Over the past four decades of its existence, Dutch public administration has developed into a science which mainly produces knowledge that either caters to a very specific scientific niche or aims to optimize policy processes in an instrumental fashion. This type of knowledge is not well equipped to provide answers or improve understanding of the challenges of our time. We argue that public administration needs to shift its focus more towards producing reflexive knowledge in the form of what we would call critical public administration. Based on the contributions in this special issue, this article outlines what the contribution of such a critical public administration could be. The article shows that, even though it is theory driven, critical public administration is close to policy practice and can fuel a productive public debate by imagining alternative futures.

In the Netherlands good citizenship has become a topic of increased importance on the government agenda since the murder of Pim Fortuyn. The author assesses the effectiveness of the Dutch citizenship policies within the context of the broader policy framework of the so-called participatory society (participatiesamenleving) or do-democracy (doe-democratie). The evaluative analysis consists of two parts. In the first part the changing ideas concerning good citizenship are identified as well as the normative assumptions that are at the basis of Dutch citizenship policies. In the second part, the potential of current policies, and in particular the ideas that gave rise to creating a new social contract between government and society are assessed. To this end some key aspects of the new contract thinking of the Dutch government are contrasted with the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The findings show that the current strive for tangible agreements on citizen behavior and civic duties is at odds with the main principles of classic contract theory. This leads to the conclusion that the new contractualism that is at the basis of the Dutch citizen policies should rather be seen as a threat to a stable society than as a building block for good citizenship.

The word neoliberalism has often been the object of fierce controversy in the Dutch public debate. Prominent intellectuals have equated neoliberalism with extremism and fundamentalism, with some going as far as calling it a ‘totalitarian faith’. The opposite camp in the debate has argued that neoliberalism is largely a self-invented bogeyman of the left, a swearword used by critics to engage in an intellectual witch-hunt. Of course, neoliberalism is not the only social science term suffering from a polemical status. Common concepts such as populism, socialism, nationalism or conservatism have given rise to similar lasting disagreements and comparable accusations of their derogatory use. What does appear to be exceptional about neoliberalism in the Dutch debate, is that very few conceptual and historical studies have been published on the subject. While the word neoliberalism is commonly employed in Dutch mainstream social science, many scholars seem to use the term without much further qualification. This paper explores the controversy and looks for ways to proceed beyond it. Drawing on a recent wave of international scholarship, it outlines an ideational approach to neoliberalism. After tracing the origins of the term neoliberalism, it closes with a preliminary example of an ideational analysis of Dutch neoliberalism.

On January 9 2015, Job Cohen held his inaugural speech at the University of Leiden as extraordinary professor at the prestigious Thorbecke chair. His study field was the theory of the municipality as an administrative, political and legal system. The title of his inaugural speech was ‘The fourth D’, in which the first three Ds stand for three different decentralizations of tasks to Dutch municipalities and the fourth D for democracy. In his speech Job Cohen advocated a deliberative form of democracy, because it doesn’t emphasize differences and the exaggeration of differences, but emphasizes what the members of a community have in common. This essay contains the farewell lecture that he held on November 30 2018. In it Cohen says that we are still in the transition of a gigantic operation, the three decentralizations of youth care, social services and labor participation. In many areas, therefore, cooperation at a higher level than the original municipalities is necessary and indeed established. Due to the increased regional cooperation, the House of Thorbecke no longer has such a strong foundation, which has long been the case. It is therefore inevitable, according to Cohen, that the House of Thorbecke receives more than just a new coat of paint. In his farewell lecture he furthermore discusses two kinds of citizen participation. The first kind concerns policy-influencing participation, the second involves self-reliant participation, or do-democracy or civil administration, in which the Right to Challenge is currently in the center of attention. This requires a delicate coordination between those who have and exercise government powers and citizens who want to exert influence on it.

Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

Reflection & Debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

The historical transformations of Dutch citizenship are assessed in this article in light of two aspects. One concerns the dimensions and layers of citizenship; the other pertains to the relative stress laid on either formal or moral citizenship. We illustrate how citizenship was broadened from civic to political, social and cultural rights. Then we discuss the recent moralization of citizenship in the context of Dutch debates on immigrant integration. We illustrate how the relative stress on moral citizenship therein pertains to a virtual disenfranchisement of non-native Dutch citizens.

After a summary of several contributions in this volume, we focus on certain problems and omissions in the debate about citizenship and the position of migrants in Dutch society. First, nearly all the contributions are related to the level of theoretical concepts or policy proposals, neglecting the level of social behaviour and important changes of social reality. Second, all authors acknowledge the fact that the moral dimensions of citizenship have become more important, yet nobody seems to be interested in a scientific explanation of this remarkable fact. In response to these omissions we try to understand why the Netherlands has changed from an open society into a community struck by xenophobia. One explanation might be that the intensity of social interaction has increased considerably. Another explanation is related to the fact the level of education has grown, creating a higher expectations of 'normal' behaviour. Together these tendencies undermine the ('typical Dutch') tradition of tolerance or deviant behaviour generally and for 'strange' behaviour of migrants specifically.

This paper discusses contemporary public space in light of two developments: a privatisation of space, and a spectacularization of space. Over against these processes, it argues that public space is able to provide two regulatory functions for social life: (1) anonimization; (2) public-formation. The paper concludes with a discussion of 'public familiarity' as one possible way of mediating these two apparently contradictory demands on public space.

This article sketches an alternative route to stimulate public familiarity: introducing spaces and zones of hospitality. Maybe hospitality in (semi)public space can offer more safe and comfortable ways of interaction. How does hospitality relate to the principles of public life like free access? Which views of interaction between strangers are presupposed? It is argued that hospitality means sharing together a certain limited space. The persons present depend on each other and they have the opportunity to make contact and get nearer. Guests have the positive obligation to treat each other with respect. Hospitable social regulation may be promoted in various ways. First by introducing symbolic demarcations like gateways and fences. Secondly by introducing convivial forms of interaction. Making use of public space in sheltered and relaxed ways may function as 'leveler' through which newcomers may feel welcome and 'at home'. Thirdly, by means of a 'personal hospitability' small conflicts can be managed. In that case some persons may take the role of public host without being asked. Finally some objections against hospitability are dealt with: on the one hand the freedom to move as one wants would be restricted and on the other hand informal manners in hospitable spaces would not satisfy the rules of detached and impersonal public interaction. Against that it is argued that 'total freedom of movement' and impersonal interaction are not always suitable principles to shape public life.