Interactive policymaking is not a new concept in the Dutch government. In fact, it is a ‘fashion’ that has been around for several years now. Especially at the local government level, citizens are increasingly involved in developing policy. Interactive policymaking has been a much-discussed concept in Dutch literature since the 1990s. A still increasing number of publications pay attention to topics such as co-production, participatory decision-making and demand-oriented policy. There are therefore many different descriptions of and views on the concept of interactive policy making.
The advent of interactive policymaking
Interactive policymaking originally derives its principles from communicative planning theory. Interaction between different parties is central here. In contrast to the system functional planning theory, the government is seen as one of the negotiating parties and not as a manager at the top of society. The latter was the case until the early 1990s. However, since the 1960s, this elitist style of doing politics has come under discussion and there has been an increasing degree of dissatisfaction with traditional political institutions and government administration (Hoogerwerf and Herweijer, 1998: 277). This dissatisfaction partly arose from the development of de-pillarization, globalization, acceleration, computerization, individualization and government actions.
The dramatically low turnout experienced at the municipal elections in 1990 also contributed to the realization that a gap had arisen between citizens and the government. This also led to the realization among the government, and especially at the local government level, that it could no longer decide alone on issues that arise in society. The local government was supposed to be closest to the citizen. In response to this signal from society, research was conducted among citizens. This showed, among other things, that citizens had a fairly negative image of politicians and political parties, that the political parties appeared to have no identity at all and were experienced as inaccessible. This resulted in criticism of the government’s method of steering, steering based on traditional models of policymaking (Klijn and Koppenjan, 1998: 304). Various municipalities therefore experimented with new forms of interaction between citizens and government, such as city conferences and round table discussions. In this renewal process, municipalities mainly aimed to give the opinions of citizens and social organizations a place in the decision-making process, in order to create more support and accelerate the process. This also attempted to reduce the gap between citizens and government (Klijn & Koppenjan, 1998: 304). All this ultimately led to the introduction of interactive policy making in the course of the 1990s, also known in the literature as co-production, open planning processes or negotiating governance.
Definitions of interactive policy making
As a result of the wide range of literature regarding interactive policy making, there are also many views and descriptions of this concept. Below are a number of definitions that are regularly used:
A way of working in which decision-making processes are designed in such a way that citizens, users, interest groups and public and private organizations that have an interest in a decision are involved in its preparation. (Klijn and Koppenjan 1998:304)
Involving citizens, social organizations and companies from the start in the development of policy (Zun derdorp 1998:16)
The early involvement of citizens and other stakeholders in the formation of policy, in which openness and on the basis of equality and mutual debate, problems are identified and solutions are explored that ultimately influence the political decision. (Edelenbos 2000:39)
A collective term for a whole range of policy design methods in which an initiator (a government, an interest group, an intermediary organization or a company ) organizes the design process by collaborating with stakeholders at an early stage of the policy process. (Peppel & Prumel 2000:16)
The process in which the government organizes the development of (new) policy in collaboration with involved citizens. Interactive policymaking can apply to all levels of government from local, provincial to national level and it is even possible to speak of interactive policymaking at European or global level (van Woerkum 2000: 1)
A method of policymaking in which a government involves citizens, social organizations, companies and/or other authorities in policy at the earliest possible stage in order to prepare , determine, implement and/or evaluate policy in open interaction and/or collaboration with them (Pröpper 2009)
These definitions differ from each other on a number of points:
- The extent to which actors are involved in the policy-making process.
- The phase in which actors are involved in the policy-making process.
- The way in which collaboration with or involvement of actors is achieved.
The extent to which actors are involved in the policy-making process
Broadly speaking, most definitions describe interactive policymaking as involving actors/stakeholders in the policymaking process. However, there are a number of descriptions that not only talk about stakeholder involvement, but also mention the element of collaboration. For example, Pröpper and Steenbeek talk about open interaction and/or collaboration with stakeholders. Collaboration is also specifically mentioned in the definitions of Peppel & Prummel and Woerkum.
The difference between involving or collaborating with is the level of influence the stakeholders have. When stakeholders are involved in the policy-making process, there is room for input. However, it does not necessarily have to be the case that something is actually done with this input. This is sometimes referred to as a participatory management style. The role of the participant is that of advisor. When there is a collaborative management style, the interests of the collaborating parties will all carry approximately equal weight. The degree of influence of the participants will therefore automatically be greater. With this in mind, it can be concluded that the Edelenbos definition also indirectly addresses the aspect of cooperation. He is talking about equal and mutual debate.
The phase in which actors are involved in the policy-making process
Another area where the definitions differ is the phase in which citizens or other target groups are involved in the policy process. For example, Edelenbos and Peppel & Prummel talk about involving or collaborating at an early stage. Klijn and Koppejan give a more concrete description, namely involving groups in the preparation of decision-making processes. Pröpper and Steenbeek even talk about involving actors in the entire policy process, from policy preparation to policy evaluation. It is very difficult to indicate exactly to which phases of the process interactive policymaking applies. In practice, this differs greatly, partly depending on the motive or the intended result of the process. However, interactive policymaking is always characterized by early participation.
The way in which actors are involved in the policy-making process
Most definitions of interactive policymaking are quite flat. It only talks about involving or collaborating with stakeholders in the policy-making process. No further details are given on how this is done or what the important principles are. Only two of six definitions address this – one more than the other. These are the following:
A method of policy implementation in which a government involves citizens, social organizations, companies and/or other authorities in the policy at the earliest possible stage in order to prepare, collaborate and participate in open interaction and/or collaboration with them. determination, implementation and/or evaluation of policy. (Pröpper and Steenbeek 1999:15)
The early involvement of citizens and other stakeholders in policy formation, whereby problems are identified openly and on the basis of equality and mutual debate and solutions are explored that will ultimately have an impact. are on the political decision. (Edelenbos 2000:39)
Both Pröpper & Steenbeek and Edelenbos indicate that openness is an important aspect in establishing an interactive policy-making process. In order for a policy approach to be called interactive, it must have a sufficient degree of openness. (Pröpper and Steenbeek) Edelenbos adds equality and mutual debate in his definition. As discussed earlier, equivalence indicates that input from the different stakeholders should be of equal value. Mutual debate simply indicates that processes of consultation and negotiation are necessary in interactive policymaking.
General definition
The Edelenbos definition clearly describes what interactive policy making is, by also indicating which elements are central to this. However, according to this definition, interactive policymaking only concerns the formation of policy and not the other phases in the policy cycle. Furthermore, it has already been discussed that it is very difficult to indicate exactly to which phases of the process interactive policy making applies. It is therefore very difficult to form a central definition of interactive policymaking. However, a definition that, in my opinion, comes close to this is a combination of the definition of Edelenbos (2000) and Pröpper and Steenbeek (1999):
A method of pursuing policy in which the government informs citizens and other stakeholders at the earliest possible stage. involved in policy, to identify problems and explore solutions on the basis of openness, equal and mutual debate, in order to prepare, determine, implement and/or evaluate policy together with them.,