The crowd increasingly plays a key role in facilitating innovations in a variety of sectors, spurred on by IT-developments and the concomitant increase in connectivity. Initiatives in this direction, captured under the umbrella-term ‘crowd-based innovations’, offer novel opportunities in socio-technical systems by increasing the access, reach and speed of services. At the same time, they signify important challenges because these innovations occur in a context of traditional, well-established institutional and governance structures and practices. This dynamic is captured in the idea of the ‘institutional void’: the tension between traditional structures and (radically) new initiatives. Existing rules, standards and practices are challenged, which raises questions about the safeguarding of public values such as quality, legitimacy, efficiency and governance of crowd-based innovations. This article argues that understanding these tensions requires supplementing empirical research with an explicitly normative dimension to reach thorough and balanced conclusions to facilitate innovation while protecting the valuable elements in existing rules and regulations. Illustrated by a number of short examples, we propose a multidisciplinary research agenda towards formulating appropriate governance structures.

Scientific knowledge plays a pivotal yet problematic role in identifying, assessing and evaluating climate impacts, and hence in their governance. This raises questions of how knowledge for adaptation policy is made. This article studies the production of authoritative and meaningful knowledge claims in the Delta Committee, regional water management and urban warming. It is argued that the conventional supply-and-demand conceptualisation with its notion of ‘knowledge transfer’ has fundamental flaws. This study shows how the wicked issue of climate change is tamed and made tractable in climate adaptation. In these processes knowledge of climate change transforms. This article presents a conceptual apparatus to study transformation. Transformation has a Janus face. While transformation brings climate change in conversation with localised meaning to create concrete adaptation responses, it also closes down and becomes blind to particular climate risks. Transformations are affected by the goals and institutions of policy fields. To overcome problems of blindness and cognitive path dependencies, more institutional change is necessary than the current piggyback approach of mainstreaming and knowledge co-creation entails.

Cybersecurity is becoming increasingly vulnerable. DDos attacks, phishing e-mails, ransomware, Russian hacker attacks on the head office of a political party are all part of our daily online businesses, for governments too. Governments play various roles here. They are internet users and rely on information on the internet. They are also suppliers of online information and in these roles they are connected to citizens, companies and other governmental organisations. Because of the role they play in society, the government possesses huge quantities of – often sensitive – information. They have the legal and moral obligation to be careful with this information and to secure it properly. Providing adequate security for information, however, is not an easy task for governments, especially because they usually do not operate in isolation. What factors threaten the security of government information and the systems involved? And who is accountable for the security of the information chains that are becoming complex as a consequence of cooperation between organisations?

Over the last decades an increasing number of mergers and acquisitions between Dutch healthcare organizations has taken place (up scaling). More recently there is a rise in the numbers of new small-scale healthcare organizations and small-scale care facilities (down scaling in the numbers). The wide variety of scales, each with its pros, cons and (historical) contexts, makes the existence of one optimal scale an illusion. Our research question is: when, and on the basis of which values, is scale of healthcare organizations legitimate? We answer this question by analyzing 650 newspaper articles from fourteen national newspapers. By using theory about legitimacy and values, we argue that five values underlie the public discussion on scale: governance, the human size, quality of care, market power and efficiency. We conclude that achieving legitimate scale involves dealing with those five values, which are not always commensurable and sometimes conflicting. With this article we contribute to the scientific debate about scale and values. We also give recommendations to policy makers and executives that can be used to improve the legitimacy of scale decisions.

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.

Public Private Partnerships (PPP), especially those geared to exercise public legal powers (‘Authoritative PPP’), are suggestive of tensions between private party involvement and public legitimacy. Hence, public legitimacy is analyzed primarily on the basis of work done by David Beetham, and complemented with Public Law legitimacy considerations concerning the exercise of legal powers and law on public organizations. The findings project that there is room to convincingly frame legitimate PPP involving public authority, but that the scope is restricted both in terms of legal constraints and of political sensitivity.As a result of this, truly wicked policy projects, which in theory stand to gain most by PPP, in practice seem to be considered less suited for Authoritative PPP (and probably more for Network PPP).