In 2003, the WRR suggested in the ‘Deciding on Biotechnology’ report that individuals should not be given ownership of their personal genetic information (DNA) to prevent risk selection and exclusion. Yet, that does not seem politically and ethically feasible. From that perspective, the research question of this article is how to regulate ownership and use of genetic information. Better predictability of health and longevity risk, through genetic information and thanks to new developments in geno-economics, possibly in combination with ‘big data’, makes risk selection by insurance companies attractive. That holds more specifically for the pension system. In addition to insurance for investment risk, the pension system also offers insurance for longevity risk. In itself, selection for longevity risk via premium setting is not unwarranted since the ‘bad risks’ with long life expectancy are the highly educated, so that the current implicit risk solidarity in pension insurance in The Netherlands, unlike in health insurance, brings about more inequality. But an unrestricted risk selection does raise ethical and social questions and does not fit into the new pension system in the Netherlands. That is why good and extensive legislation is needed for property rights and the utilization of genetic information of individual citizens. A similar focus on regulation is also in order for the use of DNA information of the government in criminal cases. Here the question is what additional options the government should have to use the information to solve crimes.

This article clarifies the democratic problems of multilevel governance, with a focus on the Regional Energy Strategy decision-making process. First, the risks that these democratic problems entail for democratic support and for the quality and speed of decision-making are discussed. Next, these problems – and their possible solutions – are discussed by means of three approaches to democracy: representative democracy, pluralist democracy and participatory democracy. A tailor-made mix of these three approaches is recommended as most useful for a solid democratic anchorage of multilevel governance.

In recent scientific and policy discourses, the centre of attention is increasingly geared towards the value and quality of work – as opposed to a prior occupation with the quantity of work. Whereas the dominant focus seems to be on (aspects of) the individual job, this contribution aims to embed the worker into the organisational context and highlight the (potential) role of organisations. We examine whether the value of work – beyond individual and job characteristics – is affected by (a) characteristics of the organisation, (b) mutual investments or the relation between employees and employers and (c) the extent to which employees can realise their values within an organisation. To that end, we analyse survey data from the Value of Work Monitor 2019. Our findings show that not only the characteristics of the employment relationship, but also the organisational context and realisation of workers’ values have a significant effect on the evaluation of one’s job. Amongst others, the composition of the workforce, autonomy and intensity, facilities for lifelong learning and workers’ embeddedness in the organisation all have a significant effect on outcomes. We conclude that the discussion on value and quality of work deserves a more active role from the side of employers.

New technology, flexibilization and the intensification of work could have significant consequences for those who still have work in the future, and for the quality of that work. In a new report, the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) is therefore arguing that good work for everyone should now be seen as an important aspiration for companies, institutions, social partners and the government. Good work is essential for general well-being: for the individual’s quality of life, for the economy and for society as a whole. We make nine policy proposals to promote and facilitate good work for more people.

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

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

Technological advancements in the field of data analytics, algorithms and AI have dramatically increased opportunities for workplace monitoring. In this article, we discuss some of these digital technologies, and examine their impact on employment relationships and the quality of work. Based on desk research, literature review and interviews, the Rathenau Institute examined a wide range of digital instruments, their scientific basis, implications for the quality of work and relevant legal frameworks. Digital monitoring technologies often quantify work activities. We argue that it is important for organisations to realise that such quantification often negatively impacts both job quality and employment relationships. Responsible use of digital monitoring tools not only requires a broad societal and political dialogue about privacy, discrimination and workload but also a critical reflection on the aim of organisations to use data to understand workers, while not everything of value can be captured in data.

In a democracy citizens should actually have influence on the choices that directly influence their lives. Citizens have two ways for this influence: directly by participating in the policy process (in its formulation, its decision making or its implementation) or indirectly by voting for a political party or representatives through which citizens have influence on the outcomes. These two are not opposite to each other, but rather complementary. My main argument in this article is that the smaller the scale, the greater the possibilities for citizens to exert direct influence. The larger the scale, the more important it is that this influence runs through their representative institutions

The roadmap to the energy transition of the Netherlands in the next decade is formulated by and large at the regional level. 30 regions are currently developing a Regional Energy Strategy (RES), which lays out where renewable energy projects can be realized in the future. But how democratic are these regional energy strategies? In this article we share our observations and reflections, based on our professional experiences with the regional energy strategies.

Recent developments on the Dutch labour market raise questions about the emergence of new social dividing lines. In this paper we discuss two cases. Both address labour market disadvantages which can easily deepen and sharpen with unchanged policies. The first case shows that there are groups that are less able to respond to the defined trends in the labour market due to a lack of education or disabilities. In the second case we focus on the question of sustainable employability as such that creates dividing lines. A first conclusion from our contribution is that a thorough analysis of existing dividing lines in the labour market is crucial for effective policy, but that knowledge about deepening old and creating new dividing lines is at least as relevant. A second conclusion is that the outlined assumptions in policies around self-reliance of, for example, people with a disability or the possibilities of employers to realize sheltered work and to focus on retraining, for example outside working hours, are not always realistic. Much more will have to be done to match the real possibilities of people and organizations to achieve this. Financial, but also organizational and personal. The motivations and behaviors of employees, employers and educational authorities appear to be very relevant explanatory factors in practice, which are often not sufficiently taken into account. Recent experiences with the Participation Act and lifelong learning show us that. More interaction is needed in the coming years between research, policy and the practice of the labour market.

Celebrating 100 years of women’s suffrage in 2019 is an excellent reason to reinvigorate the debate on the position of women in politics and public administration in the Netherlands. In this essay, we look at trends and figures, as well as discuss the measures that Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Kajsa Ollongren puts forward in her recent letter to Parliament: (1) inclusive selection and selection procedures; (2) actively inviting and recruiting candidates; and (3) good equipment for political office. We try to inform the debate about the position of women in politics with new insights and knowledge from academic research.

Despite notable progress, women remain heavily underrepresented in virtually all layers of the Dutch political system. Only one in three Dutch MPs is currently female. The Minister of the Interior has recently made a number of suggestions to increase gender diversity in politics, in light of 100 years of active voting rights for women. Gender in politics is about much more than the number of women though: it is about the role and position of women in politics as well as about the uneven gendered influence of politics. This introduction discusses the importance of focusing on women and gender in politics, and introduces the four contributions to this Dossier. We specifically call for an intersectional perspective and the various dimensions of gender in and of politics.

This article reflects on the proposed measures of the Dutch Government to increase the number of women in the Dutch public administration. Based on the lessons learned from the practice of the public sector, this study concludes that there is still much work to be done with regard to female participation in the Netherlands, but when it comes to the ethnic minorities, the situation is alarming. Politicians directly elected by the citizen, such as MPs and councillors, do see a representation of the ethnic diversity of society. Where the citizen has no direct influence, such as the king’s commissioners, mayors, and aldermen, the percentages are zero or slightly higher than zero. It is argued that mechanisms such as selection procedures are hindering gender and ethnic diversity at the top of the public organizations. It is, therefore, suggested that introducing quota could bring more diversity in public administration.