POLICY ADVICE: STATE COMMITTEES

As stated, State Committees are interesting to investigate in their own right. What is observed about this phenomenon is discussed in this subparagraph in three arguments. First, the developments over time are discussed. Second, the compositions and size of the committees is discussed. Third, the critique on the existence and growing number of State Committees is discussed.

When looking at State Committees and their mission and reporting over time first, a few observations are worth discussing. The size of the report and the way in which the reports are structured remained surprisingly constant over time. Nearly all committees that are investigated include a special secretary or multiple secretaries that have this job for a living. The impression is that those professional secretaries have copied the style of earlier State Committee reports. In contrast to the stability of the reports and organization of the committees, their content of their mission remained far from stable over time. The committees Fock, Hartsen and Zaaijer have a pragmatic mission. There is a problem that requires solutions and the committees are expected to come up with the best practical solutions. The latter committees Van Lynden van Sandenburg, De Quay and De Vreeze have a different mission. Those committees are expected to reform existing policies and therefore the focus is less on practical solutions and more on (political) choices and (long term) vision. One of the explanations for this development is already presented in the previous subparagraph. Another explanation for this development is the development of the civil service. The tasks that the earlier committees Fock, Hartsen and Zaaijer

68 carried out are nowadays integrated in the civil service. For instance the problems with viruses that Committee Fock and Committee Zaaijer investigated, would nowadays be investigated by the Ministry of Health. Back in the time of Committee Fock, this ministry did not even exist. Until 1918, the department of health was just a section of the Ministry of the Interior. Not until 1971, Health became a distinct ministry (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, 2016). In conclusion, the growth of the civil service led to a development in the missions that State Committees received from practical questions to more visionary questions.

Second, the compositions as well as the sizes of the committees are diverse. The largest committee in the cases ordered to the amount of members is Committee De Vreeze with 24 members, the smallest is Committee Hartsen with only three members. The average amount of members in this research is slightly more than twelve (excluding the secretaries), which is considerably high compared to the average amount of three to seven members that was mentioned by Kerkhoff and Martina (see 2.2.1). The diversity in the compositions is smaller. Four groups of people are generally involved: politicians (MP's and ministers), civil servants, professors and practitioners. Especially the last group is not involved in every committee. The amount of professors and scientists in the investigated committees is surprisingly high.

Third, the existence and the high number of State Committees have been criticized in the past decade. This rose the question: are State Committees necessary? In chapter two, it was already mentioned that this question is answered with a clear no by for instance Duyvandak. This criticism is based on arguments that stem from State Committee research from 1970 onwards. After investigating six State Committees that are installed before 1970, it is time to shine a new light on this matter. As just discussed, the six cases of this research can be roughly organized in two categories. The initial three committees are installed to come up with practical solutions. The later three committees are installed to make choices and present a longer term vision. The reason that the committees of the first group are installed is of a pragmatic nature. The reason that the second group is installed is partly to push forward delicate issues and accelerate hard policy choices. The criticism could apply to the second group and is harder to apply on the first group. However, for both categories there is a strong case to keep installing those State Committees. The reason for this is that all State Committees that are investigated have an unique composition. This means that the State Committee is the perfect opportunity to unite clever people to work on a certain topic. It is hard - probably impossible - to organize a team of people with the same statute within a ministry or a political party. Even though these teams might be coloured in favour of the cabinet in place, the effect of this evens out over time when multiple cabinets of various compositions installed State Committees. One of the problems that does remain, however, is the accountability of State Committees. For instance in the case of Committee Hartsen, three people that cannot be held accountable for their decisions decide over

69

the pensions of thousands of people. This problem requires attention in order to keep the system of advisory boards in The Netherlands capable of solving problems through State Committees. In conclusions, the value of State Committees for solving tough problems clearly emerged from this research, but at the same time the system of accountability requires improvement in order to keep this way of policy advice useful.

70

5. CONCLUSION

In the first chapter the research has been introduced, followed by the research question. The relevance of this research, its goals and the used methods have been lined out. In the second chapter, the theory has been presented. The policy transfer literature has been discussed first, the State Committee literature has been discussed next. Subsequently, the methods of this research have been described in the third chapter, discussing the case selection, design and operationalization. In the fourth chapter, the results have been presented and analyzed. In this fifth and final chapter, the findings will be summarized and the research question is answered. In addition, the implications for the theory are touched upon. Subsequently, the limitations of this research will be discussed. Finally, implications for further research will be discussed. Suggestions for research complementary to this study will be presented.