This special issue focusses on deliberative elements in deciding over wicked problems. We present four case studies in which some form of deliberation was organized: the placement of mobile phone masts, hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, the failed HPV vaccination campaign and climate dialogues organized to enhance deliberative knowledge production over climate change. The case studies demonstrate how each of the deliberative processes has become politicized and that deliberative governance runs the risk of turning into a technocratic policy approach.

Concerns about mobile phone masts are often put down as unfounded fears of health risks. However, our ethnographic study of mast siting controversies shows that citizens mostly want to be democratically involved in the siting decisions. There is no room for such engagement in the national antenna policy, thus, citizens shift their attention to the possibility of health risks. The national government responds to this with more research and risk communication. However, the centrality of science leads to a shift in the discussion towards the credibility of science. Even a Klankbordgroep (Sounding Board) with all stakeholders fails to change the focus. This article shows that local conflicts are not so much the result of individual concerns, which is the subject of many social sciences studies, but are the outcome of a dynamic interaction between governments, citizens and scientists. Governments should not frame a local issue only in terms of a scientific problem.

Within the past two years, hydraulic fracturing for shale gas became a highly contested technology in the Netherlands. Possible negative environmental impacts are at strained terms with possible economic, energy and geo-political benefits. In addition, there are many scientific uncertainties about, for example water contamination, methane emissions, the amounts of gas to extract and the risk of earth quakes. Societal conflict and scientific uncertainties make fracking for shale gas a wicked problem for decision makers. This article demonstrates that the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs has implemented several instruments for deliberation, such as a consultation round with stakeholders and a sound board for an independent research. These failed to lead to the desired support for fracking. In this contribution, I demonstrate that these instruments led to reason giving but not to structuring of the problem. They were used by governmental actors and protest groups as a political platform that was fuel for the political conflict.

This article presents an analysis of the introduction of the HPV vaccine into the National Vaccination Program in the Netherlands. This introduction resulted in public debate and resistance and eventually a low turn-out (45% while 85% was expected). The question is what we can learn from this specific case about trust of citizens in scientific advice and political decision-making around medical issues. Our qualitative empirical research highlights that trust in scientific advice was undermined by a combination of criticism from peers, a critical approach in the mass media and a strong campaign through social media. Our analysis shows that these factors can be understood as partly resulting from a transition to a network society. We conclude that the network society demands a more open approach of scientific advice both in terms of who they discuss issues with and what kinds of arguments are permitted in the debate.

Climate change is often referred to as exemplary for ‘wicked’ problems. Wicked problems are referred to in literature as being inherently political problems without a clear definition or solution for which top-down steering using scientific knowledge is not fitting. Paradoxically, international climate change policy is organized in a quite top down manner in which scientific findings have a prominent role. In this paper we explore the effects of a deliberative approach to knowledge generation. We discuss two cases: an assessment of the credibility of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and the organization of a scientific dialogue on internet.

This article draws several conclusions based on the case studies featured in this special issue. It places them amidst broader developments in public administration theory and practice, formulates several lessons and describes possible paths for future research.

Professionals often have problems with governmental policies they have to implement. This can lead to diminished legitimacy and lower policy performance. The goal of this article is to identify the main reasons why professionals resist implementing new policies. An interdisciplinary approach is taken. From public administration literature, I use the policy alienation model, which consists of five dimensions: strategic, tactical and operational powerlessness, societal meaninglessness and client meaninglessness. These are possible reasons why professionals resist public policies (‘resistance to change’, a concept drawn from change management literature). I test these assumptions using a survey among 1,317 healthcare professionals. The results show that when professionals experience that a policy is meaningless for society or for their own clients, they show strong resistance. A lack of perceived influence is much less important in explaining resistance, although this is partly dependent on the particular profession someone belong to. The policy alienation model can help policy makers and managers to develop policies which are accepted by professionals. The article ends with practical recommendations for policy makers, managers and professionals.

Decreasing trust in government is almost universally considered to be a troubling fact of life for governments. Even though many politicians, administrators and commentators assume that the public’s trust in government is waning, the empirical data from the Netherlands are not unequivocal. This suggests that the assumed crisis of trust is not ‘just’ an empirical fact but is also to some extent a social construction. This article analyses how the major Dutch political parties have contributed to the narrative of a ‘failing government’. It does so by analysing their party programs over the last half century (95 programs in total). The analysis demonstrates that the major political parties are increasingly inconvenient with the effectiveness and efficiency of government, the traditional role of bureaucracies and the tasks of civil servants. This narrative harks back to the parties themselves and becomes increasingly inconvenient. If it is true that government fails to meet their standards, as they now all claim, what does that disclose about government policies for which those parties have been responsible?

Recently the Scientific Council for Government Policy, a major advisory board in the Netherlands published a report on the state of regulation. Based on his many years of experience as a practitioner and academic, the author reviews and critically assesses this report.