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.

In this article, we discuss a ‘person-centred’ view on the enforcement of social security laws. This is a new vision on enforcement whereby welfare workers can ‘differentiate’ in order to create more room for ‘customization’ with an eye for ‘the human dimension’ and an ‘appropriate’ enforcement style. Despite the unanimity about the desirability of this approach, most of the practical details are still unclear. Our central question is therefore: How may a person-centred approach of the enforcement of social security laws be implemented in practice? Based on an action research study, in which we closely collaborated with welfare workers and benefit recipients at a Dutch welfare office, we attempt to answer this question. We first discuss a number of central concepts from the enforcement literature and consider the concept of ‘motivational postures’. For this study, we developed a prototype of a new electronic analytical tool (which can be used to support enforcement) and then applied this tool in a small pilot study. In the article we describe our findings and discuss the experiences of benefit recipients and welfare workers with the analytical tool. We conclude that this tool appears to offer a good basis for the further development of the person-centred enforcement of social security laws.

This paper examines the idea of a common European legal culture by exploring its foundational component, ‘collective legal consciousness’, in three EU states: the UK, Poland and Bulgaria. Using a comparative research design and a variety of methods of data collection, it suggests that, underneath the thin layer of EU consensus, there are some fundamental differences in perceptions of law. The evidence shows that legal ideas are infused with perceptions of the political system. This finding suggests that the creation of a shared European legal culture depends on the prior formation of a common transnational polity right across the EU, together with a sense of political identity and of trust in the legitimacy of the European political authorities. The paper also demonstrates the multilayered character of collective legal consciousness, allowing different images of law to co-exist, underpinned by the perception of the source with which each image is associated.

This article presents a selective survey of current law and society research in the Netherlands. After a brief historical sketch, it focuses on contemporary Dutch studies on legal effectiveness and several studies on courts and dispute resolution. Based on a review of both fields, I identify two important trends in Dutch law and society research. The first trend is that, since the 1970s, most researchers have been interested in ‘old gap studies’, which primarily focus on the efficacy of law. In recent years, however, public opinion in the Netherlands has become increasingly critical of the Dutch justice system. I argue that this has generated a second trend in Dutch law and society research, which I refer to as ‘new gap studies’. Unlike traditional gap studies, their primary focus is not the efficacy but the legitimacy of law. In the final section, I draw several general conclusions and I look forward to the future of law and society research in de Netherlands.

This paper discusses the present ‘legal consciousness’ literature and seeks to identify two different conceptions of legal consciousness. Most of this literature originated in the United States, but there has also been a growing interest in issues of legal consciousness in Europe. The use of the term ‘legal consciousness ’ in these European discussions is, however, remarkably different from its use in the United States literature. It is argued that the most commonly used ‘American ’ conception of legal consciousness reflects important ideas of Roscoe Pound and asks: how do people experience (official) law? By contrast, a European conception of legal consciousness, which was first introduced by the Austrian legal theorist Eugen Ehrlich, focuses on: what do people experience as ‘law ’? After both perspectives are applied in a case-study of a run-down neighbourhood in the Netherlands, it is concluded that future studies of legal consciousness may benefit from an integration of the two conceptions.

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 ).

The promotion of the ‘Rule of Law’ is a leading ambition of the EU’s foreign policy vis-a-vis emerging powers like Brazil, Russia, India and China (Article 21 TEU). At present, the dominant approach in most policy documents is to define the rule of law in terms of legal and institutional checklists. However, more recently several authors have criticized this ‘anatomical’ approach and have argued for a ‘sociological’ approach to the rule of law (Krygier 2012). However, the details of this new perspective remain unclear. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to develop an empirical approach to the rule of law, which may inform future legal and political debates on EU rule of law promotion.In this paper, I will discuss two empirical models of the rule of law. I will argue that most current studies follow the model of the ‘Rule of Law in Action’. This approach is based on Roscoe Pound’s distinction between the ‘law in the books’ and the ‘law in action’. The ‘Rule of Law in the Books’ refers to a fixed (legal or philosophical) definition of the rule of law. Empirical research on the ‘Rule of Law in Action’ then looks at the degree to which these principles are implemented in a given justice system. This type of research focuses on the gap between the ‘Rule of Law in the Books’ and the ‘Rule of Law in Action’ and on possible ways to bridge this gap.I will argue that this conventional approach has several important shortcomings. I will therefore introduce an alternative model, based on Eugen Ehrlich’s concept of the ‘living law’. This model of the ‘Living Rule of Law’ asks: What do people themselves consider important values with regard to the most desirable relation between the law and the state? The principal concern of this model is not the level of social support but rather the social definition of the rule of law. To assess the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, I will apply both models in a case study about the rule of law in a refugee camp on the Thailand-Burma border (see McConnachie 2014).It will be concluded that empirical research is essential to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the EU’s external action. Moreover, empirical studies based on the model of the ‘Living Rule of Law’ support a legal pluralist approach to EU rule of law reform, which focuses on the user perspective of citizens and which recognizes the contested notion of the rule of law across cultural borders.