PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS: EXPANSION,DIVERSIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION

The rise of Dutch administrative sciences is related to the post‐war expansion of the country’s welfare state. The growing welfare state needed scientific support for policy‐making and planning. Legal expertise alone was no longer sufficient. After the initial separation from administrative law, the post‐war policy and administrative sciences in The Netherlands were strongly oriented towards our American ‘big brother’. Since the 1980s, a growing self‐identity and self‐confidence has developed. The period from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s witnessed a steady expansion and diversification of Dutch PA sciences. The subject is now taught at 11 of the 13 Dutch universities. The enormous growth of the early 1990s is over, and student numbers have now stabilized – and at a substantial level, thus consolidating the position of PA departments in most universities. From the mid 1990s onwards Dutch administrative sciences have gone through a process of internationalization. Dutch PA sciences have as a result acquired a status of recognized quality in the international scientific community.     

THE UNITARY STATE AS A SYSTEM OF CO-GOVERNANCE: THE CASE OF THE NETHERLANDS

The original institutional design of Dutch administration and intergovernmental relations is commonly referred to as the 'decentralized unitary state'. However, the views of traditional administrative theorists have been misrepresented. Hierarchy, uniformity and the separation and delimitation of layers of government are not, as often alleged, the theoretical underpinnings of the Dutch unitary state. Rather, classical theory emphasized interdependence, diversity and the dynamic interaction of relatively independent layers of government. This image suggests that Dutch administration does not need a greater separation of layers of government but better means for regulating conflict. It also suggests that the unitary state comes in several guises and cannot be equated with a monocentric system of government.     

Low-Income Issues in Electricity Restructuring

Lower prices. New technologies. More choices. These are benefits that competition through electric industry restructuring was supposed to bring customers. Thus far, results have been disappointing, and harmful to the most vulnerable–low‐income people. Restructuring is no longer under active consideration in any state that has not already enacted it. In several states, restructuring has been reversed. This article focuses on the few states that have retained electric industry restructuring, providing a menu of necessary protections, strategies for putting them into place, and supporting arguments to keep them there. However, low‐income protections are appropriate for anactment in all places because vulnerable low‐income families live in states with both restructured and traditional electricity regulation.     

Some Meta-Theoretical Questions for Restorative Justice

Abstract. Unquestionably, Restorative Justice (hereafter RJ) has finally gathered some real momentum. It has become a sine qua non topic in many national and international policy and statutory agendas. However, as the restorative practice expands to deal with crimes, ages and situations it has never addressed before (at least in its contemporary version), and as its application starts to make sense not only to national but also to regional and international bodies and fora, new theoretical problems are posed. In the fast‐growing literature many theories and Schools have been evoked to support RJ's claims. This paper will take the discussion a step back by looking at questions of meta‐theoretical character. In particular, the paper will ask: Does RJ have a place in the “world of theories,” and if it does, then what kind of theory is it, and on what level should it be placed? Second, does RJ theory need a philosophy, and why? Finally, how can restorative practices be morally justified?