In line with international and national legislation, the Netherlands offers certain services, including a temporary residence permit, to third country nationals who have fallen prey to human traffickers. Over the years, concerns have been often expressed about the perceived misuse of this regulation by foreigners who aim at legalising their stay. Based on interviews and file analysis the present article seeks to provide insight into to what extent it is possible to measure this misuse and the policy implications of the findings. In addition, the authors take into account non-use of the programme. The article confirms existing worries about misuse, provides indicators for misuse, but also concludes that at the level of individual cases practitioners cannot discern misuse from rightful use. At the same time, there are also groups that fall outside the reach of the programme. The article concludes with some policy recommendations on the basis of the findings.

In the near future, the Dutch government intends to change the rules relating to smoking bans in the hospitality industry again. After a complete ban, coming into force in July 2008, and introducing an exception for small bars in June 2011, the complete ban will return this year. This article describes the law regarding smoking bans in the Netherlands, and reports along researches of the relevant authority and a commercial research institute the effectiveness of the bans. From these findings it becomes clear that the hospitality industry did a good job in complying with the bans. But there is one exception: small bars. Next we explain, based on the ideas of Kagan and Skolnick and Elias the effectiveness of smoking bans.

Since Pim Fortuyn, discontent has become a central issue in public and political debates in the Netherlands. The government tries to ban out all risks and polarisation between citizens, because it fears this will have a destabilising impact on society. However, these measures do not seem to decrease discontent. In this article, we analyse why discontent so persistently keeps dominating debates. We argue that it is prominently and continuously expressed due to the position of opinion polls and the interaction between politicians, journalists and citizens and due to the platform that social media offer. But meanwhile, means to convert discontent into constructive, collective action are diminishing. As a result we continuously gather superficial information about people’s discontent. In order not to hinder constructive debates with this kind of information, as happens in current political discussions, different and more detailed information about the public opinion is needed. Politicians and researchers should make a more clear distinction between discontent itself and the incapacity of citizens to deal with it. Moreover, a revitalisation of the role of civil organisations is important to channel discontent.

The article provides a theoretical and empirical analysis of the Night Time Economy and how the Collective Pub Ban is applied in three Dutch cities: Utrecht, Amersfoort and Den Bosch. The Collective Pub Ban is a measure taken in the Netherlands in an effort to make pubs, bars and clubs co-responsible for maintaining security. Depending on the severity of the conduct, an offender can be denied of entry to these venues for five years. During this period, the offender is not allowed to enter the particular pub or any of the other pubs, bars and clubs that participate in this measure. On the basis of 84 interviews, we show how these venues fill out their new responsibilities with respect to the Collective Pub Ban-measure. Also, we answer the question what this new measure means for the quality of the public space.