Search

In policy research, the search for the correct balance between proximity and independence has never been easy. Policymakers need proximity to the research in order to ensure that it is relevant. Yet, there are also concerns about the rigour of research. To analyze this relationship in more detail, this paper focuses on the ‘extreme case’ of the WODC in the Netherlands, an internal but formally independent research unit of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security. Research methods include semi-structured interviews and a survey (N = 673). We conclude that government leans on WODC researchers in all phases of the policy research process. In most cases, WODC researchers successfully resist pressure from policymakers, yet continuing pressure may easily lead to research methods, conclusions and press releases being altered for policy reasons. Finally, there are general lessons drawn from the WODC case that will assist in achieving a good balance between proximity and independence in policy research.

The core animating feature of administrative justice scholarship is the desire to understand how justice is achieved through the delivery of public services and the actions, inactions, and decision-making of administrative bodies. The study of administrative justice also encompasses the redress systems by which people can challenge administrative bodies to seek the correction of injustices. For a long time now, scholars have been interested in administrative justice, but without necessarily framing their work as such. Rather than existing under the rubric of administrative justice, much of the research undertaken has existed within sub-categories of disciplines, such as law, sociology, public policy, politics, and public administration. Consequently, although aspects of the topic have attracted rich contributions across such disciplines, administrative justice has rarely been studied or taught in a manner that integrates these areas of research more systematically. This Handbook signals a major change of approach. Drawing together a group of world-leading scholars of administrative justice from a range of disciplines, The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice shows how administrative justice is a vibrant, complex, and contested field that is best understood as an area of inquiry in its own right, rather than through traditional disciplinary silos.

Most public sector ombudsmen claim that their work will strengthen or restore citizen's confidence in government. However, empirical research provides little support for this assumption. Based on studies from Belgium and the Netherlands, this article offers two explanations for this limited effect. First, it will be argued that (Dutch) administrative law is based on three ‘mythical images’ of the average complainant. Because these images do not correspond with reality, many people feel alienated from the ombudsman. Second, although the ombudsman aims to reach all types of citizens, most complainants are highly educated, white-collared, politically interested men. Yet the ombudsman is less successful in reaching people who are critical about politics and the justice system. Building on these findings from the Low Countries, the article ends with several suggestions which may help increase the potential of the ombudsman in all countries to promote public trust in government.

Using survey data collected from a sample of 1182 traffic offenders in the Netherlands, and building on the ‘procedural justice model’ which was first developed in Tyler (1990) , this paper explores how perceptions of legitimacy shape regulatory compliance. The study makes three contributions to the literature. First, it is one of the few studies in which the procedural justice model is tested in Continental Europe. Second, following recent critiques in the literature, it introduces three modifications to the original model. Third, and unlike most previous studies, it is not only based on self-reporting by drivers, but includes actual evidence about their behaviour as well. With regard to the self-reported level of compliance, the present study largely confirms Tyler's (1990) original findings. Yet with regard to the observed level of compliance, there are also important differences between both studies. These findings will be explained by shifting our focus to ‘legitimacy-in-context’ ( Beetham, 1991 ).

Recent surveys in the UK and the Netherlands indicate that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the justice system. But who are these ‘critics’ of the justice system? Most previous studies only produced general statistics, while the persons behind the figures remained invisible. By contrast, this article aims to put a face to these numbers and discusses two ways of analysing the profile of the critics. Based on a review of existing survey data, the article first looks at their ‘demographic profile’. Next, the article also considers a second, alternative, approach. Based on their level of legal awareness and legal identification, it distinguishes four different ‘normative profiles’: legalists, loyalists, cynics and outsiders. Moreover, the article shows how these normative profiles may be applied in future comparative studies on legal mobilisation and legal protest. It is concluded that combining both approaches will help us to look beyond common stereotypes and consider the critics of the justice system as real persons with genuine concerns about the administration of justice in their country.

In this article, I examine how ordinary citizens and legal professionals in The Netherlands understand non-discrimination law, using the theoretical framework of legal consciousness. In 2006, the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission ruled that a school was wrong to suspend a female Muslim teacher who, for religious reasons, refused to shake hands with men. This ruling provoked a wave of controversy. This article examines to what extent these critical reactions were indicative of the overall level of public support for the Dutch Equal Treatment Act. I first provide a brief summary of Dutch non-discrimination law. Next, following recent critiques in the literature, I introduce three modifications to the original legal consciousness framework. People's understandings of legal equality are then examined using data from a large-scale multi-method study, which included an online survey, case-studies and in-depth interviews. Moreover, I provide a brief reconstruction of the handshake case. I argue that the controversy in this case was not an isolated incident, but an important illustration of how non-discrimination law matters — or fails to matter — in The Netherlands.

This chapter explores the still largely uncharted territory of administrative justice in the private sector. The chapter presents a theoretical and empirical account of the extension of administrative justice norms and institutions into the private sphere. It does so by mapping and analysing the different paths by which administrative justice is diffused in privatized and contracted out services and in originally private services. It draws upon illustrative examples of such diffusion for each of these private realms. The chapter concludes with insights into the convergence of public and private models of decision-making and dispute resolution and the hybrid nature of this field.