Content uploaded by Raoul Beunen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raoul Beunen on Jan 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Can the pursuit of good governance undermine good governance?
Reflections on local governance reform in the Netherlands
Raoul Beunen
Assistant Professor Environmental Governance
Open University, the Netherlands
raoul.beunen@ou.nl
www.governancetheory.com
Introduction
Many discussions on good governance tend to revolve around the question which models of
governance perform best in terms of general principles such as inclusiveness, equitability,
legitimacy, responsiveness, transparency, and effectiveness (Sørensen and Triantafillou, 2013;
Grindle, 2004; Held, 1996). Less attention has been given to the actual reforms that are informed by
these models. How does the implementation of these models, in particular communities, produce
certain outcomes? Do these models indeed lead to good governance, or at least better governance?
And how can their interplay with the existing model of governance be understood? This paper seeks
to address these questions by exploring the emergence and impact of new informalities under
influence of attempts to reform local governance. The aim of this paper is to enhance our
understanding of the impact of models of good governance on governance. We are interested in the
effects of these models on existing governance practices. We will do so by exploring the pursuit of
local governance reform in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands is one of the countries where the inclusion of citizens and civil society in local
governance is strongly promoted (Sørensen and Triantafillou, 2013; Van Dam et al., 2015). This is for
example reflected in popular terms like do-democracy, the energetic society, or participation society.
On the one hand governments are for various reasons promoting citizen involvement or even the
devolution of governmental responsibilities to civil society. On the other hand citizens themselves
are increasingly initiating plans and projects through which they are self-governing their (social)
environment. Ambitions to increase citizen involvement in local governance have in various
communities led to ongoing discussions and negotiations about alternative governance models.
We will argue that despite successful examples and many stories about successful cases, there are
also places where the pursuit of good governance has not just failed, but contributed to the erosion
of confidence in existing democratic institutions. In other words we will show that, and how, certain
representative forms of deliberation and decision-making become object of increasing criticism and
might even be undermined under influence of the attempt to improve the inclusive and participatory
character of governance.
We draw on empirical evidence from two different case studies in the Netherlands to illustrate the
processes and mechanisms at work and to reflect on the various outcomes.
Analyzing the effects of governance models on local governance
Actors
Governance is broadly defined as collective binding decision-making in a community (Van Assche et
al., 2014a). For this paper that community is a local community, in most cases a village or a specific
neighborhood. These communities are part of a municipality, which is the lowest level of government
in the Netherlands. The municipality is the main forum for collective binding decision-making, with
various institutions defining responsibilities and roles of the actors involved. In most communities
the inhabitants have also organized themselves in a local council (either a village council or a
neighborhood council). Such council functions as a platform for organizing particular activities and
services and/or as a spokesperson for the community in negotiations with public parties. These
councils can be organized in many different ways, more or less formalized, with members of the
council being elected or not. Also their position in the governmental systems can vary. Some councils
have a formal status as a representative organization that is consulted on a regular basing, some
receive governmental funds, while others function much more independent from the government.
Next to these local councils a wide range of other actors can be involved in local governance. These
can be organizations as well as individual. These individuals are often member of different
organizations, creating dense networks of relations and interdependencies between the actors
involved.
Formal and informal institutions
Understanding local governance and shifts therein requires understanding the interplay between the
various actors involved as well as the influence of a diverse configuration of institutions (Van Assche
et al., 2014a). Models of good governance are never introduced in an institutional void. In most cases
they will be added to the set of institutions, but it is also possible that they replace existing
institutions. These institutions are used to coordinate the actors and their interactions. The
configuration of institutions includes various state related rules, but also basic rules for social
interaction, and institutions relating to local organizations such as the village councils, sports clubs,
schools, interests groups etc.
Negotiations about alternative models of local governance should be understood as influenced by
the configuration of formal and informal institutions. This configuration influences the motivation of
actors to revise institutions, it does define the rules by which new rules are negotiated, and it
influences the effects of new institutions. Although the term formal is often used to refer to state-
related institutions, we propose an alternative conceptualization in which formal refers to the rules
that are seen by the actors as the ones that are supposed to govern interaction in the given situation,
with informal institutions being the alternative (Van Assche et al., 2014b). The distinction between
formal and informal is the result of labeling that takes place with each and every decision. Very often
the formal institutions are then those related to government, as for most actors these are indeed the
rules that need to be followed. However if alternative models are being discussed and implemented,
this dominant expectation might change, with new rules taking over the dominant position of certain
state rules.
In addition it is important to take into account that the meaning of institutions changes over time
(Van Assche et al., 2014a; Mahoney and Thelen, 2010). The meaning of institutions is always
constituted within a particular context. It depends on ongoing interpretation and re-interpretations
in situations that are by definition divergent. This meaning can be firmly stabilized with each
enactment of an institution contributing to that stabilization, but it can also be more ambiguous and
can be changing over time.
Local governance reform in the Netherlands: two cases
Case 1: Noord-Holland Noord (Aalvanger and Beunen, 2014)
Noord-Holland Noord (NHN) concerns the northern, less urbanized part of the province Noord-
Holland. Major issues that are addressed in the discussions on local governance are the economic
and social livability of the region. Various public and private organizations have the ambition to
reform local governance and to enhance cooperation between the various organizations involved at
different levels. Within the debates, village and neighborhoods councils play a prominent role. These
organizations are seen as a link between the municipality and its inhabitants. These organizations
furthermore are considered to be a good platform for organizing social events, activities and projects
and for initiating discussions about the demands and needs and wishes of the community, the
delivery of public services, and the plans and projects necessary to sustain a vital community.
An online survey among various civil initiatives was used to generalize insights in the perspectives of
the different actors, their roles in local governance and their mutual relations and to gain a better
understanding of how they are (co)operating in their quest for institutional innovation. The survey
included 27 questions about the goals and ambitions of the organizations, the level on which the
organizations are active, the relation with other organizations, and the strategies deployed to
achieve particular goals. In total 57 surveys have been filled in. The majority of respondents concern
members of village councils, neighborhood platforms or similar community organizations. In addition
interviews with key actors were held.
The discussions in NHN clearly reflected the societal debates on participatory approaches that have
been going on for a longer time in the Netherlands. In most villages, municipalities or other
organizations realized participation by inviting representatives of the community for particular
discussions. In none of the situations decision-making powers were transferred from the municipality
to a new forum for collective decision-making. The case study gave the impression that the focus on
participation tends to create a blind spot for the various forms of representation through which
participation is realized.
The issue of representation was very present in discussions and negotiations amongst actors
involved. Most initiatives and organizations tend to legitimize their existence and their activities by
arguing that they represent the community or at least certain groups within that community. Also
governments consider these organizations as representatives of the community. However they often
refer to these representatives when they are talking about the participation of citizens. In those
situations certain organizations or their spokespersons, become synonymous for citizens. The
distinction between their role as citizen, member of a particular organization, and representative of
the local community becomes blurred. This issue mostly surfaces in times of conflict, when for
example certain people do not feel represented by a particular group or a specific person or when
municipalities are strategically ignoring citizens because they only want to talk with their
representative organizations. This very well illustrates that representation is seldom carefully
organized in alternative forms of local governance. In most situations there are few, if any, rules for
selecting representatives and for delineating their tasks and responsibilities. Representation is mostly
a matter of volunteers who are willing to take some initiative, claim to be a representative of a wider
group and are often accepted by most parties as indeed representing this wider group.
To some extent this is a development that municipalities are stimulating and supporting. Once they
have selected certain groups (and not others) as representative, this affects their position in the
community and therewith the relations among citizens in the community. At the same time one
cannot ignore that the form of representation strongly influences whose voices are heard and taken
into account and therewith for the alternative models for governance that are discussed and
introduced.
Furthermore it was interesting to observe that despite many discussions, positive stories and
ambitions on governance reform, few actual changes have been made to the ways in which
collective-binding decision making is carried out. This is in contrast with initiatives that primarily
focus on the realization of a particular project and not so much on the form of decision making,
which are often more successful. It seems that the focus on consensus and the representation of all
inhabitants that comes with the discussions on forms of decision-making implies copying principles
and assumptions that underlie the governmental system and makes it difficult to implement
alternative models.
Case 2: New Dordrecht (Aalvanger, 2013)
The Dutch village of Nieuw-Dordrecht is part of Emmen municipality. The village has about 1600
inhabitants. The municipality, together with the citizens and their representative organizations, is
actively developing new forms of governance in which tasks, roles and responsibilities are transferred
from the municipality to the inhabitants. One of the ideas that has been developed and implemented
is the establishment of a village cooperative.
The idea to establish a village cooperative in Nieuw-Dordrecht came up during the development of a
new village vision. The goal of this village vision was to address local problems more adequately and
improve cooperation between organizations already active within Nieuw-Dordrecht. The
negotiations leading up to the vision were facilitated by Emmen Revisited (ER), an organization
initiated by the Emmen Municipality. In this organization, representatives from various organizations
participated, such as welfare organizations, housing corporations, local police officers, village and
neighborhood councils and the Emmen Municipality.
Although a lot of time and effort was spent by ER and the representatives, the village vision received
a lot of critique, both from inhabitants as well as from other organizations active in the village. First
of all, inhabitants challenged the process and the formal agreements in the vision. According to
inhabitants, the ‘real’ problems for the village were not addressed in the vision because the
professional organizations had no idea what was going on within the village. Only the inhabitants
themselves knew ‘the stories behind every front door’. And, as stated by some inhabitants, although
a few inhabitants participated in the vision process, they were never truly listened to.
Secondly the role of ER was challenged, in particular the rules they set on what should be in the
village vision, how it should be developed and by whom it were questioned. Each of the involved
actors was supposed to sign the final version of the village vision and thus had to agree with its
content. Consequently, the goals and measures in the vision were negotiated to such an extent that
they no longer carried any meaning, according to representatives. Rather than providing a basis for
action, some representatives expected the formal agreements in the vision to lead to the contrary:
in-action. The village council portrayed ER to have a ‘wait-and-see’ attitude with regard to the
implementation of the measures in the vision and identified itself as more pro-active towards the
inhabitants of Nieuw-Dordrecht with regard to the establishment of the village cooperative.
Together with ER, the involved consultants and knowledge brokers saw the village cooperative not
(only) as a way to implement the agreements in the village vision, but rather as something new and
exciting. In the words of the knowledge broker, referring to the cooperative: ‘What we are doing in
Nieuw-Dordrecht is unique in the Netherlands, maybe even the World.’ Their ambition was to
fundamentally alter the roles of inhabitants of Nieuw-Dordrecht and professional organizations, such
as the municipality, in local governance.
Each actor had its own ideas on how the village cooperative should function and how it should be
established. Ideas varied from a non-profit cooperative in which villagers took the lead, to a profit-
driven organization led by local entrepreneurs. The village council, the knowledge broker and the
consulting firm each tried to push through their own model for a village cooperative. They kept
competing over who should take the initiative (inhabitants or local entrepreneurs) and where to
start; either by ‘activating’ villagers through interviews or by establishing and registering an
organization at the Chamber of Commerce to apply for funds.
During the process a number of entrepreneurs established a new organization under the name
Frontrunner Group. They started to question the role of both the Steering Committee and the village
council. Subsequently, a conflict emerged around who ‘truly represented the village’ and therefore
had the legitimacy to take the lead in founding the village cooperative. To further legitimize their
position and to support the idea that they knew best what the inhabitants of Nieuw-Dordrecht
wanted, a survey was conducted by the Frontrunner Group. They presented the results of this survey
during a village evening. During the evening, they organized elections for the board of the new village
cooperative. Although members of the village council also registered as a candidate, none of them
were elected. As a consequence, the village council seized to exist. In turn, this enabled the new
board to announce they would take over the responsibilities of the village council and the legal status
as Acknowledged Consultation Partner for the municipality and that they would start activities to
further develop the village cooperative.
Reflections on local governance reform in the Netherlands
Both cases show that it is difficult to implement alternative models of local governance. In that sense
these two cases reflect what is happening in the rest of the Netherlands. In most situations
alternative models are supposed to function parallel to the governmental institutions that revolve
around the municipality as main forum for political decision-making. It is interesting to notice that in
none of the alternative approaches the municipality as platform for decision-making is replaced.
Contrary to much literature on governance, state actors and institutions thus remain a pivotal player
(Bell and Hindmoor, 2009).
However, some changes could be observed in both cases. In terms of planning and management
some roles and responsibilities are indeed transferred from the municipality to civil organizations,
but in most situations final responsibilities are still firmly embedded in governmental institutions.
The most extreme examples of self-organization do not so much focus on collective-binding decision-
making, but mainly on the realization of particular projects. Only in very particular situations self-
organization indeed implies self-governance of a particular community, more or less detached from
governmental governance.
Reforming local governance in the Netherlands strongly focusses on participation and the devolution
of management tasks to civil society. Citizen participation in most situations is performed by citizen
organizations. Many of the citizen organizations are of the opinion that their most important role is
to represent the whole community and to enhance community benefits. They either represent the
community in negotiations with public parties such as the municipalities or they are trying to
stimulate, facilitate, and realize initiatives on behalf of the community. Such initiatives vary from
developing future visions for the village to reconstructing sports facilities and running a local shop. It
is interesting to notice that there is little reflection on what constitutes a community and who gets to
define what is good for that community. These aspects seem to a large extent to be taken for
granted. Furthermore is it interesting to see that many initiatives are either a response to
governmental plans and policies or a response to the lack of governmental action in relation to
particular issues. Governmental organizations are therefore important partners for citizen initiatives.
In general most people are positive and optimistic about local governance reform in the Netherlands,
although some question whether things are actually changing as much as is regularly claimed. There
are very few attempts that actually achieve a more substantial reform of local governance over time.
In many places citizens are indeed increasingly involved in planning and decision-making and in
various places they are also initiating their own projects. Although institutional reform is restricted,
the relation between the municipality and civil society is changing. Many initiatives and decision-
making processes draw on “informal” relations between citizens, politicians and civil servants that
function next to, or even replace, the more traditional places of discussion, negotiation and decision-
making.
In many situations it is a small group of citizens that takes the lead. Their initiative is often embraced
by local government. It is however not always clear how the ambitions of this group relate to the
wider ideas in the community. Sometimes their ambitions are widely shared, sometimes they are
conflicting with other ambitions, and in many cases it is simply unknown since a majority of the
citizens has no particular ideas about how local governance should be reformed. They are in general
satisfied with way things go and do not feel the need to be more active or more involved.
Those taking the lead represent the more entrepreneurial citizens, often those with a good network
and the social capital to get things done. Other groups in society and their wishes, ideas and
demands get less attention, and often less (financial) support.
Shifting expectations and institutional evolution
The discourses and practices of democratic reform do lead to different expectations about citizen
involvement. Due to the ongoing debates about more participatory forms of governance, people
increasingly expect to have more and more direct influence on decision-making processes and their
outcomes. One could however wonder if all these expectations are realistic given the fact that the
municipality and its way of decision-making have not been changed. Many successes are attributed
to citizen initiatives, while failures or problems are blamed on the government. This feeds people’s
disappointment in the government. People are disappointed in their actual influence on politics, and
traditional forms of voting feel more distant, less effective and less legitimate in relation to new
forms of local governance. The response is often a stronger plea for more participation and
alternative forms of governance.
The newly introduced and emerging places of informality might create also tensions between the
different models of governance that are enacted in the same community. These tensions often
remain hidden, particularly if most parties involved share the ambition to do something new.
Furthermore it often remains undiscussed that many civil initiatives directly or indirectly depend on
governmental support. They require funding and other resources, they are deliberatively given an
exemption from legal requirements, and often they gain political support.
Lessons for good governance
Models of good governance can sort effect even if they do not directly inform institutional change.
When people start to discuss (elements of) good governance, this can alter their expectations about
the formal and informal institution in place (Beunen et al., 2015). In relation to local governance one
can observe that these discussions do regularly lead to unrealistic and diverging expectations about
state related institutions that are difficult or even impossible to fulfill (Domingo and Beunen, 2013).
Much of this relates to the actual and direct influence people would like to have on decision making.
In most practices this influence is not as big as they would like to see, and more indirect. This feeling
of dissatisfaction is strengthened by the fact that governmental reform is largely triggered by the
need to cut budgets. This can easily make citizens feel that the municipality does not take their input
seriously and mainly considers them a cheap alternative for delivering public services.
Due to these differences between people’s expectations and actual practices, people get
disappointed in state-based institutions and organizations. This disappointment builds up and erodes
confidence in formal institutions and feeds distrust in public actors (Vries, 2014). In addition most
communities are struggling with finding a balance between participatory and representative forms of
decision-making. Although the debates often focus on participation and on including citizens in
decision-making, in most situations citizens are still represented via village or neighborhood councils
or similar organizations.
The question how these alternative models perform in terms of good governance might be difficult
to answer, as practices and experiences largely diverge. Drawing on some examples in which they
clearly did create new problems we can draw some more general insights in relation to the different
standards of Good Governance:
1. Participatory: in most situations the possibilities for participation are increased, however not
all individuals and groups are interested in participating, while others are deliberatively or
unconsciously excluded.
2. Consensus oriented: most initiatives are strongly focusing on consensus, but this focus is
regularly hampering actual change as consensus is difficult to achieve or consensus is used to
hide different perspectives in society.
3. Accountable: this is where alternative models score significantly less than governmental
models of decision-making. In many situation it is unclear who is accountable and in what
way.
4. Transparent: alternative models are often put in place next to the existing ones, introducing
more alternative institutions and obscuring the distinction between formal and informal
ones. Furthermore it become less clear who is representing who or whose perspective. In
that sense it often becomes less transparent how decisions are made.
5. Responsive: the more direct and more participatory forms of governance are more flexible
and therefore better able to respond to changing demands than municipalities.
6. Effective and efficient: this does completely depend on the situation at hand, in some
situations and in relation to some issues alternative forms of governance perform better
than the municipality, in others they don’t.
7. Equitable and inclusive: although the general feeling is that alternative forms of governance
are more inclusive, evidence shows that they can also exclude certain groups and
perspectives. In that sense it is not unlikely that they introduce new forms of inequality in a
community.
8. Follows the rule of law: new forms of local governance introduce new institutions, often
informal ones that change the meaning and impact of formal ones. This could lead to
situations where laws are circumvented to allow something novel.
Drawing on these observations we can conclude that a focus on more participatory forms of
governance might in some situations lead to a growing importance of informalities that undermine
formal institutions supposed to enhance transparency and accountability and in some situations
even lead to the exclusion of particular groups, perspectives or interests in society. In general we can
see that participatory forms of governance depend more on particular individuals and their
connections and less on formalized roles.
We can also conclude that the debates on alternative forms of local governance do have an effect.
Notwithstanding their effect in terms of institutional or organizational reform, they do at least alter
the expectations of members of the community about how collective-binding decision is and should
be organized. As a consequence institutions that were stabilized and whose meaning was taken for
granted, can become subject of debate. Increasingly people start to doubt their meaning and
relevance. This implies that formal institutions, as in those institutions that are seen by the
community as the ones that are supposed to govern collective-binding decision-making, become less
self-obvious and thus less formal. The debates on governance reform are therefore an important
source for institutional change. Change however, is not taking place in the sense of deliberative
reform, but rather in the form of a discursive evolution; regularly in another direction than expected
by most of the actors involved. In many situations this is a self-reinforcing process in the sense that
people’s responses to new uncertainties create new uncertainties and feeds further disappointments
as their expectation about governance reform cannot be met.
This exploration also shows that the different dimensions of good governance might not always be
complementary. Increasing participation and effectiveness of governance can restrict accountability
and transparency, lead to unwanted exclusion of certain groups and perspectives and even
undermine the rule of law. If this is indeed the case, the pursuit of good governance, can therewith
unintentionally undermine good governance.
References
Aalvanger, A. 2013. Naar een dorpscoöperatie in Nieuw-Dordrecht, Wetenschapswinkel Wageningen
UR.
Aalvanger, A. & Beunen, R. 2014. Het mobiliseren en benutten van bovenlokaal burgerinitiatief: De
zoektocht naar nieuwe manieren van samenwerking om de leefbaarheid in Noord-Holland te
vergroten.
Bell, S. & Hindmoor, A. 2009. Rethinking governance: the centrality of the state in modern society,
Cambridge University Press.
Beunen, R., Van Assche, K. & Duineveld, M. 2015. Evolutionary Governance Theory: Theory and
Applications, Springer.
Domingo, I. & Beunen, R. 2013. Regional Planning in the Catalan Pyrenees: Strategies to Deal with
Actors' Expectations, Perceived Uncertainties and Conflicts. European Planning Studies, 21,
187-203.
Grindle, M. S. 2004. Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing
countries. Governance, 17, 525-548.
Held, D. 1996. Models of democracy, Cambridge, Polity.
Mahoney, J. & Thelen, K. (eds.) 2010. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power,
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sørensen, E. & Triantafillou, P. 2013. The politics of self-governance, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Van Assche, K., Beunen, R. & Duineveld, M. 2014a. Evolutionary Governance Theory: An Introduction,
Heidelberg, Springer.
Van Assche, K., Beunen, R. & Duineveld, M. 2014b. Formal/Informal Dialectics and the Self-
Transformation of Spatial Planning Systems: An Exploration. Administration & Society, 46,
654-683.
Van Dam, R., Duineveld, M. & During, R. 2015. Delineating active citizenship: The subjectification of
citizens' initiatives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17, 163-179.
Vries, J. D. 2014. Understandig trust: longitudinal studies on trust dynamics in governance
interactions. Wageningen: Wageningen University.
