Zoekresultaat: 5 artikelen

x

    With the term ‘system responsibility’ the authors (both working for the Dutch Scientific Council for Governmental Policy) mean the responsibility for the functioning of complex ‘administrative systems’. In these complex administrative systems supervision can have different roles: to assess the functioning one-sided from the perspective of the government, but also to put on reflective glasses (‘from afar glasses’) that aim at the bigger picture of divergent rationalities of the actors involved. In the second case, there is ‘system responsible supervision’. This essay explores the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of the desirability of system responsible supervision in a society with complex, compound administrative systems. Such supervision can contribute to a somewhat better understanding of these systems and a somewhat better ability to adjust these complex systems. These supervisors can be seen as a necessary complement of the withdrawal of the government and the rise of ‘horizontal administration’, in which the hierarchical decision-power of the central government has gradually shifted to other actors. As unelected and as relatively independent actors they occupy a new, hybrid place in the ‘trias politica’, because on the one hand they have taken over functions of elected politicians and administrators and on the other hand they function in many respects as a quasi-judicial power.


Dr. Peter de Goede
Dr. P.J.M. de Goede is senior wetenschappelijk medewerker van de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. Hij is voormalig redactiesecretaris en hoofdredacteur van Bestuurswetenschappen.

Prof. dr. André Knottnerus
Prof. dr. J.A. Knottnerus is voorzitter van de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.
Artikel

Vertrouwen in toezichtbeleid

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden Trust, regulatory policy, accountability, control, supervision regime
Auteurs Lydia Paauw-Fikkert MSc, Dr. ir. Frédérique Six en Prof. dr. Paul Robben
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Regulatory supervision and inspection have become key features of public governance, some authors even talk about the ‘audit society’ or the age of ‘regulatory capitalism’. Despite international research showing the importance of trust in supervisory relations, there is still a fierce debate about the role of trust in Dutch supervisory relations. Several inspectorates have incorporated trust as a central theme in their supervisory policy. This article describes the role of trust within the policy of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate (IGZ). This research addresses four themes in dealing with the concept of trust in supervisory relations: from transparency to accountability, from output performance to performance and risk management, from trust or control to trust and control, and, finally, a special regime for reliable inspectees. The empirical analysis in this paper contributes to the knowledge about the role of trust in supervision (policy) and to the debate about the role of trust in regulatory supervision policy.


Lydia Paauw-Fikkert MSc
Lydia Paauw-Fikkert MSc is senior adviseur bij de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg.

Dr. ir. Frédérique Six
Dr. ir. Frédérique Six MBA is universitair docent aan de VU Amsterdam.

Prof. dr. Paul Robben
Prof. dr. Paul Robben is adviseur bij de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg en bij iBMG-Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Artikel

Ontbrekende alternatieven en gevestigde belangen

Een studie naar de posities van overheden in hervormingsdebatten tijdens de financiële crisis

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 4 2012
Auteurs Daniel Mügge PhD en Bart Stellinga MA MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The credit crisis that began in the summer of 2007 has fundamentally challenged much financial regulation and the political institutions that produced it. Measured against the criticisms that have been brought forth against previous financial governance, the extent of governments’ overall reform ambitions has been disappointing. Starting from this observation, this article asks: what explains governments’ reform choices, and thus also their limited ambitions? To explore this question, this article focuses on the positions that four governments central to global financial regulation (the USA, the UK, Germany and France) have taken in advance of the G20 meetings in 2009 across four key issue areas: accounting standards, derivatives trading, credit ratings agencies and banking rules. It evaluates both the overlap between positions across domains and governments as well as the differences between them. Such variation, we argue, provides key clues to the overall drivers behind reforms – as well as their limits. The overall picture that emerges can be summarized as follows: governments have been staunch defenders of their national firms’ competitive interests in regulatory reforms. That has not necessarily meant that they followed industry preferences across the board. It has been the relative impact, compared to foreign competitors, that counted in reform positions, not the absolute impact. These differences of opinion have played out within the context and the limits of the overall debates about thinkable policy alternatives. In spite of fundamental criticisms of pre-crisis regulatory orthodoxy, convincing and coherent alternatives have been forthcoming slowly at best. This has made reform proposals less radical than criticisms, seen on their own, might suggest.


Daniel Mügge PhD
Daniel Mügge is universitair docent politicologie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Correspondentiegegevens: D. Mügge, PhD, afdeling Politicologie, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Oudezijds Achterburgwal 237, 1012 DL Amsterdam, d.k.muegge@uva.nl.

Bart Stellinga MA MSc
Bart Stellinga is medior wetenschappelijk medewerker bij de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. Correspondentiegegevens: B. Stellinga, MA MSc, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Lange Vijverberg 4-5, 2500 EA Den Haag, stellinga@wrr.nl.
Artikel

Handelingsperspectieven in het politiek-financieel complex

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 4 2012
Trefwoorden financial crisis, action logics, decision-making theories, regulatory bodies, financial institutions
Auteurs Dr. Kutsal Yesilkagit
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    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.


Dr. Kutsal Yesilkagit
Kutsal Yesilkagit is universitair hoofddocent bestuurskunde aan de Universiteit Utrecht. Correspondentiegegevens: A.K.Yesilkagit@uu.nl.

    Climate change forces to a fundamental reconsideration of our strategic policy, and especially of the relationship between policy and law. With regard to political urgent topics, a tendency towards policy instrumentalism always lies in wait. In the current policy practice this problem manifests itself in the application of law (in many detailed norm prescriptions) and – curiously – also in its policy counterpart: the search towards informal but even goal specific policy processes.

    The authors plead for dealing with spatial climate challenges by creating room for a strategic policy perspective and a sustainable approach of the relation between law and policy. A qualitative approach of policy and law necessitates an innovative juridical transformation: the use of general normative rules which give direction to flexible policy processes in multiple, specific policy situations.


Marleen van Rijswick
Prof. mr. H.F.M.W. van Rijswick is hoogleraar Europees en nationaal waterrecht aan de Universiteit Utrecht en verbonden aan het Centrum voor Omgevingsrecht en beleid. Correspondentiegegevens: Prof. mr. H.F.M.W. van Rijswick Universiteit Utrecht Achter Sint Pieter 200 3512 HT Utrecht h.vanrijswick@uu.nl

Willem Salet
Prof. dr. W.G.M. Salet is algemeen hoogleraar planologie aan het Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research van de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.