Participatory and responsive approaches to research strive to be democratic, inclusive and impactful. Participatory researchers share a commitment to epistemic justice and actively engage citizens and users as well as other stakeholders in the co-creation of knowledge for social change. While more and more researchers and policymakers feel attracted to these approaches in practice, the normative ideals of social inclusion and justice are sometimes hard to realize, because of established interests, power relations and system requirements. In this article I argue that participatory researchers and evaluators have a moral responsibility to do ‘ethics work’. This is more than just following ethical principles and codes of conduct. ‘Ethics work’ entails the labour and effort one puts into recognizing ethically salient aspects of situations, developing oneself as a reflexive practitioner, paying attention to emotions and relationships, collaboratively working out the right course of action and reflecting in the company of critical friends. In this article I present the theory and ethics of participatory approaches, illustrate ethical issues and ethics work related to collaboration, politics and power, and share lessons based on ten years of practice in the field of health and social well-being.

In the light of the broader debate on the mediatization of politics, this study wants to better understand how the media perceptions and media behaviour of politicians are related to their appearances in the news. We opt for an innovative actor-centred approach to actually measure the views and actions of individual politicians. We combine surveys conducted with 142 Belgian representatives with data on politicians’ external communication behaviour and on their appearances in television news, newspapers and news websites. The results show that media behaviour is not so much related to beliefs of media importance. We do find a significant positive relationship between strategic media behaviour and media attention suggesting that politicians who put in more effort appear more often in various news media. However, this positive relationship depends on the specific form of strategic communication and the political position of the legislator. Our study adds to the mediatization literature by showing how and when politicians are successful in obtaining media attention.

A pragmatic criticaster or a critical pragmatist is considered a schizophrenic in daily life: it seems impossible to be solution oriented and critical at the same time. You are either an optimist or a pessimist. This schism also seems to run between public administration and political scientists. Public administration is focused on (positive) problem solving, whereas political scientists – especially in a tradition of critical theory – examine the exertion of power. This essay proposes a combination of the two extremes: a critical-pragmatist approach for public administration.
In this approach, critical political theory goes hand in hand with pragmatist reconstruction and design. This design is impossible without normative and procedural principles, for example ideas about sustainability, justice and democracy. This is illustrated with an example for designing just governance arrangements in the Dutch regional energy strategies. The article shows that public administration that is relevant, reflective and democratic builds on a critical-pragmatist approach.

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.

In Dutch semi-public sectors of education, healthcare, and housing there is a tendency towards governance based inspection. The attention of inspectorates shifts from inspection on minimum quality standards to inspection on governance based quality improvement. The aim of this special issue is to learn more about the opportunities and risks of governance based inspection. The survey and sector articles show that governance based inspection (1) puts the responsibility of governors to stimulate quality on the agenda, (2) makes governors more aware of the quality targets they want to achieve within their organisations, and (3) has a deregulating effect. However, the risks are (1) reregulation via sector norms, (2) a lack of reality checks, and (3) a narrow focus on governors instead of the quality of public services. Consequently, inspectors have to learn new skills and competences. All in all, governance based inspection can complement but not replace other ways of inspection.

In this article, we explore how evaluations are managed by Dutch policy departments in terms of six aspects of evaluation capacity: institutions, programming, budgeting, evaluation process and content, and finally, evaluation use. We also sketch how international organisations and a number of larger countries deal with these issues of evaluation capacity. Internationally, a variety of norms, checklists and procedures demonstrate that the commissioning party is considered to play a key role in the realisation of evaluations as well as their use. Here, evaluation and evaluation knowledge are often viewed as part of the policy process rather than as a separate exercise. Our description of evaluation practices in Dutch policy departments reveals that several capacity-enhancing initiatives were developed in the past few years, such as new evaluation institutions or structures and programs to promote the commissioning of effectiveness evaluations. It also suggests, however, that accountability is an important driving force behind evaluation, perhaps more powerful than learning.

The field of public administration research is continuously changing. This article takes stock of the field by asking four open questions to a large group of public administration practitioners and scholars. The questions prompt a debate about the state of play of the field of public administration in The Netherlands. Several dilemmas become apparent. Firstly, there is the tension between rigor and relevance of research. More rigorous methodology should not come at the expense of relevance in practice. Moreover, pressure to publish in international academic journals draws scholars away from the more practical outlets for research findings. Ever more is ‘written’, but less of that reaches the more practical audiences. This is congruent with the impression that public administration scholars should invest more in their narratives, so that the important message of public administration research reaches wider audiences and helps to reflect on pressing societal issues. Furthermore, there is a need for public administration scholars to be more active in helping practitioners solve the complex policy puzzles they face. This requires the ability to walk the fine line between keeping distance and becoming genuinely involved in policy processes. All of these factors can help the field of public administration take next steps in its development, to regain the connection with practice and raise its academic standards.

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.

In dit artikel wordt het evaluatieonderzoek van overheidsbeleid kritisch onder de loep genomen. De auteur bespreekt vier alternatieven: responsieve en multipele evaluatie, argumentatieve evaluatie, netwerkgericht evalueren en lerend evalueren. De bevindingen kunnen positief inwerken op het ‘leren van evalueren’ in organisaties.

The world-wide meltdown of financial markets is one of the largest human-made crises in modern times. The question that trembles on the lips of many researcher is why the main actors, all considered as rational, have displayed such self-destructing behaviour. Answers have been sought and partially found in theories as varied as ‘regulatory capture’, ‘failed regulation’, and inadequate crisis management. In this special issue, an alternative view is suggested. The financial sector, like any other complex sector, is made up of loosely coupled actors and actor settings (i.e. financial institutions, regulatory bodies, political actors), each driven by different action logics. The studies in this special issue each deeply examine the action logic of one actor group. The purpose of this issue is hence to parcel out the various action logics and suggest directions for further research to combine better the various actors and their differing action logics.

Relations between government and news media are often complex and contradictory. In order to shed light on their interactions, this review essay discusses four recent books on the tensions between government and the media. Discussed are Schudson's Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press, Prenger et al's Gevaarlijk spel, Cook's Governing with the News and Keane's Life and Death of Democracy. Three general issues are discussed: the ways in which journalists and policy actors behave towards each other; the implications for the daily practices of journalists and policy actors and, on a more abstract level, the implications for the democratic system. It is argued that critical and inconvenient news media fulfil a crucial role in a vital democracy, as essential checks for those in power. The news media facilitate the interaction between the fragmented parts of a monitory democracy and thus enhance a well-functioning government. In order to cope with media pressure, government pr-officials try to pacify journalists, but at the same time, government and public organizations should be wary of the incorporation of media rules in their own processes as this may lead to a mediatisation of politics.

In order to facilitate the creation of a regulated market, Diagnostic Treatment Combinations (DBC’s in Dutch) have been introduced in Dutch mental health care in 2008. DBC’s are developed to distinguish and price the ‘products’ of health care, in order to make comparison and competition between health care providers possible. In this qualitative study we analyzed mental health care professionals experiences with the DBC-system. We focused on two questions: (1) what does the DBC-system and the related introduction of marketization of mental health care mean for professionals? and (2) how do professionals cope with the DBC-system in their daily practices? We found that the logics of the market and bureaucracy, both incorporated in the DBC-system, often conflicted with the values and ethics of mental health care professionals. Mental health professionals experience deterioration of professionalism and quality of care. They were coping with conflicting values by non-compliance with rules and pragmatic use of the DBC-system. It is argued that the efforts of professionals to protect the quality of their work might actually lead to invisibility of the problems they encounter, which reinforces the policy they criticize.

In the Netherlands, new horizontal forms of accountability have in recent years been introduced for executive agencies. These forms of accountability address other stakeholders besides the hierarchical principal. It includes for example demonstrating responsiveness to clients, independent overseers or professional standards. In this article, two related questions are answered. At first the question is posed whether horizontal accountability can be regarded as a substitute for democratic accountability or as complementary to it. The second question is how their introduction fits with traditional (vertical) forms of accountability. The article is based on a qualitative research that was carried out in 2005 and 2006 on nine large Dutch executive agencies. It focuses on two types of horizontal accountability: accountability of agencies to boards and to an independent evaluation committee ('visitation'). The article concludes that horizontal accountability is best regarded as complementary to democratic accountability. Horizontal accountability has added value because it invokes learning processes. In addition, the introduction of horizontal forms of accountability creates a redundant accountability regime for executive agencies in which they account for the same actions to different accountees. Redundancy has the advantages that it mitigates information asymmetry and incorporates the different expectations for agencies.