Search

This article reflects on the contributions to the Special Issue on evidence-based legislation. It argues that both normative questions about how evidence should be used and factual questions about how evidence actually is used in legislation require a reflection on the nature of ‘evidence’ and its role in the crafting and application of legislation. Based on the understanding that the answers to these questions are intimately linked with the ideas, values and interests that underpin legislation, the article explores three specific issues: the burden of evidence in legislation and lawmaking (who needs to produce evidence about what), the criteria for determining what counts as ‘good’ evidence, and the various purposes for which evidence is used in legislation and legislative processes. Reflecting on these issues may help to reach a more balanced and nuanced view on the role of evidence in evidence-based legislation and the ways in which the law and legal analysis can facilitate the fruitful use of evidence.

Since 2015 Dutch street-level bureaucrats have ample discretionary space to determine how to help clients. Simultaneously, resources were reduced. According to Zacka SLBs should avoid three pathological positions: indifference, caregiving, and enforcing. At the individual level SLBs supposedly accomplish that by a gymnastics of the self. We observed SLBs. They avoided the pathological positions by (1) reframing the reigning policy for clients (enforcing caringly) and (2) managing clients’ self-image, bolstering their confidence, or tempering their expectations (caring forcefully). SLBs practice a gymnastics of the client alongside a gymnastics of the self. SLBs thus make the reigning policy palatable for clients.

This article analyses the extent to which European Union (EU) directives allow for variation in domestic implementation. Such flexibility in implementation may be used to deal with heterogeneity among member states. Based on an original dataset of 164 directives adopted between 2006 and 2015, we find that the use of flexibility is associated more with efforts to accommodate differences between national policies (substantive use of discretion) than with attempts to facilitate the decision-making process in and between EU legislative institutions (strategic use of discretion). Although flexibility may be used to address some of the same concerns that drive differentiated integration (DI), the situations in which each is most likely to be used are distinct because they approach the divergences between member states differently.

Organising effective policy coordination has become a key principle of EU policymaking in recent decades. Within the European Commission, interservice consultations (ISCs) play an important role to coordinate between the different directorate-generals. In spite of this importance, ISCs have so far not been analysed in a systematic way. This paper addresses this gap by systematically analysing the numbers, types and content of comments made in ISCs around climate change adaptation. Our analysis shows that ISCs were primarily used to provide substantive comments, related to problem analyses, objectives or instruments, as well as to strengthen or weaken connections with policy efforts in adjacent domains. Institutional comments, related to mandates or resources, proved rare. Moreover, we find that the types of comments given in ISCs are mediated by institutional factors that shape the temporal dynamics of policy processes. Rather than reflecting the ideal types of ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ coordination, the overall pattern of policy coordination in the ISCs typifies an in-between form of ‘incremental policy coordination.’.

In many European countries, including the Netherlands, current care policies encourage ‘active citizens’ to support each other rather than having individuals rely on paid professional help. Rehabilitation centres also put greater emphasis on social networks assisting adults with acquired long-term disabilities and their caregivers. Often these adults and their caregivers feel insufficiently prepared to cope with the disability in daily life and struggle with community integration. However, little is known about the factors that make vulnerable people accept or decline support from their social networks. We researched the social support needs of persons with acquired disabilities and their caregivers eligible for a family group conference intervention by conducting 19 semi-structured interviews in rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands. A thematic analysis revealed that most couples (15) were reluctant to request (more) support from their social network, even though many of them had a good network to rely on. We identified five reasons for this reluctance: (1) not accustomed asking support, (2) not wanting to be a (bigger) burden, (3) fear of intrusion into one's privacy and independence, (4) fear or problematic motivations such as curiosity or pity and (5) lack of reliability, competence, or comprehension. The main factor seemed to be the lack of reciprocity: couples do not see sufficient options to reciprocate the necessary support. Therefore, before instigating social support-centred interventions such as family group conferences, social care and other health professionals should be aware of any factors causing a sense of reluctance and explore the experiences of an imbalance in reciprocity.

Published online: 17 May 2022 How does the public form preferences about differentiated integration (DI)? The literature on mass-elite linkages offers two perspectives: top-down, political elites cue the public, or bottom-up, political elites react to public preferences. This paper develops expectations based on both perspectives, and presents novel empirical data on citizens, political parties, and governments to test them. We distinguish preferences over differentiated policy integration, like ‘Opt-Outs’, from preferences over polity differentiation, such as ‘Two-Speed Europe’. Although our evidence is observational and therefore cannot establish causal relationships between elites and the mass public, our results are most compatible with the notion of a top-down linkage. This is because DI preferences are generally of low salience, and first revealed at the European level in the context of negotiations. Subsequently, this revelation of DI preferences shapes domestic discussions about DI, especially at the level of political parties. Yet, this mostly pertains to situations when governments do not yet have clear DI preferences of their own, meaning government preferences are not yet formed and revealed in the context of the supranational negotiations. Overall, this study suggests that mass-elite linkage in the preference formation on DI might be more tenuous than either the top-down or bottom-up perspective might assume.

Journalists, politicians, watchdog institutions, and public administration scholars devote considerable energy to identifying and dissecting failures in government. Studies and case-studies of policy, organizational, and institutional failures in the public sector figure prominently in public administration curriculums and classrooms. Such a focus on failures provides students with cautionary tales and theoretical tools for understanding how things can go badly wrong. However, students are provided with less insights and tools when it comes to identifying and understanding instances of success. To address this imbalance, this article offers students a framework to systematically identify, comprehensively assess and carefully interpret instances of successful public governance. The three-stage design of the funnel introduces students to relevant debates and literatures about meaningful public outcomes, the prudent use of public power, and the ability to sustain performance over time. The articles also discuss how this framework can be used effectively in classroom settings, helping teachers to stimulate reflection on the key challenges of assessing and learning from successes.

This paper examines how the European Commission’s policy ideas have shifted over the course of the European Semester, the European Union’s annual cycle of economic governance and policy coordination that has been in place since 2011. In doing so, it seeks to add to our understanding of the divergent fiscal policy responses in many EU countries to the global economic crises that followed the EU financial crisis and the Covid-19 crisis. Our analysis relies on a quantitative text analysis applied to a comprehensive suite of Semester documents that were published by the European Commission in the period from the aftermath of the financial crisis to present (2011-2022). We find evidence for a shift in the salience of economic ideology in these documents that over time has shifted from a more ordoliberal in a more Keynesian direction. We also observe country-specific differences in the country-specific reports with some countries Keynesian recommendations throughout the lifetime of the European semester, and other countries receiving distinctively ordoliberal recommendations. Our findings indicate that the EU’s fiscal policy response to Covid-19 has been underpinned by a gradual change in ideas among EU policymakers since the middle of the last decade.

When innovation emerges, regulatory agencies are frequently called upon to intervene. They must find ways to manage risks, facilitate ‘good’ innovations, and guard against ‘bad’. Such regulatory governance is a legal and administrative challenge, but also a stakeholder management one. Regulators need to find ways to manage stakeholder expectations. They must engender stakeholder support for regulatory intervention over the innovation process. In this context, this dissertation argues a strong regulator reputation is a condition for successful innovation governance. Reputation should be placed – by both scholars and practitioners – alongside well-established success factors like a strong formal mandate, adequate administrative capacity, and conducive organizational culture. This argument is developed through a series of studies about the role of regulator reputation in the governance of recent innovations in finance (‘fintech’) in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. This dissertation is among the first studies to evaluate the role of regulator reputation in successful innovation governance. Reputation, innovation, and regulatory governance scholarship are integrated into novel, documented methodological tools and theoretical and analytical frameworks. Findings contribute to addressing gaps in extant theory and literature on the topic, and present several concrete roles reputation plays in successful innovation governance. Collecting data directly from the managers of innovative start-up firms, this offers a rare glimpse into their attitudes to regulators and regulation; sometimes challenging mainstream theories of compliance and cooperation. For regulatory professionals, this dissertation offers rich insights into ‘what works’ in practice and why.

This article focuses on understanding the dynamics of citizen participation in smart city initiatives. The literature identifies citizens as key actors, however, our understanding of their roles and influence is underdeveloped. Using modes of urban governance to provide contextual depth, alongside the literature on citizen participation in smart cities, this article conducts an in-depth examination of the roles of citizens. The results of an empirical study of citizen engagement in smart city governance in Brazil, the UK and the Netherlands demonstrate that the roles and functions undertaken by citizens are not static, they participate in a dynamic mode that evolves and changes over time. Also, identifies three emerging patterns of contextually specific citizen interaction: contestation, acceptance and collaboration. This highlights how smart city initiatives have differentiated outcomes and how the mode of governance in a societal and institutional context plays an important role in shaping patterns of citizen participation.

This open access book shows policymakers which initiatives work when responding to the increasing diversity in cities, towns and neighborhood's. In recent times, policymakers have grappled with ways of responding to this increase, which has resulted in a plethora of policy initiatives, some more effective than others. Bringing together a large amount of research and evidence-based policy recommendations, this book offers both a sense of strategic direction as well as more specific, actionable advice. It brings together a remarkable mixture of policy areas that touch upon issues of diversity, immigration policy, education, and labour policy. It is of benefit and importance to all those making policies for a country with increasing immigration.

IMPACT: The goal of this article is to identify evidence-based building blocks for smart and sensible practices of policy design, public leadership and management, while recognizing that universal templates for success are not the right approach. It is critical that strategies to improve governance show appropriate sensitivity to context. The authors offer an alternative for high-level assessments of institutional qualities of ‘good government’. The article presents a practical toolkit to identify, assess, interpret, compare, and learn from concrete instances of public policy successes, highly successful public organizations, and collaborative, networked governance.

The paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the accountability capacity of the two main EU watchdog institutions. The overarching research question is: how powerful are these watchdog institutions in holding the EU executive to account? The paper presents an expanded analysis of the formal and organisational accountability powers of these EU watchdogs and how these are exercised, based on an in-depth case study. We apply an assessment framework of accountability powers developed previously. Both watchdogs have comparable formal powers when it comes to accountability. Despite these similarities, the EO and the ECA differ in their organisational power and in the exercise of their powers. In the organizational dimension, there are differences regarding leadership. In the exercise of power dimension, the EO has increasingly developed standards for good practice with an emphasis on transparency and principles of good administrative behavior, while also using its networks to further improve complaint handling.

Central to the increasing digitization of contemporary capitalism are platforms such as Twitter, Uber, and Amazon. Utilizing large amounts of data and the internet’s global network, digital platforms allow for connection between users, workers, suppliers, employers, and other economic or social actors. Using Marx’s triadic conception of the machine from chapter 15 of Capital, “Machinery and Large-Scale Industry,” this essay highlights how the digital platform can be viewed as a machine system of the twenty-first century once technological changes are accounted for. Key to the digital platform as a machine system is its transmitting mechanism, the algorithm. The algorithm allows the central driving force, the technology firm, to regulate gig or click-work labor processes that take place on the platform. This framework provides a clearer positioning of the digital platform within the capitalist mode of production.

How is public engagement perceived to contribute to open science? This commentary highlights common reflections on this question from interviews with 12 public engagement fellows in Utrecht University’s Open Science Programme in the Netherlands. We identify four reasons why public engagement is an essential enabler of open science. Interaction between academics and society can: (1) better align science with the needs of society; (2) secure a relationship of trust between science and society; (3) increase the quality and impact of science; and (4) support the impact of open access and FAIR data practices (data which meet principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability). To be successful and sustainable, such public engagement requires support in skills training and a form of institutionalisation in a university-wide system, but, most of all, the fellows express the importance of a formal and informal recognition and rewards system. Our findings suggest that in order to make public engagement an integral part of open science, universities should invest in institutional support, create awareness, and stimulate dialogue among staff members on how to ‘do’ good public engagement.

Alle werknemers en ambtenaren moeten het recht krijgen verlof op te nemen om een politiek ambt te vervullen. Dit maakt het voor potentieel goede bestuurders aantrekkelijker om de politiek in te gaan, wat cruciaal is voor een goed functionerende democratie.