Governing a consensus democracy: The interplay of Pillarisation and administration

Apart from a static structure of institutional blocks erected for a certain purpose, pillarisation might also be viewed as a dynamic process accommodating not only different cultural groupings, but also varying regional, local and historical circumstances. Apart from being a sociological, political and cultural structure, pillarisation for a long time fulfilled important public administrative and executive functions within and for Dutch society. Apart from being a top‐down vehicle for separation and social control, pillarisation can also be seen as a polycentric or ‘bottom‐up’ institutional structure in which a variety of executive agencies, quangos, and other functional professional, local and regional institutions are being co‐ordinated, integrated, guided and controlled. By seeing ‘pillarisation’ as a dynamic form of network management, the question arises how ‘depillarisation’ affects the development system of intergovernmental governance in the Netherlands. More, rather than less historical knowledge of pillarisation is needed, not for understanding historical questions, but for grasping the complexities of contemporary institutional developments.