Decentralisation in The Netherlands in a glimpse

|

What does DC mean - definitions­ The transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from

the central government to subordinate or quasi-independent government organizations or the private sector. WORLD BANK INSTITUTE 1999

­ The restructuring of authority … between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity. UNDP, 2002

­ A process of transferring responsibility, authority, and accountability for specific or broad management functions to lower levels within an organization, system, or program. EXTERNAL WORLD BANK EVALUATION, 2008

­ Delegating decision-making powers from a central body to a lower level closer to the public or clients who are to be governed and served. DECENTRALISATION & LOCAL GOVERNANCE COURSE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, 2004

|

Reasons for decentralisation

­ Local governments more responsive to local needs, better services and more accountability

­ To ensure greater allocative efficiency of scarce (public) resources

­ To reduce central government administration and make it more efficient and effective

­ More participatory and democratic decision-making

|

Starting point DC in The Netherlands

­ Since 1980 Dutch Government sees the advantages of decentralising tasks

­ Starting point is the decentralisation report of Minister Wiegel: a decentral approach is preferred, if possible

­ Until now this is the official decentralisation opinion of the present government, laid down in Article 117 of the Municipal law, section 1: 'Our minister promotes decentralisation in favour of municipalities'

­ Examples of policies that were decentralised in the last 30 years: Housing vacancy law, Monuments law, the Work and Welfare Act and the Disability Services Act

|

Effects early DC operations

­ Different opinions on whether the realised DC operations had the desired effects

­ Success in education and youth: possibilities of customisation are increased, larger involvement of citizens and local organisations and more efficient execution of tasks

­ However: it is questionable whether DC increases policy freedom of municipalities. Central gvt. has various instruments to exert power and influence on task performance by lower administrative bodies.

|

Current Decentralisation: 3 D’s

­ Since 1 January 2015: largest decentralisation operation in The Netherlands in the social policy domain.

­ Nowadays the objectives of decentralisation are still the same as in 1980: increasing efficiency, increasing effectiveness and increasing democracy

­ Municipalities are now almost fully responsible for providing services to vulnerable citizens: 1) Labour Participation Act, 2) Social Support Act (persons with disabilities) and 3) Youth Care

­ This transfer of tasks from central to local goverment has led to substantial savings in the total budget

|

Challenges for local government

­ More tasks, less budget and the challenge to deliver tailor-made local services

­ Decentralisation Child support: budget cut of 5%

­ Decentralisation Social Support Act: budget cut of 25%

­ Especially smaller and medium-sized municipalities lack capacity and expertise to execute their legal tasks at acceptable costs

|

Chances for local government

­ For the first time one single party (municipalities) gets full control over practically the entire social domain. Possibility to create links between social care, youth care and labour participation. Larger focus on prevention, coordination in support provision and higher efficiency

­ More intense cooperation serving clients with (multiple) problems, i.e. shared diagnosis and approach.

|

Current state of affairs

­ Complaints from citizens about Social Support Act: lack of information provision by municipalities and absence of a decision on applications for support

­ Higher personal (financial) contribution, resulting in citizens to completely forgo care

­ Last year many municipalities procured insufficient care for district-oriented counseling and personal care: long waiting lists

|

Current state of affairs II

­ Last year municipalities unexpectedly saved 310 million € in total in the Social Support Act budget. Explicit savings: day care, guidance and support but also domestic help. Question whether municipalities are not too economical with assigning care and support

­ Municipalities encounter difficulties with determining legitimacy of expenditures of health care suppliers: care givers have to wait for reimbursement for a long time