Taking Lijphart’s work on consensus democracies as our point of departure, we signal a major shortcoming in Lijphart’s focus being almost exclusively on the political hardware of the state structure, leaving little attention for the administrative and bureaucratic characteristics of governance systems. We propose to expand the Lijphart’s model which overviews structural aspects of the executive and the state with seven additional features of the bureaucratic system. We argue that these features are critical for understanding the processes of policymaking and service delivery. Next, in order to better understand the functioning of the Netherlands and Belgium as consensus democracies, we provide a short analysis of the historical context and current characteristics of the political-administrative systems in both countries.

This article examines who ‘21^st century public managers’ are and which skills and roles they have to master to function effectively in the 21^st century. Based on a large scale analysis of literature and years of interaction with senior practitioners, seven key 21^st century demands for public managers are identified, each of which creates dilemmas as well as opportunities. 21^st century public managers utilize a combination of traditional and new roles, competencies, and values to turn demands into opportunities. The article concludes with implications for public administration research and education.

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 opening article introduces the topic of this special issue: civil servants. Changes in the context, role and legal status of civil servants in the Netherlands fuel the debate on the civil servant as a professional in academic and policy circles. This special issue reports on this debate, with contributions from legal, sociological, public administration and more applied perspectives.

This is an interview with professor of public administration Paul ’t Hart, following the success of his Dutch essay ‘Civil Servant 3.0’. In the interview, ’t Hart addresses new demands on civil servants, challenges for leadership and the need to learn from international best practices in public sector reform.

A profession can be defined as a group of workers with shared knowledge, skills and quality standards. To maintain its professional status, the professional community needs to be relatively autonomous. However, while performing their tasks, many pressures jeopardize the professional worker’s autonomous position. Here, the professional community can make a difference.
Subordination to the political principal characterizes the position of the civil servant. What margin of professional independence do political leaders allow their civil servants? Recent academic empirical reports in the Netherlands show conflicting outcomes.
This essay describes how civil servants from a Dutch ministry deal with their professional standards and argues that, in the process of professionalization, more clarity is required with regard to how autonomy and independence for civil servants are safeguarded. This is especially relevant in a contemporary context where new ways to account for the professional behavior of civil servants need to be sought.

After years of debate, the discussion concerning the legal status of civil servants has reached its climax. The abolition of special civil servant status has never been closer. In February 2014 the Dutch Parliament approved a proposal that is based on the view that the particular legal status of civil servants has to be ‘normalized’, and that the terms and conditions of employment in the public sector could be regulated in line with market sector standards. In this article, both the discussion and the proposal are considered. In addition, we reflect on the extent to which and the way in which the proposal could have a positive impact on the development of the professional competence of civil servants.

The article aims to compare the current legal status of codes of conduct (if any) in five different EU-countries. Its starting point is the recent legal initiative in the Netherlands to abolish the existing status for officials and to replace it with contracts of employment. The parliamentary initiators indicate ethical elements as crucial for the employment relation in the public sector. Does this imply that a code of conduct has to be established?
The article first focuses on the historical evolution of codes of conduct in different EU-Member States. Within the UK, integrity has always been considered a key stone of the civil service. However, it took until the nineties until a code of conduct was set out. The spread out of the importance of integrity for civil servants has spread out later in continental Europe. The impact of the theory of New Public Management, through the OECD, was therefore crucial. Consequently, Belgium and Germany developed codes of conduct while France and the Netherlands paid more attention to weight of ethical behavior in the public sector.
Currently, it stays beyond any doubt that the codes of conduct in the UK have got a binding legal value. This value has not yet been achieved by the Belgian and the German codes. The article defends the point of view that a binding code in the Netherlands can be a useful tool.

The changes in the role of government raise questions about the training and socialization of Dutch public servants. How can civil servants and their organizations prepare for what it means to be a civil servant in the 21st century? In this article, the authors give an overview of training and other means of socialization for public servants. They conclude that there is hardly any evidence of universal and coherent means to shape the collective identity of civil servants, and suggest ways to improve this.

In this contribution the author, who himself had a long and distinguished career as a top civil servant, reflects on civil servants advising their ministers. This process of ‘speaking truth to power’ can have its own challenges and dilemmas. The author discusses them based on recent cases and relevant developments in the Netherlands. He also proposes several recommendations on how to readjust the relationship between politicians and civil servants in their light.

More often it has been supposed that pride has important positive effects on the functioning of civil servants (performance) and the provision of services to citizens. To stimulate civil servants to be proud of their profession and regain their professional pride it is necessary to know what causes civil servants to be proud of their work. Little quantitative research has been done into the determinants of professional pride in the public sector and the research that has been carried out is characterized by a diversity of definitions and operationalizations of pride. This research analyses to what extent civil servants are proud and which factors determine the amount of professional pride. The data have been gathered in 2010 by the Dutch Department of Home Affairs in the Personnel and Mobility Monitor. The monitor shows that three out of ten Dutch civil servants are not proud of their own profession. This is not caused by personal characteristics like gender, age and education that cannot be influenced, but intrinsic characteristics of the relation between civil servant and work that have the largest effect on the amount of professional pride amongst civil servants. Those civil servants that feel attached to the organization, are satisfied with the organization, are satisfied with their work and are motivated, are much prouder than those civil servants which lack these characteristics.

This text provides a summary of an interview we conducted with Roel in ’t Veld, who (as an academic, advisor and civil servant) is a veteran of public management reform in the Netherlands. In ’t Veld criticizes the approach often taken by these reforms, as they are often not based on an in-depth study of the problem in question and its historic background. Scholars in public administration should not only provide critical assessments of reforms from the side-lines but should also get their hands dirty and participate in them.

The involvement of citizens in discussions about policy arrangements has been growing in the past decades. These forums of decision-making often provoke criticism because of a so-called ‘lack of representativeness’. Often a small group of active citizens takes the lead and decides which problems have to be dealt with. Some active residents primarily focus on improving the neighbourhood, regardless of whether their activities have everyone’s consent. This raises many questions related their representativeness. Do these participants form an adequate cross-section of the population? Are they speaking on behalf of others? Maybe passive citizens feel fine with the opinions of active citizens and agree that a small group of citizens is taking the lead. In this paper these active citizens are viewed as ‘trustees’: informal representatives who take responsibility to look after the neighbourhood’s interests, expecting that passive residents would support their efforts. The paper has two central questions: First, which ideas do active participants have about representation and representativeness? Second, in what respects can active citizens be characterized as ‘trustees’? In the theoretical part we contend that the notion ‘trustee’ may function as a theoretical framework to understand present-day citizen participation. In local policy networks many informal representatives express views and interests that are recognizable for many citizens. They are trusted, as long as their activities can be checked. The second part of the paper focuses on three projects of citizen decision-making within local safety policies (The Dutch cities Amsterdam, Deventer and Rotterdam). Within these projects, participants prioritize what kinds of activities and interventions police officers and other frontline workers should carry out. A main finding is that many active citizens function as contact persons who are continuously available for other residents. They do not wish to speak ‘on behalf’ of others but they are bestowed – often reluctantly – with the role of representative, as they demonstratively express neighborhood interests (‘clean, intact and safe’). Their reputation seems to be decisive.

This paper reports on a qualitative interview study into the prioritization and interpretation of public values government elites in the Netherlands, comparing value preferences between political and administrative elites. Based on 65 in-depth interviews with MPs, ministers and senior civil servants, statements on four public values (responsiveness, expertise, lawfulness, transparency) that have been deducted through a substantive literature review, are coded and categorized. Overall, political and administrative value preferences in the Netherlands turn out to be more similar than they are different. However, mutual perceptions emphasize differences and contrasts. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are offered and hypotheses are formulated for future studies.

The digital revolution enables civil servants to create innovation with others, across organizational boundaries and with larger groups. Traditional bureaucracies are challenged to put additional conditions and incentives in place to make this possible. The program ‘civil servant 2.0’, aimed at enabling and awareness raising among civil servants, itself also makes use of modern possibilities. One example is Pleio, a digital meeting place for civil servants and other officials and persons who want to share knowledge in a thematic, transboundary way. A dilemma civil servants face is that the hierarchy and the political leadership have to be open to opportunities and input generated from outside. The level of hierarchical support can be discovered when the opportunity emerges. This takes entrepreneurial civil servants: taking initiative with the aim of discovering emerging opportunities in the outside world before it is known how these will be evaluated by the hierarchy. Other enabling conditions are that this activity needs to be possible without taking-up too much of their time, a culture of transparency, the possibility to link with the world through modern ICT (despite possible risks), a safe hierarchical environment, and novel ways of accounting for their output.

This article is based on a definition of political and civil servant leadership as a behavioral steering style towards the realization of organizational goals. By means of a grounded theory methodology we get some insights in the characteristics and the interaction between both leadership styles in Flemish cities. This two-faced leadership is depicted by means of a tandem metaphor. First, we identify the relevant dimensions to describe the leadership tandem. It becomes apparent that political leadership styles differ greatly both in time and in scope. Civil servant leadership is generally characterized by a weak but presumably growing impact. This combination results in considerable leadership tensions, which is reinforced by several contingency factors: i.e. the influence of the dominant alderman model, the financial situation, the number of staff, the tendency to professionalize, the dominant political and civil servant culture and the structure of central government (e.g. on a Flemish, Belgian and European level).