In the Netherlands there is an ongoing discussion on the preferred or even necessary scale of government. Basic assumption in this decades-long discussion is that the mere seize of government affects the functioning and quality of government. This article questions that specific assumption, by applying two criteria; government performance and democratic legitimacy. It is concluded that the supposed relationship between seize and quality hardly exists, theoretically nor empirically. Recent government proposals for further up-scaling are being critically assessed. Main conclusion is that thinking in terms of scale and seize is no longer feasible in a modern network society.

Using literature, documents and parliamentary debates in Britain, Germany, The Netherlands, Austria, and Switzerland, nine arguments for and against lowering the voting age to sixteen are distinguished and critically assessed. The assessment is based on criteria such as logical consistency and empirical validity. It is argued that most arguments can hardly be defended with these criteria. However, this does not mean that the case for lowering the voting age is weak. This would only be the case if a voting age of eighteen is considered as valuable in its own right.

Before 2010, the Netherlands Antilles were an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This structure was often cited as a barrier to effective governance and led to calls for the ablishment of the Netherlands Antilles. This article examines whether this step has led to good governance in the case of the new country of Curaçao. The author comes to the conclusion that political culture has a bigger effect on good governance than institutional arrangements.

In this contribution we introduce the principles of proper administration and the principles of good administration as public values and the definitions of these terms including the concept of good governance. Two main developments in relation to these principles are described here. The first line is from unwritten principles (developed by the judiciary) to written principles of proper administration by which there is in addition to the classical legal protection function, the instrumental function of these principles that has become more important. The second line is from the starting point of the principles of good administration - which can be found more in the legislation and the (policy)regulation but in a fragmentary way - to the application. This application is checked by the National Ombudsman, the Court of Audit and - more recent - also the European judiciary are working with these principles. For guaranteeing the public values there is - from the concept of good governance - now a need for integration of these principles of good administration in the Netherlands General Administrative Law Act and in the case law of the Netherlands judiciary.

Good governance is a contested concept in public administration theory and practice. This concluding article builds on the presented contributions as well as on additional research. First, we summarize the diversity, leading to a sketch of two basic approaches towards good governance (organizational and value oriented). Additionally questions concerning the normativity, the pluralism of values and the object of good governance (process or policy) are addressed. Second, attention is paid to strategies to cope with values in governance, acknowledging the tensions between those values. Basic strategies aim at ‘choosing’ between values, ‘accommodating’ (in time, project, context) and ‘connecting’ values (through institutions or hybridization).

A surprising difference between the Netherlands and Flanders is that a Flemish minister may appoint more than 20 advisors, while Dutch ministers can appoint only one or two ‘political assistants’. However, this difference was hardly studied before, although it is a relevant and actual theme. This article analyzes the differences in role and position of Flemish ministerial advisors and Dutch political assistants. We show that there exist large differences between both types of advisors and we discuss the reasons for and consequences of this difference. The institutional context in which both actors work determines a lot their role. Differences in political culture and administrative organization in particular seem to be important explanatory factors.

Whilst embedding democratic innovations that increase and deepen citizen participation in decision making now is a common policy of governments in many countries, and theorists in democratic theory also tend to emphasize how good citizen participation is to democracy, the empirical evaluation of democratic innovations is still a rather unexplored area of research.

This article evaluates two types of democratic innovations, participatory governance and deliberative forums in the Netherlands and a large number of other Western countries. The findings show, for both types of innovation, that citizen participation contributes to the quality of democracy in several ways. The analysis also makes it clear that different designs produce different democratic effects, which also reflects tensions between democratic values; participatory governance projects are better at giving citizens influence, whereas deliberative forums appear to be better at promoting the exchange of arguments. Also, whereas cases of participatory governance are more open than deliberative forums, representation is higher for the deliberative type of cases. As a consequence politicians and policy makers can have a major impact on democracy; by choosing for a specific design of citizen participation they may encourage certain aspects of democracy more than others.

There are many different ways in which employees may choose to address unequal treatment at work. They may do so themselves, in an informal or formal manner on the work floor. They may also, at some stage in the dispute, decide to involve specialized advisers such as legal advisers, anti-discrimination officers, health and safety executives and labour unions. It is generally assumed that consulting such specialized advisers will help the employee to address unequal treatment more successfully. In this paper, the effectiveness of the interorganizational field of specialized advisers is analyzed on the basis of an elaborate study among different types of respondents. The main finding is that fear of retaliation plays a crucial role in seeking and receiving specialized advice and that the existing interorganizational field broadly fails to cope with this fear. To resolve this issue, the field needs an improved governance structure with better co-ordination between different types of advisers.

Behind many notions of ‘governance’, there lies the image of a ‘modest’ or ‘retreating’ state. The assumption is that local and national authorities can only perform effectively if in cooperation with other public and private actors. Generally, it is said, governments increasingly lack the legitimacy for top-down interventions and hence the need of including participative citizen involvement in policy making and implementation. In recent years this democratic image has been disputed in scientific debates because of its lack of attention for new forms of interventionism by the state in societal processes, e.g. crime, youth care, immigration and integration. In this article, we aim to contribute to this other understanding of modern governance by analysing Dutch political discourse between 2001 and 2010 on (implicit) notions of the role and responsibility of the state. We show how the idea of ‘responsibilisation’ of citizens is turned into an argument for more instead of less state involvement in societal processes and citizens’ lives. By emphasizing ‘shared responsibilities’ between government and society, a tricky picture of parity is sketched of this relation. Dutch government presents itself as ‘an ally’ of citizens in fighting pressing social problems, but in the meantime an ideal of ‘responsible behaviour’ is constructed, namely, citizen behaviour in concordance with government’s policy ambitions. Within this political discourse, the socio-liberal idea of ‘responsibility’ turns into ‘responsibilisation on government’s terms’ and ‘irresponsible’ behaviour becomes a legitimate focal point for deep state interventions through techniques of governance.

This paper offers a critical empirical analysis of the policy terms ‘allochtoon’ and ‘autochtoon’, which have been used in Dutch public policy and administrative practices in recent years, as well as in general public discourse, to distinguish between people with a migrant background and those with a so-called native background on the basis of birthplace. Taking an interpretive policy analysis perspective, we present metaphor and category analyses to show the determining role that ‘place of origin’ has in the policy terms. The analysis includes a historical contextualization of the categories within Dutch policy discourse. The metaphor analysis focuses on the etymology of the terms, and the category analysis examines the taxonomy used by Statistics Netherlands since 1999. The role of ‘place’, and in particular country or land of birth, in these etymologies and taxonomies link to elements from ancient racial thinking, showing that ‘birthplace’ is a surrogate for race in this policy discourse. The analysis leads us to argue that the terms are inherently exclusive and that the exclusive work that the essentialist categories do is in marked contrast to the policy goal of integration.

Reflection and Debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

Regional or local identities are an important factor to take into account in administrative rearrangement processes, as Evert Meijers rightly argues. But if one does so, it’s very important to analyse how public authorities deal with such identities and identifications. In The Netherlands many instances can be found were at least one public authority becomes activistic and tries to mobilize the public against rearrangement plans. This very often happens throughout processes of municipal amalgamation. Activistic public authorities can bring historically formed and often still cultivated local identities into play as being threatened by the plans. By doing so, citizens can identify with the ‘we’ of the local community against ‘them’ of another community. Another antithesis can develop in how the plans are being framed: ‘we’ who will suffer because of ‘their’ bad plans. Finally, the political performance of proponents may be critiqued, thus evoking identifications with ‘we’ who are treated undemocratically against ‘them’ who are unreliable. This appeal to identities and identifications by activistic public authorities provides powerful impediments for successful administrative rearrangement. Prevention of such activism thus seems to be a very important requirement.

In their book Diploma Democracy Mark Bovens and Anchrit Wille state that positions in the field of politics are dominantly held by people with higher levels of education. Because of diverging political preferences between citizens with a higher level of education and those with a lower one this results in a lack of representation of the latter, they argue. De Lange replies to this position from a perspective of political science.

In recent years the Netherlands have seen an upsurge of housing enclaves. The enclaves are often built as courtyards, castles, estates or apartment complexes. The growing number of people living in housing enclaves indicates a demand for this kind of living areas. However, the motivations behind the increasing popularity of housing enclaves are unclear. Is this a reflection of a long standing tradition of people staying in their own social group, seeking for belonging and sociability? Or does it fit in a global trend of searching for security in gated communities? This paper presents empirical research in the Netherlands that addresses peoples’ motives for living in housing enclaves, as well as the role of the local government in relation to housing enclaves. The research shows that residents of housing enclaves seek a pleasant living environment in the first place, while security is a less important motive. The study gives reason for planners and developers outside the US not to assume that fear of crime and a wish for security are the main reasons for moving to housing enclaves. Further, the study shows that housing enclaves are not completely privatized areas. Local government still has an important role to play.

In their book Diploma Democracy Mark Bovens and Anchrit Wille state that positions in the field of politics are dominantly held by people with higher levels of education. Because of diverging political preferences between citizens with a higher level of education and those with a lower one this results in a lack of representation of the latter, they argue. In this section five authors critically replied to this position from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. In this contribution Bovens en Wille answer their critics.

Putnam (2007) claims that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, residents of all ethnic groups tend to ‘hunker down’. Solidarity and trust are lower, mutual help and cooperation rarer, friends fewer. Various studies in the United States found a clear correlation between diversity and cohesion, and also for many different dimensions of social cohesion. Whether this finding also holds in other (European) settings is the subject of hot and unresolved debate. Specifically, this article addresses the question whether living in an ethnically diverse setting has negative consequences for social cohesion in the Netherlands as well. To further the debate, this article pulls apart various contexts and various dimensions of social cohesion. This article examines the relationship between ethnic diversity (in socio-graphically defined neighbourhoods) and four dimensions of social cohesion (trust, informal help, voluntary work and neighbourhood contacts) for the 50 largest cities in the Netherlands. We conclude that the Putnam hypothesis holds only to a limited extent in the Dutch context. The only aspect on which ethnic diversity has a negative effect is the degree of contact in the neighbourhood.

Regional or local identities are an important factor to take into account in administrative rearrangement processes.

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

A main motive for policy decentralization is the belief that municipalities are better able to customize public policy to local circumstances, and to realize made-to-measure service provision. In this respect, the introduction of the Social Support Act (Wmo) is an interesting example. With the lack of ‘vertical’ accountability obligations to the national government, the Wmo is governmentally innovative. Whether the decentralization results in customized forms of social support is a fascinating one because a detailed reading of the Wmo and its implementation displays possible incentives as well as barriers to made-to-measure service provision. The empirical exploration in this article uses data from the 2007-2009 evaluation of the Wmo conducted by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP). The evaluation shows that municipalities involve diverse stakeholders in formulating Wmo policy, and that their involvement seems to lead to customized service provision. At the same time, municipalities follow nationwide models, and information provided by the central government seems to have a major impact on local social care policy. The article concludes with an outlook on future directions in local debates on social care and the recommendation to give time for major decentralization trajectories such as the Wmo.

Reflection and Debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.