This article presents the effects of an evaluation study of different municipal amalgamations in the past ten years in the Dutch provinces Gelderland, Limburg and Overijssel. It is an evaluation that passes through two tracks; we investigate by written sources and evaluation studies of specific amalgamations its gains, but we also by the method of a survey-feedback have asked the opinions on the amalgamation of a considerable group of people involved in the amalgamation. Would they do it again this way years after the amalgamation and they do have a positive or negative assessment of the amalgamation as a whole afterwards? The answer to this question is surprising: a lot of people involved are quite positive on a municipal amalgamation and would choose for it again in the same circumstances. They also think it is an alternative to be preferred over piling up arrangements of municipal cooperation. There is also a remarkable small difference between the assessment afterwards of a voluntary or a ‘forced’ amalgamation. That difference of assessment can be felt intensively in the process before and during the amalgamation, but afterwards the respondents are also positive about amalgamations that have been imposed ‘top-down’. This result suggests that the proverb of a ‘bottom-up amalgamation’ needs relativisation and the provinces and the central government can play a more active part in the process of amalgamation.

This essay reports on an academic self-examination of the functioning of the Review committee on district approach. By assessing statistics, investigating problem areas, holding organized meetings with stakeholders, and having spontaneous visits, the committee tried to find out how things really are. This raised the question of whether the picture of reality that they obtained was really better in terms of being truer and more real? Accessing true reality is an understandable ambition for contributing to the quality of policy and implementation, but one that comes from a tragic (because it is ultimately unrealizable) desire. The experiences were always open to interpretation.
After that, the committee had to find a way to convey its findings to the political and social arena where they could be discussed and exploited. At this stage, the committee’s report was a truth in itself. Finishing the report had to prompt a follow-up in the social and political arena by, in turn, reviewing how to take away from the encountered reality to a sufficient extent.
The search for true reality yielded valuable catch on that belief in a truer reality behind the presented truth image is gone. By participating in administrative reality, those investigating seek the truth. But they do so in a context that is not looking for the truth.

This article discusses the realization of public value through social entrepreneurship. It shows practices that can at present be seen in the Dutch society and answers the question: what is the relation between social entrepreneurship and the realization of value in the public domain? We conclude that public value is at the same time the result of the efforts of a social entrepreneur (person) in the beginning of his endeavors, the presupposition for social entrepreneurship (activity) in the phase of growth and the good that is preserved by the social enterprise (organization) by the time it has matured. In realizing public value social entrepreneurs come into contact with government. For government this encounter has quite an awkward nature since government has at the same time both a say (it is responsible for policy) and no say (it is not responsible for individual social entrepreneurial initiatives) regarding the realization of value in the public domain through social entrepreneurship.

In recent years the Netherlands have seen an upsurge of housing enclaves. The enclaves are often built as courtyards, castles, estates or apartment complexes. The growing number of people living in housing enclaves indicates a demand for this kind of living areas. However, the motivations behind the increasing popularity of housing enclaves are unclear. Is this a reflection of a long standing tradition of people staying in their own social group, seeking for belonging and sociability? Or does it fit in a global trend of searching for security in gated communities? This paper presents empirical research in the Netherlands that addresses peoples’ motives for living in housing enclaves, as well as the role of the local government in relation to housing enclaves. The research shows that residents of housing enclaves seek a pleasant living environment in the first place, while security is a less important motive. The study gives reason for planners and developers outside the US not to assume that fear of crime and a wish for security are the main reasons for moving to housing enclaves. Further, the study shows that housing enclaves are not completely privatized areas. Local government still has an important role to play.

Governing the Netherlands seems to have become a form of governing by commission. Between 1995 and 2005 Dutch central government installed at least 364 commissions that we were able to identify. Cuts in this phenomenon are often called for by its opponents since commissions are often believed to be a strategic instrument for policymaker to cut democratic corners or slow down policy making processes. Dutch Parliament by motion has even asked government to keep from forming (so many) commissions. Still trends have not changed and new commissions are being formed almost every other week. Apparently there are compelling reasons for forming commissions. In this article we discuss how societal and public context lead to the installation of commissions. Furthermore we argue that installation of a commission can be clearly understood from the motives officials have with its formation. Hiring expertise (60%), independence of members (30%) and creating legitimacy (20%) are important factors regarding these motivations. Timing of commissions within election cycles is strategic: installation shortly after the new administration is effective, as is reporting back before the next elections. As long as politics remains politics calling for less commissions has mostly symbolic value.