Modern technology will lead to fundamentally different models for policy and governance. The impact of this on existing government bureaucracy is strongly underexposed within the current discourse on digital transformation. This essay, based on practical experience, wants to make clear (a) that this impact is indeed there; (b) that this impact affects all processes of the government organization; and (c) that this impact is not something that will emerge in the long term, instead it is already evident. So it is now time for administrators, policymakers and managers to put this topic on the agenda, otherwise the disruptive soup will soon not be as hot, but even hotter, when eaten.

This article presents a normative framework for good local governance in the digital society. We build on the five principles of Frank Hendriks (laid down in an article in Urban Affairs Review in 2014): participation, effectiveness, learning ability, procedural justice and accountability. An analysis of these five principles leads to the refinement of these principles for the digital society. The overarching points are that attention is needed for the possibility of human contact, that avoiding discrimination must be central, that higher demands are made with regard to speed of action, that the principles increasingly apply to networks of organizations, and that the principles increasingly apply to the design of systems. This overview thus provides concrete tools for organizations that want to reflect with citizens and stakeholders on the extent to which they are able to achieve good local governance in the digital society.

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.

Civil servants at the Dutch authorities increasingly make use of behavioural insights in the policy process. These insights are primarily put on the agenda at the level of the national government in the Netherlands. However, they also seem to be particularly useful at the local level. After all, behaviour-conscious policy focuses on behavioural change through the redesign of the direct environments of citizens, and local authorities have a clear view and control over these environments. In the light of this potential, this article explores the current rise and institutionalization of behavioural expertise in local government. The work practices of local behavioural experts are examined on the basis of three dimensions of local government: positioning, practices and politics. The findings show that local behavioural experts are still in an experimental and start-up phase, but at the same time are already working with a wealth of behavioural assignments. In doing so, they deal tactically with scarce resources, resistance and abrasive institutional logics. The article shows that behavioural insights and designs are also promising in local government, that a local administrative landscape of behavioural expertise is already being developed; and that making meters in the field of behavioural expertise calls for several forms of coordination.

E-democracy incorporates digital tools, the internet and social media to enhance democracy. There are many of these tools available to improve governmental responsiveness, transparency, and accountability, but also to support the inclusiveness, representativeness and influence of citizens’ participation. Examples are online petitions, apps for neighborhood watches, wikiplanning and social media monitoring. Web 3.0, which is more interactive and less location specific, enables governments to take a more personalized approach. It also allows for participation across administrative and geographical boundaries. In this symposium two contributions address the question of the influence of e-democracy on the democratization of governmental decision-making, information and service delivery, and of citizens’ participation.

Cybersecurity is daily news. Data leaks and hackers are common features in the media. We tend to look to the government when things go wrong: what is the government doing about it? In this special issue we also look to the government and ask ourselves whether we are ready for the challenges of cybersecurity. Asking this question is simple. Answering it, however, requires sophisticated knowledge. This includes knowledge about the technology of today and the future. It also includes knowledge about governance. Who should be prepared in the age of distributed responsibilities? Which public and private parties can enhance cybersecurity, including you and me? Finally, what is does ‘being prepared’ mean exactly? This special issue includes three academic articles, five interviews and a column. Cybersecurity is viewed from different academic perspectives and professional positions. In its entirety, this special issue provides state-of-the-art of academic and professional thinking on government cybersecurity.

Government cybersecurity requires action from many public and private actors. Both collective knowledge and collective priority are needed to ensure cybersecurity at a government level. This makes collective learning essential. There is a system of arrangements that includes all kinds of governmental organisations and private parties. How can learning be stimulated in this system? And what is the need for steering here? This article provides answers to these questions, based on the contributions in this special issue. We conclude that both central control and self-regulation are essential to cybersecurity, even if they are in conflict. We coin the term ‘complimentary self-regulation’. We also conclude that many arrangements have been developed or are under development, however, it is difficult to institutionalise the coherence between these initiatives. There is a long road ahead in terms of gaining a collective understanding. Cybersecurity and its organisation will probably not vanish from the administrative agenda any time soon.

Infrastructure and adjacent areas represent extensive social value. However, infrastructure and areas are still often developed sectoral and independent. In the Netherlands, national spatial policies strive for combining infrastructure and area as one integrated approach as this is expected to result in more spatial quality. Taking this perspective, this article discusses trendy concepts in current Dutch planning, such as: adaptive planning, public and private cooperation and challenge-oriented approaches (‘opgave-gericht werken’ which focuses less on realising a project but more on the current and future issues and challenges in an area). This article argues that these concepts are closely related. Adaptive planning defines the rules of the game and the playing field, within which cooperation may develop. Cooperation is a means for creating spatial quality in interaction within this playing field. After all, generated quality can be considered as a contribution to the specific objectives and interest of the various partners. A challenge-oriented approach is the process for generating spatial quality from synergies in combined infrastructure and spatial development. This article aims to explore the relationships between adaptive planning, public and private cooperation and challenge-oriented approaches and to provide starting points for further research and discussion.

This contribution describes civil service professionalism from a functionalist perspective: the most important function of civil service professionalism is creating, developing and maintaining the authority of governments. Contrary to common opinion, moral authority in our day appears to be of prime importance. Citizens appreciate moral authority, but this important source of authority is often underused by political-administrative officials (especially by them). By making better use of moral authority, civil servants – policy officials and executive officials – could play a much bigger role. In order to achieve this, their professionalism must be improved by creating a broad civil service charter from which (to a certain extent) they can derive a right for civil service professionalism. In the context of the present political debate in the Netherlands on the normalization of the legal status of civil servants, there is an opportunity now to make real progress in this matter. It would be a good thing if civil servants would make themselves heard in this debate. Looking after the moral dimension of the work of civil servants and the accountability in this respect is not only a matter for the Dutch cabinet and those preparing the civil service charter, but also for the civil servants in different parts of the Dutch civil service themselves.

This contribution addresses the question of competences and skills for public professionals to improve collaboration. The authors start their search by looking for a conceptual focus. Poor collaboration is conceptualized as ‘colliding rationalities’. Herbert Simon has introduced the concept of ‘bounded rationalities’ to oppose scientists who think that improvement of public administration is possible through ex ante theorizing. Human beings not only have a limited capacity for rational thinking, but there also multiple rationalities that restrict each other. A classic distinction is made by Ig Snellen: a) legal rationality, b) political rationality, c) financial/economic rationality, d) scientific rationality. Not only are rationalities restricted, but also collisions can occur between professionals who adhere to different rationalities. These collisions have to do with their relational network, with the nature of their tasks and with their way of thinking and communicating. Therefore the authors have worked with different groups of professionals to find out which competences they need to deal with these collisions or make them productive. They did so on the basis of specific cases in their daily working practice. Jan Fraanje comments on this contribution as a practitioner in a Dutch municipality.

Interview with Jantine Kriens, chairwoman of the Association of Netherlands Municipalities.