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.

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.

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.

Combatting the coronavirus politicians and policy makers have to continuously make a trade-off between public health and democratic rights. How do citizens’ attitudes towards democracy develop in a pandemic? In this study we test whether changes in the information environment affect citizens’ trust in the local and national government. Moreover, we study whether changes in the information environment are associated with the perceptions about the extent to which democratic processes are under pressure. We address these questions using a five wave panel study in the Netherlands conducted between April and September 2020. We find that during this period media use and political trust decreased. Moreover, Dutch citizens are worried about the effects of the corona crisis on local and national democracy. When it comes to the effects of media use on political trust and attitudes towards democracy, we find that media use has a limited effect on attitudes towards democracy. If anything, consuming news via the public broadcaster has a positive effect on political trust. To conclude, our study provides descriptive evidence about the development of attitudes towards democracy in the Netherlands during a major public health crisis. Dutch citizens are worried about democracy but media play a limited role in amplifying or reducing these worries.

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 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.

The European project currently faces not only an economic crisis, but a moral one as well. The economic growth model of social justice combined with market-oriented policies, also referred to as the European social model has lost much of its meaning after ten years of austerity and financial calamities. In 2012 ECB President Draghi says in the Wall Street Journal that the European social model is “gone”, a thing of the past. While only a couple of years later the European Pillar of Social Rights is put in place. What is happening with ‘Social Europe’? And how do trade unions, as a historical motor of social policy in the member states, relate to the European social model, especially since the financial crisis. This article deals with the position of trade unions vis-à-vis European social policy and the European institutions. The European social model, economic governance and the collective bargaining system are discussed as examples of post-crisis European social policy. It will be argued that although the European Commission gives institutional space to social policy and to a role for trade unions, it has always been subordinate to economic integration. And moreover that the recent economic crisis is used at the European level to obtain almost complete control over social policy in the member states.

According to the outgoing European Commissioner Pierre Moscovici, the European Union (EU) has made more progress in tackling tax avoidance and evasion in the last five years than in the twenty years before that. This article argues that although several targeted measures have indeed been adopted, such as automatic exchange of tax rulings and limitations on interest deductions, this has not led to a structural change in EU corporate tax policies, nor in underlying power relations. The article discusses the politics of a number of recent policy developments related to tax avoidance and evasion by transnational corporations. It argues that the adoption of targeted measures, and the simultaneous stalling of more comprehensive approaches – in terms of tax transparency or a common consolidated corporate tax base – can be explained by recent tax controversies, international politics, and the dynamics within and between EU institutions. Particular attention is paid to the role of the European Parliament that is formally limited, but still houses progressive forces that have continuously pushed for a clampdown on tax avoidance. Finally, the article pleads for more transparent EU decision-making, specifically concerning discussions with and within the Council, in order to improve the democratic legitimacy of EU corporate tax policies and processes.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.
‘Fact free politics’ and ‘post-truth politics’ are considered to pose a severe threat to democracies as they seem to ruin shared perceptions of reality and render it impossible to distinguish opinion from fact. However, it is questionable whether fueling public and political debates with scientific facts offers a counterweight. First, scientific facts are not free from interpretation and can be regarded as ‘theory-laden’. Second, scientific research may determine facts but it may not claim the monopoly to determine the public meaning attached to these facts. Third, facts not only function to explain or to describe reality, they also affect reality. Given these considerations, the ‘science versus fact free politics’ debate could profit from a more realistic view on the status of facts.

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