Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization

Caspar F Van Den Berg

doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9257-x

Abstract

Although the literature on policy advisory systems has experienced a revival in recent years, its empirical focus has mainly been on Anglophone countries (Craft and Halligan 2016). This paper applies the policy advisory systems approach to the Netherlands, which can serve as an example of the dynamics in the policy advisory systems of consensus-driven, neo-corporatist polities Lijphart in Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, 21, 235–266 1999). Using a historical-institutionalist perspective, the dynamics of the Dutch policy advisory system from the mid-1960s to the present day are examined. Based on original cross-time survey data and an analysis of secondary sources, the impact of depillarization (mid-1960s–mid-1990s), new public management (mid-1980s onwards) and an increased pressure on the executive have had for the Dutch policy advisory system (from the late 1990s): fragmentation, externalization and a non-partisan brand of politicization are shown. More specifically, the use of the institutionalized system of permanent advisory councils has lost part of its significance in favour of both external consultants and ad hoc advisory committees. The Dutch case, with its accumulative institutional design based on Weberianism, neo-corporatism and new public management elements, has thus experienced markedly different dynamics in its policy advice system than the Anglophone countries.

Highlights

Externalization from circle 1 to circles 3 and 4 refers to a decrease in the use of core civil servants as policy advisors and to an increase in the use of the staff of permanent advisory councils, public research institutes and advisory bodies
These results show that in recent years, across policy domains, research institutes have been the primary source of external expertise, followed by consultancy firms, executive public agencies and advisory councils
Ad hoc advisory committees stand out because their use signifies a move away from the traditional, institutionalized system of permanent advisory councils in the third circle, and external consultants merit particular consideration because they form the part of the policy advisory system that is less visible–and even less studied–but which has increased in importance during the period studied

Summary

Introduction

Externalization from circle 1 to circles 3 and 4 refers to a decrease in the use of core civil servants as policy advisors and to an increase in the use of the staff of permanent advisory councils, public research institutes and advisory bodies.

Results

Conclusion