NETHERLANDS

The Netherlands ranks 11th in the SGI 2011 Status Index.

The quality of Dutch democracy, still highly satisfactory, has nonetheless eroded in several areas.

In the economic sphere, performance largely remained stable at moderately high levels, althogh the crisis has constrained economic policy and the fiscal situation. Major reforms, especially in heath care and the pension system, suggests that changes in social affairs are under way.

Deteriorating scores in resources (environment, R&D, education) and security have contributed to the overall decline of the Netherlands in the status ranking.

The quality of Dutch democracy (rank 10), once considered steadfast, has diminished.

Autocratically led protest parties draw considerable support from the electorate. Corruption prevention in politics, especially regarding party finances, is inadequate. The media landscape remains diverse, but media concentration is under way.

Some conspicuous miscarriages of justice have spawned public debate on the quality of the justice system, in particular the need for a special court to review (mis)tried cases.

At rank 10, the Netherlands shows above-average economic and employment policy performance.

The financial crisis and the subsequent European debt crisis undermined the Netherlands’ economic policy goals, clouding outlooks on almost all other policy areas as well. The government’s budgetary situation has deteriorated rapidly.

A tradition of wage moderation has helped sustain a relatively low level of unemployment, mitigating the negative consequences of the crisis. Benefits following job loss are relatively high, guaranteeing a certain level of income security.

Taxation policy addresses the trade-off between equity and competitiveness reasonably well. Tax policies do not discriminate between societal groups or types of enterprises.

The Netherlands ranks 11th in the SGI’s social affairs category.

A major heath care overhaul in 2006 moved the system in a market-oriented direction. The electronic patient dossier introduced in 2008 allows patients’ medical information to be exchanged between nursing staff, general practitioners and pharmacists.

The country’s social security system largely provides a stable income for those who experience unemployment, disability or illness. Migrants have a comparatively low unemployment rate, and benefit from labor market integration measures.

Day care centers for young children are not directly subsidized. The government proposed an increase in the age of pension eligibility to 67.

The Balkenende IV government achieved no consensus on whether the Netherlands’ military involvement in ISAF should continue beyond December 2010. Mostly as a consequence of the Dutch military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism raised the general threat level for the Netherlands from “limited” to “substantial” in March 2008.

Social polarization poses a growing challenge to internal security. International jihadist groups have won influence, anti-Islam statements are gaining currency, and right-wing parties are gaining traction.

At rank 18, assessessment of the Netherlands’ resource sustainability has worsened.

The economic crisis appears likely to slow the development of environmentally friendly technologies. Environmental goals for 2015 will partially be met, but most 2020 goals appear out of reach.

Although the Netherlands has aimed to push its innovative capacity to the OECD’s top ranks, the feasibility of this goal is fading. Particularly in the high-tech sector, companies have reduced spending on R&D.

Equality and equity are still important characteristics of the Dutch educational system. But a 2007 parliamentary inquiry into educational outcomes revealed a shortage of high-quality teachers and an alarming dropout rate.

The Netherlands slid 1 position to rank 11 in terms of management performance.

Despite the relatively weak structural position of the prime minister, Dutch governments continue to demonstrate above-average steering capability. In addition, policies are implemented relatively smoothly in the Netherlands.

However, room for improvement is observed in institutional learning. Many international agreements, particularly EU directives, are often delayed in implementation and institutional reforms are overdue.

Dutch governments are fairly accountable to citizens, the parliament, its committees, political parties and associations.

Showing significant deterioration relative to the SGI 2009, the Netherlands’ steering capability (rank 11) was drawn down by weaknesses in coordination and planning capacity.

Dutch governments, frequently composed of coalition cabinets with bare majorities, have limited strategic planning capacity. The prime minister is viewed as primus inter pares, rather than a strong leader, but is nonetheless formally in charge of coordinating government policy as a whole.

Regulatory impact assessments are broadly and effectively applied in areas of environmental policy and administrative reform.

The government is comparatively skilled at negotiating public support for policies, sometimes as a precondition for parliamentary approval.

At rank 13, the assessment of policy implementation capacity in the Netherlands is broadly comparable to that of the SGI 2009.

Government efficiency is considered mostly adequate.

Dutch ministers’ independence is constrained by devices such as party discipline, government and coalition agreements, responsibility to parliament, and the dense consultation and negotiation processes within their own departments and with other departments. Monitoring of autonomous administrative authorities is comparatively weak.

Dutch local governments have substantial autonomy, but also share governing tasks with the center. Their financial position has been somewhat enhanced in recent years through an increase in central-government transfers.

At rank 21, the Netherlands’ institutional learning rating slipped by 6 ranks relative to the SGI 2009.

No substantial or serious reform has been applied to the government’s structure, which dates back to the early 19th century. Though the country has been an avid protagonist and willing partner in all forms of international cooperation since WW II, the transposition of EU directives into Dutch law has been delayed 60% of the time since the late 1970s.

Considerable self-monitoring takes place, but the capacity – or rather, the will – to implement institutional reform is lacking. The only reform proposal actually implemented was the so-called dualization of local government.

At rank 12, executive accountability in the Netherlands has improved somewhat relative to the SGI 2009.

The broader public is relatively poorly informed on a broad range of government policies. Many people ignore political information, deeming it too complicated or uninteresting.

The parliament’s oversight powers are strong and constitutionally protected. Committees have the right to request government documents or to invite ministers and experts to answer questions.

Newspapers, TV and radio programs provide a significant amount of high-quality information. However, some criticize the media for its lack of investigative reporting on issues of public concern. Parties and associations offer reasonably sophisticated policy proposals.