Over the past three years a number of reports and initiatives have emerged which seem to point to a different approach to solve problems in and with executive agencies. In the past, most problems were blamed on the agencies, by the media and politicians alike. However, these new reports and initiatives seem to allow room for a different, more realistic explanation. This article lists five of these reports and initiatives. First a letter on the results of the new coalition formation in 2017, concluding that executive agencies are under too much pressure and blame, and drawing more attention to the role of the legislature and the executive powers. Second, a report has been written by the Senior Civil Service – commissioned by a group of ministries – that offers a powerful analysis of the various causes of problems in and with executive agencies, leading to a number of prescriptions for all parties involved. Third, a ministerial committee has been established to discuss these problems and possible solutions on a regular basis. Fourth, the House of Representatives has launched a parliamentary inquiry into this topic. And finally, an unsolicited advisory report by the Council of State has been published on the dilemmas around ministerial accountability, stating that the blame for problems in and with executive agencies is often attributed in a false way. Together these five reports and initiatives call for a broader approach in handling such problems and hence more effective solutions.

This article describes the main trends in refugee policies in sixteen Dutch cities, offering an overview of the local approaches to the reception, housing and integration of refugees that the cities rapidly had to develop in response to the increased refugee inflow in 2015. In contrast to other studies that often focus on capital and gateway cities, this article illustrates the variety of local approaches to migration diversity and refugee integration. By illustrating the different positions municipalities take, the article shows the local power to innovate. In this article clusters of cities with comparable approaches to refugee policies are identified to aid cooperation and knowledge exchange between cities, in which the big cities are not necessarily always the relevant partners.

The most relevant part of a discussion is not what is discussed but what cannot be spoken of. The real taboos are those for which it is taboo to call them taboos. The status quo defines itself as non-ideological while denouncing any challenge to itself as radical.
Therefore the column ‘De blinde vlek’ frames the framers, politicizes the status quo and articulates what is not heard of.

The Western European social security systems are founded on the need to offer universal social protection, as was for example advocated in the Beveridge report of 1942. The universalistic endeavour has led to the development of the all-embracing welfare states of today, but already for many decades dissatisfaction with the direction of the welfare state has led to a diversion of the universalistic pretention. In the current debate, universalism seems to be on the rise again. The Dutch think tanks CPB, WRR and SCP increasingly pay attention to the divide that is becoming manifest between those with better chances in the society and who are left behind. The think tanks have all formulated policy options in order to address this divide by offering better social security protection for excluded groups. In this article we discuss whether the options presented fall back upon the post-war notion of universality.

Recent developments on the Dutch labour market raise questions about the emergence of new social dividing lines. In this paper we discuss two cases. Both address labour market disadvantages which can easily deepen and sharpen with unchanged policies. The first case shows that there are groups that are less able to respond to the defined trends in the labour market due to a lack of education or disabilities. In the second case we focus on the question of sustainable employability as such that creates dividing lines. A first conclusion from our contribution is that a thorough analysis of existing dividing lines in the labour market is crucial for effective policy, but that knowledge about deepening old and creating new dividing lines is at least as relevant. A second conclusion is that the outlined assumptions in policies around self-reliance of, for example, people with a disability or the possibilities of employers to realize sheltered work and to focus on retraining, for example outside working hours, are not always realistic. Much more will have to be done to match the real possibilities of people and organizations to achieve this. Financial, but also organizational and personal. The motivations and behaviors of employees, employers and educational authorities appear to be very relevant explanatory factors in practice, which are often not sufficiently taken into account. Recent experiences with the Participation Act and lifelong learning show us that. More interaction is needed in the coming years between research, policy and the practice of the labour market.