local administration and its range of tasks, it is important to know whether municipal councils are succeeding in properly controlling the administration. That is one of the main tasks that has been entrusted to the municipal council when dualism was introduced in the Netherlands in 2002. Council members are aware of the importance of the monitoring task, but little is known about the way in which they perform this task. Research in ten Dutch municipalities into the use of the available set of tools for framing and monitoring shows that municipal councils make little or no use of some of the instruments, in particular with regard to information gathering and the support of the council. Good information provision to the council sometimes appears to be subordinated to the political importance of the coalition. And everywhere councillors are struggling with the set of programmes for programme budgeting and accounting introduced during the dualisation process: it offers insufficient possibilities for framing and checking. In the absence of a clear assessment framework, it is not possible to determine whether this detracts from the effectiveness of control and framework. What good or effective control is and what its purpose is are also apparently not a topic for discussion in the local arena. This article shows (a) that council members can make more and better use of available framework and control instruments and the possibilities for supporting the council; b) the instrument of the programme budget (and the program account) does not seem to live up to the expectations of the dualisation process; c) mayors, as chairmen of the council, do not always feel responsible for the proper provision of information for the council and, in a broader sense, for better positioning of the council as a framework-setting and controlling body. More leadership is required here.

Technological advancements in the field of data analytics, algorithms and AI have dramatically increased opportunities for workplace monitoring. In this article, we discuss some of these digital technologies, and examine their impact on employment relationships and the quality of work. Based on desk research, literature review and interviews, the Rathenau Institute examined a wide range of digital instruments, their scientific basis, implications for the quality of work and relevant legal frameworks. Digital monitoring technologies often quantify work activities. We argue that it is important for organisations to realise that such quantification often negatively impacts both job quality and employment relationships. Responsible use of digital monitoring tools not only requires a broad societal and political dialogue about privacy, discrimination and workload but also a critical reflection on the aim of organisations to use data to understand workers, while not everything of value can be captured in data.

Until 2002, local government in Flanders and the Netherlands had a monistic approach. In both systems, the city council was formally the head of the board. However, due to the interplay of factors and evolutions, the influence of the council in practice was increasing. This contribution compares and evaluates the institutional reforms that have been implemented in Flanders and the Netherlands over the past decades in an attempt to reassess the role and position of the council. While Flanders opted for more limited reforms within the existing monistic system (e.g. its own chairman for the council, a special committee for intermunicipal cooperation, a procedure for restoring structural unmanageability), the Netherlands opted with dualism for a radical personnel and functional separation between council and board. Although the reforms in Flanders often seem half-hearted and councilors in the Netherlands attribute more influence to themselves, research also shows that the revaluation of the council in the Netherlands is (still) incomplete too. This theme will undoubtedly remain on the political agenda in the coming years. The authors are thinking of the development of a better statute for council members, or the functioning of the council as a democratic watchdog of the network society.

Is local democracy in the Netherlands equipped for its mission? There is confusion and disagreement about the answer to this question. How people assess existing democratic practices is strongly influenced by one of the three main perspectives: representative democracy, participative (deliberative) democracy or ‘do-democracy’ (associative democracy). But to be able to have this discussion in the first place, empirical knowledge is required about the state of democracy at the local level. In this article (apart from the introduction, the first in a series on the local democratic audit) the authors bring together the available research data and organize these data with the help of David Easton’s system model: from input of citizens and civil society via throughput to output and finally feedback again in the political system. The research presented offers some insight in the state of local democracy, although it is not possible to give a final assessment. That depends on the perspective on democracy chosen, but it is also not possible because of the fragmented and incomplete nature of the research on local democracy in the Netherlands. The authors advocate contributing to these discussions with more empirical knowledge. The overview in this article shows that there is work to be done in this respect.

Het overheidsveld en het maatschappelijk veld zijn sterk in beweging. Burgers en organisaties willen meer invloed uitoefenen op beleid en uitvoering. Er is een ontwikkeling naar pluriformiteit, bottom-up sturing, netwerken, met lokale initiatieven. Tegelijkertijd blijft er een grote kloof tussen overheid en burgers bestaan. Het is de vraag hoe gemeentelijke (beleids)onderzoekers het best kunnen reageren op deze ontwikkelingen. Blijven zij top-down werken of gaan ook zij de uitdaging aan en sluiten zij zich aan bij de bottom-up trend? In dit artikel worden ten aanzien van burgerparticipatie en onderzoek enkele ontwikkelingen in beeld gebracht. Nieuwe media en (online) instrumenten spelen een toenemende rol. Het gemeentelijke beleidsveld krijgt te maken met een andere manier van werken. Daaruit komen kansen voor de rol van onderzoek en onderzoekers. Een werkgroep van VSO-onderzoekers heeft verkend wat de consequenties en uitdagingen zijn van de geschetste ontwikkelingen op het gebied van burgerparticipatie en sociale media.

Based on a study of three Belgian and Dutch government formations, this article examines the relationship between the formation of government coalition's and the formulation of public policy. The government formation process is disaggregated into three stages: the selection of participants in the bargaining process, the negotiation of the governmental agreement and the allocation of portfolios. These stages are then discussed in the context of a schema which focusses on the effects of contextual, relational and outcome components. By modifying assumptions made in traditional coalition studies, the government formation process is seen as involving the transferof issues from institutional arenas to a non-institutional arena in which bargaining processes are used to map and develop issue specific areas of consensus.

The authors discuss «judicial» policy-making in the seventies by such various actors as police authorities, local and national government, the Bar associations, legal aid agencies, the judiciary, and prison authorities. They stress the quasi-absence of reliable statistical information, of good annual reports, and of the minimum goodwill of the authorities that would open this area for social science research. They also analyse some of the major decisions that have been made by the Belgian department of justice in the last ten years.