Introduction

The Netherlands is renowned for its policymaking style of accommodation and consensus seeking. This policy style is rooted in a long tradition of polder politics in a highly fragmented, decentralised system, collaboration among the elites of various denominations, and neo-corporatist negotiations among the state, employers and unions (see also Chapter Eight). The term ‘polder politics’ refers to the emergence of democratic decision-making among inhabitant of polders, interdependent in their need to build and maintain dikes for their polders in order to stand fast in their battle against a common enemy: water (Lijphart, 1968; Hendriks and Toonen, 2001). However, this policy style of negotiation and consensus building has not been characteristic for all Dutch policy areas. Especially in policy areas in which specialised knowledge was required to solve problems, and in which stakeholders were absent or did not have an institutionalised position, different ways of policymaking evolved (Van Putten, 1982). Alongside the reputation of polder politics, the Netherlands also has a strong tradition of policymaking based on the knowledge of public scientific institutions (Mayer, 2007). Especially in the field of water management, spatial planning, health, the environment and infrastructure, well-known knowledge institutions like Deltares, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek; TNO), Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (Centraal Planbureau; CPB) and Alterra have played and still play an authoritative role. Many policies in these areas are actually based on the expertise and the analyses that these institutions present to policymakers. The influential analysis of the RAND Corporation that underlies the decision for the Easter Scheldt Barrier is a powerful example (Bolten and DeHaven, 1977). In particular, the Dutch water management domain was (and is) closely connected to some important water knowledge institutes, which are partly publicly funded, and to several academic departments specialised in civil engineering and water management.

However, the horizontalisation that has characterised policymaking in many areas since the last decades of the 20th century, resulting in the tossing and turning over issues in multiple arenas between various actors, also had an impact on the role of policy analysis (focused on delivering authoritative facts that enable legitimate policy choices to be taken) in these areas and did not leave the water domain undisturbed.