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

This article investigates whether the local practices growing under the Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning (Wmo; Law for social participation) can be viewed as examples of ‘transformation of the welfare state’-in-action. The article argues that indeed, a number of Dutch cities is trying to create a shift in the balance of responsibilities of citizens, social networks, civil society and government that can be judged an operationalization of the more abstract recommendations of many ‘welfare state reformers’. It remains to be seen however, whether these attempts will actually result in change. There are both practical problems and fundamental questions to be tackled. The question whether the transformation wished for by many from a political perspective, is actually feasible (given the political and societal constraints) should be addressed firmly by both local and national actors.As it goes, the opposite is the case: the question of the feasibility of the Wmo seems to have vanished in the void between parliament and municipalities.

The problems discussed in the articles of this special issue are not merely wicked in the sense of involving normative dissensus and factual uncertainty. They also are systemic: they reflect institutional inertia, discursive inertia and the disruptive impact of sociological trends (individualization, Europeanization etc.) on incumbent practices and institutions. This systemic character tends to makes them persistent: while fundamental change is unavoidable, such change is likely to be bothered by the very institutional and discursive inertia it seeks to address. Reflecting, from a public policy studies point of view, on previous articles we deduce four principles from urban practices to deal with these challenges: 1) reduce dissent and uncertainty where possible; 2) acknowledge normative diversity by promoting context-specific solutions; 3) organize policies around societal/market initiatives that have emerged in a context and 4) define institutional changes that may further promote and simplify such policies and seize opportunities for structural change.

Sustainability, the question of how our system of prosperity could be maintained, is one of the main issues of the coming decades. To combine economic growth and a pleasant environment, society needs to scale back its resource use and the ensuing pressures on the environment, by a factor of five. The challenge is to do more with less; something for which there is no instant solution. The city is the place where this change will begin, not by ‘big’ government with ‘big’ plans, but by the energetic society. Citizens and the business community are motivated by their wish for a clean economy and a pleasant living environment. The rise of the information society has increased their ability to exchange knowledge and ideas, releasing creativity and creating new solutions. If city governments are to tap into the strength of society, they must embrace the initiatives and join citizens and business in the empowered deliberative search for sustainable solutions. The goal of a clean economy is within reach, but it demands comprehensive physical and cultural change, in which local initiatives may lead the cultural change towards a broad vision of a strong, sustainable society. A large role for government remains, but high quality, low carbon cities may be the winners of the future.

In recent decades, professionals in the public sector have been faced with increasingly detailed demands concerning accountability and performance. It is often argued that this increased accountability and its bureaucratic pressures limit professionals’ discretionary space and autonomy. However, this critique is hardly based on empirical research on the experiences and perceptions of professionals themselves. In this article we present an investigation into these perceptions and experiences with accountability in one particular brand of the public sector, namely youth care.
Our research indicates that professionals in youth care are hardly interested in greater autonomy or discretion. They rather want clarity, security and options for learning. Moreover, we found ‘bureaucratic attachment’: attachment to bureaucratic procedures particularly as a reaction to increased fears to be sued when something goes wrong with clients. In the recurrent arguments for reduction of bureaucracy, this other face of bureaucracy is often disregarded.
Regarding working conditions however, the professionals we interviewed do want more discretion. Especially concerning occupation of beds, as the requirement for permanent occupation is viewed to augment risk. We therefore argue for better backing of professionals in youth, for a more precise battle against unnecessary bureaucracy, and for professionalization in order to handle more discretion.