In 2020 and 2021 there were many examples of manifestations and disturbances in the Netherlands in which social media played an important role. On a number of occasions, fights were fought in the physical world that originated in the online world, for example from the drill rap scene. The increase in victims of digital crime also became apparent. During this period, a number of Dutch mayors came to the media with a clear message that they wanted more options/powers to respond to this. Previous research has shown that mayors cannot use powers online, but they can maintain order in other ways. Students from NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences (in Leeuwarden) therefore conducted an exploratory study in the autumn of 2020, in collaboration with the Cybersafety research group, into the practical possibilities and (political) views with regard to administrative law options: a digital restraining order. In this contribution, attention is paid to the question of whether a digital version of the physical restraining order as a formal authority of mayors can contribute to the prevention of disturbances of public order that have their source in the online world.

Arthur Docters van Leeuwen was a legendary senior civil servant whose leadership in tough reform processes left many traces in Dutch public administration, even today. In my review of his 2020 memoires ‘Een Spoor van Vernieuwing’, I distil three broad lessons for change management and administrative reform, and administrative craftmanship in particular.

Peer assessment is a rather marginalised method in political research. This research note argues that the collective expertise of MPs can complement other data to contribute to more comprehensive evaluations of MPs’ parliamentary work. Yet, this method is potentially flawed by low survey participation and rater bias among MPs. The experience with a peer assessment survey among members of three Belgian parliaments shows that participation does not necessarily need to be problematic. However, the empirical analysis suggests that scholars should control for various forms of rater bias.

Belgium is probably the world’s best known case of where caretaker governments reside. Yet a clear scholarly definition and measurement of this concept is missing. Based on a detailed analysis of the Belgian federal cabinets, this research note explores the main characteristics and measures the length of the various caretaker periods. We find that Belgium was governed for no less than 1,485 days by a caretaker government between 2007 and 2020, which equals more than four full calendar years. This research note also presents a novel typology of caretaker periods based on the institutional and political practice within the Belgian legislative and executive branches. This typology can be used to assess caretaker periods at other levels of government as well as in other countries in order to improve our understanding of the many ‘faces’ that a caretaker government can take on.

Over the past three years a number of reports and initiatives have emerged which seem to point to a different approach to solve problems in and with executive agencies. In the past, most problems were blamed on the agencies, by the media and politicians alike. However, these new reports and initiatives seem to allow room for a different, more realistic explanation. This article lists five of these reports and initiatives. First a letter on the results of the new coalition formation in 2017, concluding that executive agencies are under too much pressure and blame, and drawing more attention to the role of the legislature and the executive powers. Second, a report has been written by the Senior Civil Service – commissioned by a group of ministries – that offers a powerful analysis of the various causes of problems in and with executive agencies, leading to a number of prescriptions for all parties involved. Third, a ministerial committee has been established to discuss these problems and possible solutions on a regular basis. Fourth, the House of Representatives has launched a parliamentary inquiry into this topic. And finally, an unsolicited advisory report by the Council of State has been published on the dilemmas around ministerial accountability, stating that the blame for problems in and with executive agencies is often attributed in a false way. Together these five reports and initiatives call for a broader approach in handling such problems and hence more effective solutions.

This Research Note investigates party advertising in newspapers and on social media (Facebook) during the 2019 general elections in Flanders, the largest region of Belgium. The 2019 elections saw a marked increase in the use of social media advertising by parties, whereas newspaper advertising saw a decline. Prior research that compares multiple types of advertising, particularly advertising on social and legacy media remains limited. As such, based on a quantitative content analysis we investigate not just the prevalence of party advertising on both types of media, but also compare the level of negativity, presidentialisation, and issue emphasis. Our analysis reveals substantial differences: we find that not only the type of advertisements varies across the platforms, but also that social media ads tend to be more negative. Finally, parties’ issue emphasis varies substantially as well, with different issues being emphasized in newspaper and Facebook advertisements.

This article is a review of two policy documents on integrated care in the Netherlands. I argue that not a shared definition of ‘integrated care,’ but instead the own factual understandings of care and normative preferences, values or interests concerning care motivates the action of actors that need to produce integrated care. Not the network-level problem, but instead actor-level motivations explain to what extent integrated care is effectuated. The policy documents, but also important segments of the literature on policy integration seem to underestimate this problem.

The number of boards in the public domain has risen sharply in recent decades and so has the number of reports containing guidelines for effective and good governance. The question, however, is what this flow of advice is based on and what we actually know about board capacity. In this paper, we discuss theoretical expectations on boards, recent developments in governance based inspection, and empirical research on this topic. All in all, it appears that relatively little empirical research is conducted into boards in the public domain. And the research that is available is as yet not very optimistic. Based on these observations, we conclude that it is necessary to re-examine the policy assumptions with regard to board capacity in the public domain.

Mayors struggle with their role in the digital and online domain. One of the aspects they encounter is online positioning. Positioning is an important factor in public order enforcement. Mayor Femke Halsema of Amsterdam recently indicated that she is not only responsible for public order, but also for virtual public space. This contribution elaborates on online positioning and specifically on whether social media pages can be considered as public spaces. The analysis, which includes recent research in this area, shows that the definition of ‘public order and public space’ in the Dutch Municipalities Act certainly offers scope for an expansion to online places. The way in which internet users deal with data in practice does not stand in the way of this possibility. At the same time, it appears that online spaces differ from physical spaces, especially in the sense that positioning is difficult. Case law from Dutch criminal law shows that, in addition to the place, it is primarily the public reach and effect that determine whether or not it concerns a public expression. In addition to complex positioning online, there are other compelling arguments for not using the legal powers of mayors for maintaining public order on public spaces online.