This paper presents the policy theory of the Dutch Inspectorate of Education’s 2017 framework. The framework includes a set of indicators and working methods for the inspections of school boards which are expected to lead to improved quality and organizational learning of the schools and colleges within each board’s portfolio. Inspection feedback, quality assurance, stakeholder involvement and governance are the key mechanisms through which customized inspections are assumed to affect change. These customized inspections start from a set of legal requirements schools and colleges have to meet, but add inspections modules which are agreed on with each school board at the start of an inspection visit. As these inspections are currently being implemented, there is no evidence yet on the validity of these assumptions.

The regulatory agencies in various public service sectors are said to be changing (some) of their regulatory attention issues of internal governance of organizations in education, health care en social housing. This paper aims to assess how (if, at all) responsible actors within those organizations experience this shift in regulatory focus. We report on the findings from a survey with modest N, distributed at an early stage of this new policy. The paper shows that respondents have fairly divergent views on whether or not this regulatory shift has indeed occurred, something which is not uncommon for a new policy. We distinguish three mechanisms through which governance-based oversight may have an impact on public service providers. This new regulatory regime could 1) have an agenda-setting effect within organizations, could 2) stimulate organizational decision-makers to take well-considered decisions and could 3) induce a sense of relational felt accountability towards the regulator.

In this article, we discuss how regulation of governance in healthcare has been shaped over the past decade. We describe the presuppositions under this movement. Searching and balancing was needed to meet the complexity of care management. This has to do with the fact that the external pressure on the regulator after incidents is high. Due to this pressure, it is necessary to constantly ensure that management-oriented regulation does not narrow to the supervision on the actor with final responsibility. The regulation of good governance requires reflectivity of the inspectors and is aimed at stimulating recoupling between management and shop floors. This requires space for experimentation for both managers and inspectors. To provide this space, we do not only need a political and social debate about the quality of care and its management, but also attention and appreciation for the difficult considerations of organizing care.

Public organizations are confronted with rapid subsequent changes in their environment. Against this background, we increasingly see and hear a call for agile public organizations. But what exactly is agility? And how can organizations achieve this? In this study, we have developed and validated the concept of agility and empirically identify the effect of different management practices that contribute to agility. This study shows that, seen from the perspective of the experienced dynamics, it is not necessary to be agile for all organizational units within the public sector. At the same time, there is a substantial group that should be more agile given the dynamics they encounter. This study shows that agile organizations are more committed to developing the mindset of employees, influencing the degree of autonomy for decision-making and stimulating the promotion of new ideas and insights.

In practice, diversity interventions do not always appear to be effective. One argument is that there is little or no match between the perspectives of public organizations on diversity and the interventions used. This article provides an overview of the underlying rationales for diversity policy and discusses the perspectives on diversity from the diversity literature, HRM, and management literature and how these overlap, complement each other and differ from each other. What these perspectives have in common is that they all emphasize the added value of diversity. In the diversity literature, the emphasis is on the four perspectives equality, legitimacy, creativity, and the labour market. HRM literature focusses on managing differences. In public administration, there is a shift from active representation by individuals to connecting by all employees. Furthermore, the binding perspective is gaining more and more importance in the public domain because it may be possible to close the gap between the government and its citizen. This perspective emphasizes the importance of the long-term relationship with citizens to strengthen the trust of citizens in the government for realizing social tasks and responsibilities. It makes diversity an issue for all employees. For Hassan and Havva, and also for Hans and Hanna.

The Dutch social housing sector is still recovering from a series of incidents that harmed the sector’s reputation drastically. Part of the recovery plan is the installation of an independent Housing Authority, who focuses specifically upon the ‘governance’ of housing corporations. This article explores the implementation and development of the Authority’s regulation strategy. It finds that although the strategy sharpens the focus of housing corporations and limits risky circumstances and behavior, it also triggers adverse effects. The Authority should therefore adopt a broader outlook, that is more sensitive to (1) the complexity of the social housing task, and (2) the pathologies of multiple accountabilities being placed upon the corporation(sector).

In Dutch semi-public sectors of education, healthcare, and housing there is a tendency towards governance based inspection. The attention of inspectorates shifts from inspection on minimum quality standards to inspection on governance based quality improvement. The aim of this special issue is to learn more about the opportunities and risks of governance based inspection. The survey and sector articles show that governance based inspection (1) puts the responsibility of governors to stimulate quality on the agenda, (2) makes governors more aware of the quality targets they want to achieve within their organisations, and (3) has a deregulating effect. However, the risks are (1) reregulation via sector norms, (2) a lack of reality checks, and (3) a narrow focus on governors instead of the quality of public services. Consequently, inspectors have to learn new skills and competences. All in all, governance based inspection can complement but not replace other ways of inspection.

Whereas constitutions establish the institutions of government, human beings actually govern countries, municipalities, and regions. The institutional position of these people may be constitutionally constrained but the people who occupy these positions always have some discretion with regard to the way they fulfil their duties. Either consciously or unconsciously these officials develop their styles of governance. A style of governance reflects a combination of personal traits, institutional constraints, and a genuine set of beliefs with regard to what these duties exactly entail. While some people in a government position believe that a debate in Parliament constitutes the core of their work others may prefer developing policies or meeting citizens. Twenty years ago, observational research conducted in Dutch municipalities led to a set of five coherent beliefs or styles of governance. Over the past two decades, politics in the Netherlands has changed dramatically. The stable pillars that characterized and stabilized the Dutch political system have been replaced by political online and offline swarms, the volatility of the electorate has increased more than in other European countries, and incident driven politics has replaced the ideological and managerial political styles of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. In this article we explore the implications of these dramatic changes for the styles of governance in the Netherlands. As recent empirical research is not available yet, we analyse the changes in the Dutch political context to derive a number of implications for the styles of governance.

Over the last four years, one in five Dutch aldermen was forced to step down involuntarily. Drawing on a survey among the 2018 population of these local political-executives, the article evaluates office holders’ self-perceived authority in four authorizing environments, that is the municipal council, the municipal board, among civil servants, and among citizens. The results show that, contrary to the authority-crisis thesis, Dutch aldermen perceive quite a high level of authority overall. Current office holders name trustworthiness as their main source of authority, followed by their personal style in executing their tasks and their moral leadership. This finding illustrates the individualization of contemporary authority at the expense of institutional and positional sources of authority.

Credibility is an essential quality for executive politicians but cannot be taken for granted. The literature on political leadership suggests that credible politicians are competent, trustworthy, and caring. Existing studies, however, often do not take into account differences between various offices and tend to ignore the distinction between disparate layers of government. In this article, we analyze as yet unutilized data from local and provincial councilors’ and executives’ evaluations on the qualities they ascribe to their fellow executive politicians. The data were collected for the 2015 Best Dutch Executive election and covers almost all executives who were in office at the time. In contrast to what the existing literature often presumes, our secondary quantitative analysis of this data on 1,776 executives shows that there are significant differences in the qualities that are used to evaluate the most appreciated local and provincial chairpersons on the one hand, and the most appreciated executives on the other hand. Whereas municipal mayors and provincial King’s Commissioners are championed for being particularly caring and showing decisiveness, municipal aldermen and provincial executives are valued in particular for their expertise. This finding indicates that a politician’s credibility for his peers depends on his office as each position requires a particular set of qualities.

Today’s aldermen work in several different environments. They should reckon with society but also with local council, the municipal organisation, the mayor and fellow aldermen. The tasks are very clear, but how an alderman completes these tasks is very personal. For alderman Rensen his authority starts with trust. Personal and sincere relationships are the key for Rensen. His goal is to connect society to local politics and reduce the gap between the two. It is of great importance to be aware of your position and authority as an alderman. By means of this essay, he would like to give you a glimpse into his world as a social-demoratic alderman and the way in which he applies his core values in his daily work.

The election of Donald Trump, the referendum on the Brexit and the election victory of the Five Star Movement and Lega in Italy have led to the believe that democracy is at a crossroad. Many scholars and opinion makers raise concerns about the future of liberal democracy in Europe and the United States.
This article gives an overview of recent publications on the future of liberal democracy. The article focuses on the causes and possible solutions that are presented in these publications.

What happens in the case of massive deregulation in the local public domain? Despite the widespread call for ‘less regulation’, the effects of large-scale deregulation have received surprisingly little academic attention. In this article, we present the results of a longitudinal study on the effects of deregulation in the Dutch municipality of Hollands Kroon. The municipality abolished a vast number of regulations on public order offences in a radical two-year policy experiment, encouraging citizens to exercise more social control. In contrast, criticasters expected that the experiment would lead to more public offenses and conflict. Based on our data collected over three survey rounds; focus groups with citizens, politicians and civil servants; and several secondary data sources, we conclude that there was little effect: neither an increase in public order offences, nor an increase in social control. Our research shows that, in the short term, deregulation did not significantly affect the behavior of citizens.

Collaboration between public actors and social partners is becoming increasingly important as an administrative solution for complex societal challenges in health care, spatial development, mobility management or water management. In this article we focus on the relationship between the central Flemish government and local networks that are set up by this government. In the scientific literature much attention is paid to the concept of metagovernance as analytical perspective to analyze the relationship between the government and networks. The concept offers the government a toolbox with roles and instruments from which it can choose to support and stimulate networks in order to achieve the desired network results. However, our research shows that such an approach is not sufficient to capture the relationship between the central government and local mandated networks in Flanders. We argue for a broader interpretation of the concept of metagovernance, in which the dynamics of local networks are viewed as the outcome of power relations between actors that are represented at both local and central level and that are intertwined with each other. Only in this way will we we understand why certain choices are made about local mandated networks, why local networks show a lack of dynamism and why local actors in local networks also do not want local networks to become more dynamic and effective. We do notice that the pressure on these arrangements is increasing, partly due to new actors who are not involved in these arrangements.

The Dutch social care system was fundamentally reformed in 2015. A key policy aim was to activate citizens and their social networks, turning them from mere consumers into co-producers of care. The expectation was that, by doing so, public spending could be reduced and community engagement could be restored at the same time. Regulation was put in place to incentivize network support.
Whether this constitutes ‘smart governance’, however, depends on whether the variety of factors determining sustainable network support can be identified in the first place. At present, the new care policy is supposed to apply indiscriminately, and is as such not yet evidence based. In addition, flaws in the present budgetary and regulatory steering mechanisms need to be addressed. Potential users are not very familiar with the regulation in place for incentivizing network support, and the regulation is currently neutralized by law courts, unaware of the participatory relationship between care authorities and citizens as envisaged by the 2015 reform. Moreover, engaging networks is time-consuming and requires investments before returns can start to materialize. From a normative stance, network volunteers moreover ought to participate in decision-making, as they will be investing their private resources (such as time) instead of tax payers money. Effectiveness and legitimacy are thus two prerequisites for governance in the social domain to be genuinely ‘smart’.

This article reports on an analysis of the effectiveness and legitimacy of modes of governance in four European regions that clearly show signs of hybridity, that is, they have private as well as public characteristics. Berlin, Eindhoven, Copenhagen-Malmö and Zurich thus aim to increase the problem-solving capacity of their regional governance and to govern ‘smartly’ in a complex and multi-level context. The individual cities search for effective links with private and societal actors, each in its own way. Legitimacy is an issue that is hardly reflected upon, though. Hybrid modes of governance may have negative impacts on both effectiveness and legitimacy, but also offer new opportunities for good governance. ‘Hybrid’ and ‘smart’ do not always go hand in hand, but they are not mutually exclusive either.