Challenges to representative democracy domestic origins: Non-majoritarian Institutions and Representation

Many public policies are delivered by non-majoritarian institutions (NMIs) in which sometimes powerful policy actors may take major decisions, decoupled from traditional democratic procedures of representation, scrutiny, and accountability. NMIs have to strike a balance between independence and democratic accountability. This chapter traces the evolution of NMIs in our time, discusses their ‘counter-majoritarian difficulties’, and various ensuing strategies to enhance their representational nature. From the perspective of democratic governance, many scholars have been concerned about the democratic deficits relating to NMIs. However, NMIs fit much better in more liberal, monitory notions of democracy. They can provide a series of checks and balances that prevent corruption, abuse of power, and protect the rights of minorities. In that sense, NMIs are often seen as challenges to democracy while they, simultaneously, may help to safeguard democracies and to sanitize the behaviours of elected officials

'Always waste a good crisis'.: Bestuurlijke hang naar comfortabel crisismanagement

Het advies van de Britse staatsman Winston Churchill dat een goede crisis niet verspild moet worden, kwam de afgelopen crisismaanden voortdurend terug. Vooralsnog lijkt die raad bij politici en bestuurders op barre grond te vallen. Onder hoge druk zijn ze geneigd tot de politiek risicoloze weg van accommodatie en pacificatie en laten ze daardoor de kansen die er óók zijn, liggen

Het doenvermogen van de wetgever

In 2017 pleitte de WRR in het rapport Weten is nog geen doen voor een meer realistisch beeld van de burger bij het maken van beleid en regelgeving. Dat pleidooi heeft veel weerklank gevonden. Tegelijk merken we dat het nog niet meevalt om dat gedachtegoed in de praktijk ook toe te passen. Ook voor de overheid geldt: weten is nog geen doen. In Den Haag weet men onderhand wel dat je aandacht moet hebben voor de ‘doenlijkheid’ van beleid en regelgeving, maar dat betekent niet dat dit ook voldoende gebeurt

Fostering regulator-innovator collaboration at the frontline: A case study of the UK’s regulatory sandbox for fintech

When supervising emerging technologies, regulators are more effective when they collaborate with business. Yet, innovative businesses are often small, inexperienced, and mistrustful. How can regulators motivate them to collaborate? This study examines this question by applying responsive regulation theory to a case study of the United Kingdom's regulatory sandbox for financial technology. This study illustrates how frontline regulatory interactions foster regulator–innovator collaboration, in ways that differ from how these interactions foster collaboration between regulators and the mature industries upon whose study responsive regulation is based. As one of the first academic studies to collect data from sandbox participants, this article offers unique insights into “what works” about the United Kingdom's much-imitated model

Berusting

Toen ik klein was hadden we tijdens onze kampeervakanties in Drenthe een vast lied dat vaak van pas kwam

Non-majoritarian Institutions and Representation

Many public policies are delivered by non-majoritarian institutions (NMIs) in which sometimes powerful policy actors may take major decisions, decoupled from traditional democratic procedures of representation, scrutiny, and accountability. NMIs have to strike a balance between independence and democratic accountability. This chapter traces the evolution of NMIs in our time, discusses their ‘counter-majoritarian difficulties’, and various ensuing strategies to enhance their representational nature. From the perspective of democratic governance, many scholars have been concerned about the democratic deficits relating to NMIs. However, NMIs fit much better in more liberal, monitory notions of democracy. They can provide a series of checks and balances that prevent corruption, abuse of power, and protect the rights of minorities. In that sense, NMIs are often seen as challenges to democracy while they, simultaneously, may help to safeguard democracies and to sanitize the behaviours of elected officials

The Use of Evidence in Evidence-Based Legislation: A Reflection

This article reflects on the contributions to the Special Issue on evidence-based legislation. It argues that both normative questions about how evidence should be used and factual questions about how evidence actually is used in legislation require a reflection on the nature of ‘evidence’ and its role in the crafting and application of legislation. Based on the understanding that the answers to these questions are intimately linked with the ideas, values and interests that underpin legislation, the article explores three specific issues: the burden of evidence in legislation and lawmaking (who needs to produce evidence about what), the criteria for determining what counts as ‘good’ evidence, and the various purposes for which evidence is used in legislation and legislative processes. Reflecting on these issues may help to reach a more balanced and nuanced view on the role of evidence in evidence-based legislation and the ways in which the law and legal analysis can facilitate the fruitful use of evidence