SGI 2024 | The Netherlands | Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Recent Governments Experts

SGI experts on The Netherlands

Robert Hoppe

Robert Hoppe is full professor of policy and knowledge at the Department of Science, Technology and Policy Studies, School of Management and Governance, University of Twente (Netherlands). His current research interests focus on practices of deliberative governance in an institutional environment of representative democracy, policymaking and policy analysis in transformational societies and polities, and comparative science-policy advisory architectures. In 2010 he published The Governance of Problems. Puzzling, Powering, and Participation (Policy Press, Bristol) and co-edited (with Hal Colebatch and Mirko Noordegraaf) Working for Policy (Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam). His most recent articles deal with post-nomal science (in Science, Technology and Human Values) and the role of international and national advisory institutes on global and national climate change policy ( in WIRE’s Climate Change). Hoppe serves on the advisory boards of Policy Studies Journal, Critical Policy Studies, Jaarboek Kennis en Samenleving, and Beleidsonderzoek Online.

Margarita Jeliazkova

Dr. M. Jeliazkova is an independent researcher and consultant in the area of public policy and political education. Her background is in philosophy of science (M.A., St. Kl.Ochridsky University, Sofia, Bulgaria), political science (M.A., Rutgers University, NJ, USA) and comparative educational policy (PhD, University of Twente). Jeliazkova has extensive experience as a researcher, teacher and consultant in the area of (comparative) public policy, educational policy, and citizenship education, of which over 20 years for the Institute for Higher Education Policy Studies, at the Institute for Teacher Education, and the Master Programmes of Public Administration, Public Management, and Risk Management, at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. Jeliazkova served as a member of the Municipal Council in Enschede for D66 till 2022 and is currently of the board of the NuTwente Foundation (working on Ukrainian refugee relief and integration).

André Krouwel

André Krouwel teaches comparative political science and communication science at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and is the founder of Kieskompas (Election Compass) – a developer of online Vote Advice Applications in more than 40 countries, with which data is collected on party positions and voter opinions. André is a strong advocate of social engagement of scientists and finding ways to create a maximum social impact of scientific knowledge. His research focuses on public opinion and politically relevant sentiments, voting behaviour, political parties and social movements. He has published books and articles on elections, voting behaviour, parliamentary and presidential elections, party competition, populism and Euroscepticism. His most recent research has investigated the impact of information on political attitudes and opinions, (negative) political emotions and belief in conspiracy theories.

Nils C. Bandelow (Coordinator)

Nils C. Bandelow holds the chair of political science at the University of Braunschweig (Germany). He received his PhD (1998) and his Habilitation (2003) from the University of Bochum with dissertations on genetic engineering policy and European integration. His research interests include comparative politics and public policy. His recent publications focus on health and transport policy.

The two-year review period, 2022 – 2023, largely aligned with the Rutte IV cabinet’s tenure, formed after the longest post-World War II formation period (299 days). Nine months after the 17 March 2021 elections, and almost a year after Rutte III’s resignation, a “new” cabinet led by the same Prime Minister Mark Rutte, emerged with an identical political composition. The coalition agreement pledged a balanced focus on remedying past policy failures and elaborating future sustainability perspectives, emphasizing “Looking after each other, and toward the future.” On 7 July 2023, this cabinet resigned due to internal disagreements, formally on a minor issue (family reunion rules) raised by measures to limit asylum-seekers’ influx. Informally, divergent views within the conservative (VVD, CDA) and progressive (D66, CU) sides led to a “polycrisis” and stalemate. This meant that the government was unable to tackle, let alone solve, issues of climate change, energy transition, nitrogen reduction, personnel shortages and a raft of other interconnected problems not tackled.

Post-resignation, the cabinet assumed caretaker status, exacerbating the policy stalemate. The rest of the review period focused on preparing for the 22 November 2023 elections, and afterward on forming a new cabinet after the extreme-right PVV’s surprising win. The mood of crisis in Dutch politics enabled three new parties to enter parliament: GL/L (25 seats), NSC or “CDA 2.0” (20 seats) and BBB (7 seats). As of the close of the period, coalition negotiations were aiming for a rightist government including the PVV, VVD, BBB and NSC.

Dutch democracy remains robust, but concerns are mounting. The media consumption behavior of the under-30 population, which is shifting to social media for political news, raises worries. The absence of a size threshold for political parties in parliament produces a fragmented, if not outright splintered, parliament. Only a few parties achieve the minimum size of 13 seats for effective parliamentary work. Therefore, fragmentation diminishes parliamentary oversight functions, leading to lower trust in parliament. Civil society organizations, traditionally with high levels of citizen participation, face trust issues due to “étatization” and discontent about deals with the government. The government, despite a new Open Government Law, frequently impedes access to information.

With respect to its ability to govern with foresight, the Dutch governance system performs less well than in previous periods. Coordination within bureaucracies faces challenges, with loyalty and trust relations between political leaders and civil servants fraying. Turning to external experts (consultancies, lobbyists) has broken the monopoly previously held by senior civil servants. Concerns are rising about risk-averse but politically sensitive top-level officials, who are seen as potentially reversing the normative core of a good civil service – that is, no longer championing long-term state interests over short-term political demands. The use of scores of communication experts raises worries, as this blurs the line between government information and propaganda. Ineffective and rough multilevel coordination between national and lower governmental levels has led to harsh negotiation games, undermining equal national standards.

The competence levels of national civil servants are maintained by incorporating mainstream insights from the fields of public administration, policy analysis, and organizational and communications science into guidelines and sometimes law. The Ministry of Finance’s focus on accountability and financial concerns contributes to a managerial-financial approach in policymaking that too frequently lacks a “human touch.” All in all, the Netherlands performs as a reluctant governance and policy innovator, chronically delaying major decisions critical to the country’s strategic future.

In the area of economic sustainability policy, while the government portrays itself as acting decisively, implementation lags, especially with regard to infrastructure maintenance and the transition to a circular economy. The Netherlands’ reputation for high-quality infrastructure contrasts with declining trends reported by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Waterways. Efforts to increase labor market adaptability face political and strong private resistance. The Tax Service struggles with outdated systems, delaying necessary shifts in the focus of taxes from labor to wealth. Despite being among the EU’s “innovation leaders,” the Netherlands falls short of the Lisbon Treaty’s R&D expenditure commitment.

In social sustainability policy, education reform efforts are being hampered by teacher shortages. Past performance decline is evident in the country’s PISA rankings. Equal access challenges persist, including in the area of healthcare; and access to higher education remains unequal. Short-term relief measures alleviate extreme poverty, but rising food and housing prices are hurting households near the poverty line. Mistrust toward the government arises due to the complexity and bureaucratic rigidity of service provision.

Environmental sustainability policy has prioritized climate action and biodiversity preservation. Attempts to make political breakthroughs have failed due to resistance, especially from farmers. National environmental health protection and global environmental protection have never been made priorities. Fragmented efforts by provincial and local governments – allowed if not encouraged by national policy – hinder a comprehensive approach to environmental health protection. Dutch international environmental protection policies attempt to bring global agendas in line with domestic policy interests in water management and hydrogen technologies.