Governance research in infrastructure sectors has gained traction in the Netherlands in recent decades. The classic leading disciplines in infrastructure research were economics, which linked capacity, costs and engineering, optimising the design for each specific technological infrastructural context, such as rail, electricity and data. This article follows the path from Delft to a broad linking of governance in the Netherlands to the research classics.
In a transitory world, infrastructure literately connects all the moving parts of energy, transport, water and data systems. Supporting change can only work if decision-making does justice to economic and technical realities, which poses a major challenge in the current dynamic climate. Innovating governance of and in infrastructure sectors in a way that ties these realities together is the next challenge.

In this article, we show how a combination of technological, economic, institutional, and social aspects lead to inertia in decision-making in the heat transition. We start from the challenges that are experienced by governments, companies, and citizens in three critical collective tasks in the transition. These are: (1) the coordination of various socio-technical system components in the construction of a new system; (2) the assignment of tasks and responsibilities in that system; and (3) the distribution of the costs and benefits. Because of the considerable normative diversity, interdependency and a lack of trust in each other, not enough action is taken regarding these collective tasks. We theorise this as a collective action problem and argue that this problem is the cause of the inertia in the heating market. In the discussion, we discuss the extent to which the currently proposed Collective Heat Act addresses the problem. We conclude that a more flexible interpretation of the Act is critical and should create space for experiments in the design of the developing energy system, in which more diverse solutions can be tried.

Infrastructure managers increasingly face scarcity in terms of the capacity to develop their infrastructure networks. New projects face significant limitations, in terms of maintenance and renewal as well as the development of new infrastructures. A logical next step from a project perspective is so-called cross-sectoral infrastructure projects. In this article, we assess the consequences of working in cross-sectoral infrastructure projects. Recent findings from an in-depth case study of a cross-sectoral infrastructure project suggests that working in these projects is not simply ‘more of the same’ in terms of task execution and project management. Instead, practitioners need to adjust their forms of collaboration and communication with practitioners from other infrastructure operators. The focus of attention shifts from the management of risks and the environment to the joint exploration of uncertainties in the environment in the early phase of infrastructure development projects.

Infrastructure agencies are responsible for maintaining the quality, safety and availability of their infrastructure. This is often done in isolation, without much consideration for cascading effects in other infrastructure. There are interdependencies between the transport infrastructure systems of the different agencies. Meanwhile, all agencies face uncertainty regarding future developments that affect their socio-technical system, for instance, demographic, economic and technological developments. Decisions on investments have to be made in the present, whereas the necessary information only becomes sufficiently available in the future. Simulation models can provide decision-making support for infrastructure agencies in cross-sectoral intervention strategies. To do so, simulation models need to take various modalities into account and explore possible futures, rather than trying to predict the future.

The focus on sustainability has contributed to a new outlook on how to shape the fabric of our society: infrastructure. New strategic decision-making structures have developed to decide on the future of infrastructures, which include more as well as more varied actors, such as societal and governmental actors (i.e. local and regional governments). The new structures are redrawing the boundaries of infrastructure governance. In these processes, infrastructure managers arguably play a crucial, yet less well-understood role. Three examples of strategic infrastructure processes are discussed, which highlight how, from uniquely different starting points, infrastructure managers play a different role in the strategic decision-making processes. The precise form and focus of the new coordination and decision-making structures will take shape in the coming years. Insight in these developments and their influence on infrastructure planning enables us to assess how and to what extent the ‘openness’ of infrastructure managers in infrastructure planning influence strategy processes and contribute to more integral assessment and synergy.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, initiatives have been taken to improve the information that the Dutch House of Representatives is given about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of government policy. This information is important for the parliamentary budget law, especially in a period of budgetary tightness: good efficiency and cost-effectiveness information can help politicians to make responsible decisions about policy measures and expenditure. In practice, however, ‘the supply of’, ‘the demand for’ and ‘use of’ this information are disappointing.
This article discusses the results of the latest initiative to improve this: ‘Beleidskeuzes Uitgelegd’ (‘Policy Decisions Explained’). At the request of the House of Representatives, this initiative explains how policy proposals costing more than 20 million euros must include an explanation of the policy objectives, instruments and effectiveness, and the planned monitoring and evaluation. The Ministry of Finance has evaluated the compliance and use of the required information. It appears that both compliance by the ministries and the use of the efficiency information by parliament still leave room for improvement. Yet both ‘Policy Choices Explained’ and other initiatives – such as the recently launched ‘Policy Compass’, the ‘Evaluation Toolbox’ and the wider contextual interest in ‘broad prosperity’ – offer new perspectives.