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.

In Nederland komen tal van wicked problems (WP) voor. Ze worden ook wel aangeduid als weerbarstige problemen. Kenmerkend is het unieke karakter, het feit dat kennis over probleemaspecten beperkt is en verschillende perspectieven op een probleem en meerdere waardenoriëntaties een rol spelen. Naast cognitieve en normatieve complexiteit bestaat er ook nog sociale complexiteit. WPs zoals voetbalvandalisme spelen zich af in een beleidsnetwerk met tal van elkaar afhankelijke actoren. Kennis, preferenties, handelingsvermogen en middelen blijken gespreid en niet in de hand van één actor. Om toch tot een bevredigend resultaat te komen moeten de actoren gezamenlijk optrekken. Daarom is interorganisationeel netwerkmanagement en deliberatie met burgers een wenselijke responsestrategie. Bij WPs zijn actoren dus tot elkaar veroordeeld. Centralistische besluitvorming werkt niet. Een centrale actor kan overigens nog wel een rol vervullen als initiator, facilitator of regisseur van overleg en discussie; als arbiter bij botsende perspectieven; of beslisser na netwerkberaad en inbreng van burgers.

Science and practice are largely agreed on the importance of interorganizational cooperation in the approach of tackling complex societal problems. Organization transcending innovation through this type of cooperation however appears to be complicated. Based on an analysis of the literature about partnerships, the authors distinguish three challenges: coping with the tension between old and new accountability structures, building good working relationships and developing capabilities for problem-oriented working. Starting from these insights they designed action research into problem-oriented partnerships in the safety domain (safety chain). Their main question was: what is the most important obstacle for innovation through problem-oriented interorganizational cooperation? Over a period of nine months, they watched eight teams of professionals from different organizations. Their task was to develop and implement innovative approaches to tackle persistent organized crime. Although all three challenges identified in the literature indeed played a prominent role, problem diagnosis and problem definition appeared to be the main obstacle for the teams. In this article the authors describe the action research and explore, on the basis of the results and the literature, how partnerships could cope in practice with the challenge of problem definition and problem analysis. They conclude the article with suggestions for the design of a follow-up round of the action research.

This article shows the relevance of Burawoy’s analytical categories on the division of scientific labour to analyse the interactions between science and practice. It argues that social scientists need to combine the roles of expert witness, social engineer and storyteller in order to develop a productive relationship with policy makers. It also emphasises the relevance of a permanent dialogue between social scientists and policy makers. However, the analysis disagrees with Burawoy’s view that knowledge is based on a consensus between scientists and their publics (consensual knowledge). Burawoy underestimates the risk of a politicisation of science inherent to a close relationship with various ‘publics’. The arguments presented in this article are based on the reception of a research project on labour migration from Central and Eastern Europe. This was a hybrid research project in which different actors participated: the Erasmus University, nine Dutch municipalities, the national government and a Dutch knowledge center on urban issues.

Climate change is often referred to as exemplary for ‘wicked’ problems. Wicked problems are referred to in literature as being inherently political problems without a clear definition or solution for which top-down steering using scientific knowledge is not fitting. Paradoxically, international climate change policy is organized in a quite top down manner in which scientific findings have a prominent role. In this paper we explore the effects of a deliberative approach to knowledge generation. We discuss two cases: an assessment of the credibility of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and the organization of a scientific dialogue on internet.

Concerns about mobile phone masts are often put down as unfounded fears of health risks. However, our ethnographic study of mast siting controversies shows that citizens mostly want to be democratically involved in the siting decisions. There is no room for such engagement in the national antenna policy, thus, citizens shift their attention to the possibility of health risks. The national government responds to this with more research and risk communication. However, the centrality of science leads to a shift in the discussion towards the credibility of science. Even a Klankbordgroep (Sounding Board) with all stakeholders fails to change the focus. This article shows that local conflicts are not so much the result of individual concerns, which is the subject of many social sciences studies, but are the outcome of a dynamic interaction between governments, citizens and scientists. Governments should not frame a local issue only in terms of a scientific problem.

This article explores the role of frames about the future in policy reform, by analysing Dutch debates about population ageing and their impact on welfare policies in the period from 2000 until 2008 as a case study. Mapping the debates around ageing in the Netherlands, the article demonstrates that frames are a powerful force in the policy process. Diverging frames about the future enable fundamental changes of deeply embedded policy institutions. The case study shows the process of argumentation about the future that took place between 2000 and 2008, and reflects upon the frames about the future that were of crucial importance in bringing temporary closure to the controversy over the proper response to the demographic shift, which then lead to several important and rather strong changes in institutions of welfare state policies and fiscal policies.

A post-positivistic view on policy analysis is increasingly accepted within mainstream policy analysis. Post-positivistic policy analysis is a term for a broad range of analytical approaches in the field of policy analysis, which seeks to move beyond an ‘objectivist’ conception of reality. Scholars working within this field primarily object to the positivistic claim that policy problems can be approached in a technocratic, pure empiricist way. According to them, policy problems are constructed within policy narratives and frames. However, the exact relation between frames, narratives, problems, the use of data, values and ideas are connected remains unclear. This contribution follows Brandwein (2006) who proposes to separate baseline categories of thought, such as values and assumptions from their interpretative products such as narratives and problems. Together, these elements form the interpretative frame in which certain aspects of a policy problem is highlighted while other features are ignored. The authors extend Brandwein’s model as they add an extra element to the interpretative product, that is the use of numbers in policy texts. On this model they render an important shift within Dutch emancipation policy – from a concern for equal distribution of care task and paid labor to an exclusive focus on the growth of women labor participation – more intelligible.

Agricultural production systems may influence each other in a negative way, with conflicts as a consequence. In general, such conflicts are resolved technically in an ad hoc manner, at farm or greenhouse level. There is no structural attention to so-called co-existence problems. This article makes a plea for acknowledging such problems as policy issues and for grouping these together under the label of co-existence conflicts, broadening this phrase beyond its traditional meaning related to conventional, organic and GM crop production. Co-existence conflicts are concrete, local expressions of the tensions between conflicting values incorporated in the current agricultural system. It is argued that because they are manifestations of conflicting value systems, they offer useful stepping-stones to practically organise and channel discussions on sustainable development in agriculture.