In this issue of Bestuurskunde we deal with the claim that municipalities should be first port of call for citizens when it comes to the provision of public services. We discuss what this position means for municipalities and which challenges and dangers it brings.

Dutch local government is more and more regarded as a ‘first government’. Vision documents of the association of municipalities and national policy plans stress the importance of local government for improving public governance. This ‘new localism’ builds upon two conflicting perspectives to local government: the modernization model and the political community model. As a result, local governments are becoming overloaded by many new and conflicting demands. A debate about how both perspectives to the ‘first government’ can be balanced, is therefore needed.

Interview with Gert-Jan Buitendijk, director-general Administration and Kingdom Relations at the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.

In the coming years, a major decentralization operation in the social sector will make the Dutch municipalities fully responsible for support, assistance and home care. The starting point for decentralization is the ‘one family, one plan, one coordinator’-approach. Under municipal reign, professionals will have to coordinate their actions in order to provide more customized services and to enhance citizens’ involvement. In this contribution we discuss two pilots, of the municipalities of Enschede and Leeuwarden, which have experimented with the new approach. We describe the background, institutional structure and results and conclude that there is evidence that the new approach has worked. We end with a reflection on the present challenges that municipalities are confronted with, when applying the approach under the current conditions of new responsibilities and severe budget cuts.

Interview with Jantine Kriens, chairwoman of the Association of Netherlands Municipalities.

The debate on the territorial structure and scale of local and regional government is hardly supported by geographical theory and evidence. In this article, a geographical logic for collective action and the spatial structure of government is unfolded, based on the foundations of Welfare Theory. This logic accounts for the tension between inherently bordered area governance and borderless social and economic networks. Spatial scaling of area government thus involves complex trade-offs. The case is made for area government at the scale of daily urban systems, functional-spatial complexes that are typical for our advanced network society. The article concludes with a discussion of consequences for the spatial organisation of local and regional government.

Interview with Hugo Backx, director public health, municipal health service Hart voor Brabant.

This concluding article provides several suggestions on how municipalities can perform best in their role as ‘first governments’ and how they can deal with the tensions that this position produces.

Public regulators and inspectorates are increasingly involved in self-regulatory initiatives. This contribution is about co-regulation, which are co-ordination efforts among public regulators and self-regulating institutions. In co-regulation arrangements typical regulation and oversight activities, such as standard setting, information gathering and sanctioning become subjects of co-ordination between public and private actors. Co-regulation arrangements are typically network efforts. At the same time ‘regulation’ has a hierarchical connotation. This paradox shows in interpretations of ‘governance’ and ‘the move from government to governance’, the latter being a popular phrase qualifying a change of the government’s role in society. Main question in this paper is what the changing role of government in society means for the assessment of co-regulation. Based on literature two implicit, but opposing interpretations of ‘governance’ and the change are described. This implicitness may cause unsound assessments of co-regulation, either too tough or too lenient. In this contribution the normative implications of both interpretations are made explicit for co-regulation. The argument is illustrated by the case of co-regulation in the Dutch coach travel industry.

Our research question is: how do Dutch municipalities practice their local steering role within climate mitigation policy? Policy documents of twelve municipalities have been analysed and corresponding policymakers have been interviewed. Our research illustrates that the Dutch government is struggling with the changing relations with society and the growing dependency on it for reaching policy targets. According to literature, the governmental steering role of process management is expected to be more effective in situations of high dependency. However, the policy strategies of municipalities meet characteristics of project management. Meanwhile, the project targets are not controllably formulated and rely solely on actions of other local parties. The ministry has assigned municipalities to use this project management style, to implement the projects in a top-down manner, and to find partners after the implementation phase. Municipal policymakers indicate that they are facing problems afterwards, because the ‘partners’ have interests that do not correspond with the projects as formulated by the municipalities. It is more effective to negotiate with the other parties. This is necessary in order to formulate collective policy targets that meet the interests of all of the participating parties in accordance with the theory of network governance and process management.

This article is a critical review of four books: Bok, 2010 (‘The politics of happiness’); Van Campen, Bergsma, Boelhouwer, Boerefijn, & Bolier, 2012 (‘Sturen op geluk’); Diener, Lucas, Schimmack, & Helliwell, 2009 (‘Well-being for public policy’); Ott, 2012 (‘An eye on happiness’). Based on these works, we conclude that the quality of government is highly correlated with the happiness of citizens. In countries with high levels of freedom (economic, democracy, press), low levels of corruption and good public services, people appear to be the happiest. In this way governments can be seen as ‘happiness machines’. However, precise causal relationships need to be further clarified; which policies do improve happiness and which don’t? In this context, education is an important area in which government plays a role; people should leave school with the right set of competencies to be able to adequately cope with life. Governments cannot solve everybody’s unhappiness, though, but are important for creating the right circumstances.