Within the past two years, hydraulic fracturing for shale gas became a highly contested technology in the Netherlands. Possible negative environmental impacts are at strained terms with possible economic, energy and geo-political benefits. In addition, there are many scientific uncertainties about, for example water contamination, methane emissions, the amounts of gas to extract and the risk of earth quakes. Societal conflict and scientific uncertainties make fracking for shale gas a wicked problem for decision makers. This article demonstrates that the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs has implemented several instruments for deliberation, such as a consultation round with stakeholders and a sound board for an independent research. These failed to lead to the desired support for fracking. In this contribution, I demonstrate that these instruments led to reason giving but not to structuring of the problem. They were used by governmental actors and protest groups as a political platform that was fuel for the political conflict.

This article presents an analysis of the introduction of the HPV vaccine into the National Vaccination Program in the Netherlands. This introduction resulted in public debate and resistance and eventually a low turn-out (45% while 85% was expected). The question is what we can learn from this specific case about trust of citizens in scientific advice and political decision-making around medical issues. Our qualitative empirical research highlights that trust in scientific advice was undermined by a combination of criticism from peers, a critical approach in the mass media and a strong campaign through social media. Our analysis shows that these factors can be understood as partly resulting from a transition to a network society. We conclude that the network society demands a more open approach of scientific advice both in terms of who they discuss issues with and what kinds of arguments are permitted in the debate.

Professionals often have problems with governmental policies they have to implement. This can lead to diminished legitimacy and lower policy performance. The goal of this article is to identify the main reasons why professionals resist implementing new policies. An interdisciplinary approach is taken. From public administration literature, I use the policy alienation model, which consists of five dimensions: strategic, tactical and operational powerlessness, societal meaninglessness and client meaninglessness. These are possible reasons why professionals resist public policies (‘resistance to change’, a concept drawn from change management literature). I test these assumptions using a survey among 1,317 healthcare professionals. The results show that when professionals experience that a policy is meaningless for society or for their own clients, they show strong resistance. A lack of perceived influence is much less important in explaining resistance, although this is partly dependent on the particular profession someone belong to. The policy alienation model can help policy makers and managers to develop policies which are accepted by professionals. The article ends with practical recommendations for policy makers, managers and professionals.

In the spring of 2013, the Dutch railway operator, High Speed Alliance, cancelled the acceptance procedures for V250 high-speed train sets they ordered from Italian manufacturer AnsaldoBreda after numerous problems with the build quality and safety systems. It is the latest chapter in a series of failed attempts to build and run a high-speed railway link between Amsterdam and Paris. Inevitably, the question of who was responsible for the decision to order the V250 has become prominent. We study 20 years of public decision-making by analysing the content of over 1,200 documents. Using David’s and Arthur’s theory of path-dependency, we conclude that all the decisions that were taken during those two decades created a situation in which the choice for the V250 was nothing more than an inevitable gamble. It can therefore be concluded that all parties involved, from the railway operator to Parliament, have contributed to the current failure.