Assessment of the quality of good governance in security regions in the Netherlands

(1)

Assessment of the quality of good

governance in security regions in the

Netherlands

Master thesis

Iris van Dijk (s1890220)

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Study Programme

Crisis and Security Management

Examination Committee

First supervisor: Dr. Elke Devroe

Second reader: Dr. Gerrit Dijkstra

(2)

Abstract

This research established a theoretical assessment framework for external supervisors to assess the Dutch security regions on their governance. It was performed because there was no assessment framework which the Inspectorate of Justice and Security could use for this purpose.

After having analysed the theoretical framework on ‘good governance’, the research examined which indicators can be used to measure good governance in the empirical reality, more specific in the public sector. Multiple theoretical models containing ‘good governance’ quality criteria have been identified. For this research, the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) Model was selected as the theoretical starting point, because it is specifically designed for public organisations, has the purpose of qualitative improvement and can be tested in the empirical setting on the case in this research.

An analysis was made on the choice of quality criteria from the CAF Model that could fit the theoretical definition of what is regarded as good governance. This research tested if and how these criteria can be used in the specific case of Dutch security regions. In order to fully grasp this reality, a triangulation of methods was developed (in depth interviews, documents, observation).

The results of the research showed that many of the quality criteria from the CAF Model are useful in establishing a framework for assessing the quality of governance of the Dutch security regions. However, the model should be adjusted to be fully applicable. Several quality criteria were deemed inapplicable and several quality criteria were added. Additionally, an extension to the CAF Model has been made specifically for the Dutch security regions. This research has succeeded in establishing a new model which external supervisors can use to assess the quality of governance of Dutch security regions.

Besides having established a framework for assessing the Dutch security regions on the quality of their governance, this research pointed out which quality criteria are specific for the security regions and which quality criteria can be used in other settings. The research therewith provides a good starting point for establishing assessment frameworks on governance quality for other Dutch public organisations.

Moreover, this research has tested whether the theoretical notions of good governance correspond to experts’ perception in practice. The research results showed that ‘ethical conduct’ should not be a part of good governance and that an ‘open culture’ is a crucial element to be added.

(3)

3

Preface

This thesis represents the final part of my study of Crisis and Security Management at Leiden University. The master has taught me a lot in the field of crisis and security management from an academic perspective and has sparked my interest in the field even more. Before the thesis process had started, I decided that I wanted to write my thesis at a public organisation to broaden my knowledge about crisis and security management in a practical setting. When I got the opportunity to write my thesis at the Inspectorate for Justice and Security, I seized the opportunity with both hands.

In this short time, I have learned a great deal not only about how to undertake academic research but also about the complex structure of crisis management in the Netherlands. This period of thesis writing would not have been the same without all my colleagues from the Inspectorate. I would like to thank all of you for providing your cooperation, the nice working environment and for taking me to meetings and events to gain insight into the work of the Inspectorate and the security regions. In special, I would like to thank Sabine van Rossenberg for her excellent guidance and support throughout the whole thesis process.

From Leiden University, I would like to thank Elke Devroe for her excellent supervision during the thesis process. I would like to thank her for all the effort she put in answering my questions in face-to-face meetings and over email, her support, enthusiasm and all great recommendations for literature and books. Moreover, I would like to thank the second reader Gerrit Dijkstra for his critical view on this thesis.

I also would like to thank all experts who partook in the interviews, for without them I would simply have not been able to conduct this research. Furthermore, I am very grateful for the support of all my friends and family who stood by me throughout the entire thesis process. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude to the ones who proofread this thesis.

It has been a great period and it has been a great pleasure working with all of you.

I hope you will enjoy reading this thesis.

Sincerely,

(4)

4

1. Introduction

1.1 Research subject: governance and security regions

Preventing all crises or disasters from occurring altogether is an unrealistic ambition. There is always the possibility that one could occur. But even so, with proper preventative measures, preparation and planning, the risk as well as the potential impact of a disaster or crisis can be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Citizens may expect that the Dutch government will do their utmost to prepare for crises and disasters.

In the Netherlands, a distinction is made between crisis management in the general chain1 and crisis management in the functional chain2. The general chain concerns disaster management and the maintenance of public order and public safety. This is characterised by the fact that all measures taken in this chain focus on general population care. The competent authority in the general chain is decentralised, in which the authority lies with the mayor or chairman of the security region (IFV, 2015, p. 19; Wijkhuis & van Duin, 2017). The functional chain, on the other hand, concerns one specific policy area such as electricity, water management, education or food safety. The functional chain is characterised by the fact that all the measures taken focus on one sector or on businesses and organisations within a sector. The functional chains are generally managed by the ministry directly involved at the national level. When a crisis is taking place within the functional chain, the decision-making will occur within this chain itself. The mayor or chairman of the security region has no direct influence on the decision-making in this case (IFV, 2013, pp. 32-37; Wijkhuis & van Duin, 2017, p. 19).

This research will focus on the general chain, and in specific on the security regions, which play an important role in the organisation of disaster response and crisis management. One of the tasks of each security region is the multidisciplinary organisation of disaster response and crisis management. In this task, the security regions are responsible for risk management, preparation for crises, the actual disaster response and after-care (Helsloot, Martens, & Scholtens, 2010; Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013). This research aims to establish an assessment framework for the Dutch Inspectorate of Justice and Security to monitor the

1

Dutch: Algemene keten

(7)

7 security regions on their governance in the cold phase, meaning when there is no actual incident/crisis occurring, but when the focus is on risk management and the preparation for crises.

1.2 Aim and relevance of the research

1.2.1 Political and social relevance

This research contributes to the monitoring task of the Inspectorate of Justice and Security by contributing to the assessment framework with which the security regions can be monitored. With monitoring, the quality of the task execution can be checked, risks can be signalled and improvement within the security regions is stimulated. At this moment there is not yet an assessment framework with which the security regions can be assessed on their governance. This research aims to establish quality indicators for good governance. With this, the Inspectorate can monitor the security regions and provide recommendations on how to improve their governance. Improved governance in the security regions can contribute to the goal of the security regions, which is good disaster response and crisis management and thereby increasing public security.

1.2.2 Academic relevance

This research will test in an empirical setting whether a theoretical quality management model can be used for external supervision on governance. It aims to establish a theoretical assessment framework with which the Dutch security regions can be assessed on their governance. This research could lead to the possible adaption of the model to be utilised for the assessment of good governance and can lead to new insights on the quality of good governance in public organisations after the result of the empirical research. It aims to point out which quality criteria are specifically important for the case and which quality criteria can be used in other settings, adding to the knowledge gap. This research can complement theoretical notions on quality assessment of governmental institutions, adding to the scientific knowledge of public administration.

(8)

8 1.3 Research question

The research question of this research is:

“To what extent can the theoretical framework of “good governance” and of the “Common Assessment Framework Model” be applied as an assessment tool for oversight on Dutch security regions, and how?”

1.4 Reader’s guide

In the next chapter, first some background information about the security regions will be provided; it will explain how the security regions originated, the tasks of the security regions, its structure and the role of the Inspectorate of Justice and Security in monitoring the security regions. Then, in the third chapter, a theoretical framework will be presented. This will comprise two parts. In the first part, the theoretical concept of governance will be expounded. The second part is an analysis of what is meant by the concept of good governance. Specifically, it will focus on what is considered good governance within public organisations and which theoretical quality management models can be used as tools to perform a governance scan in a public organisation. This second part will end with explaining the Common Assessment Framework Model, which is the model that will be used as a tool for the assessment framework for assessing the Dutch security regions on the quality of their governance. In the fourth chapter, the research design, methods and operationalisation used for the research will be presented. Chapter five contains the results of the empirical research. Finally, in the sixth chapter, the research question is answered, limitations of this research are explained and avenues for future research are provided.

(9)

9

2. Background: The security regions

This part will provide information about the emergence of the security regions, its tasks, the structure of the security regions and the monitoring role of the Inspectorate of Justice and Security.

2.1 The development of crisis management in the Netherlands: From the Cold War to the establishment of the security regions

From 1945 until now, three main phases in the development of the organisation of crisis management in the Netherlands can be distinguished; during the Cold War, after the Cold War until ‘9/113_{’ and after ‘9/11’. During the Cold War, the threats to Dutch society mainly}

existed of war and natural disasters. In this time, it was the state’s responsibility to address such crises (Helsloot et al., 2010, p. 14). In 1952, the organisation for the protection of the population4 was established to protect the Dutch population during and after a possible (nuclear) war. The more ‘ordinary’ accidents were taken care of by the ‘normal’ emergency services. This was a clear division and there was nothing in between (2010, p. 14).

After the Cold War, the threat of war slowly decreased whilst at the same time new risks, like big fires, transport accidents and floods came to the fore for which neither the ‘normal’ emergency services nor the organisation for the protection of the population was well prepared for. The need was felt to create an organisation that could handle the new threats in all circumstances, meaning both in peace- and wartimes. As a result, in the early 1980s, a decentralisation process took place in which disaster management became primarily a local responsibility (2010, p. 17). In 1985 the Disaster and Major Accidents Act5 entered into force. Disaster management was now primarily a local responsibility for which the municipalities were chiefly responsible, with the state having a facilitative role (Helsloot et al., 2010, pp. 15, 17).

After ‘9/11’, new modern threats were recognised, like terrorism, flu pandemics, or the 2003 foot and mouth crisis (Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013, p. 5). Those new crises needed a different strategy and at a regional level, the local government needed to broaden its

3_{‘9/11’ refers to the September 11 attacks in which the Islamic extremist group Al-Qaeda committed terrorist}

attacks on the United States.

4

Dutch: Bescherming Bevolkingszorg

(10)

10 responsibilities from the ‘classic’ disaster management role towards getting more involved with ‘modern’ crises (Helsloot et al., 2010, p. 16). Additionally, various assessments of disasters, in particular, the Enschede fireworks disaster in 20006 and the Volendam New Year’s fire in 20017

, demonstrated that the municipalities were too small to tackle crises. The need was felt to professionalise crisis management and to organise it on a bigger organisational scale than the municipality level (Helsloot et al., 2010, p. 17; Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013, p. 5). Following the recommendations from the various assessments reports, security regions were established as a form of extended local government. The municipalities decide on the policies within the security region and they financially contribute to the security region (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 2009, p. 14). The security regions moreover also receive funding from the State. The Dutch Safety Regions Act8 is the legal framework for the security regions, which entered into force in October 2010. With the ‘modern crisis management’, more actors are involved in the security regions with all actors having their own responsibilities and tasks.

2.2 Tasks of the security regions

The Municipal Executive is responsible for the organisation of the fire services, disaster management and crisis management and medical assistance (Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013, p. 62). The Municipal Executives take care of these tasks through extended local government which takes place in form of an established public body, namely the security region (2013, p. 63).

The Safety Regions Act divided the municipalities of the Netherlands into 25 security regions. The security regions have monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary tasks. Monodisciplinary tasks concern the fire services and the regional medical assistance organisation (GHOR). Concerning the fire services, each security region is responsible for the establishment of one fire service organisation for the entire region (Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013, p. 23). In regards to the regional medical assistance organisation, each security region is responsible for the organisation of the medical assistance in the region with a special focus on major

6

The Enschede fireworks disaster was a fireworks explosion which occured in Enschede in 2000. The disaster had catastrophic consequences.

7_{The Volendam New Year’s fire was a fire that took place in a café in Volendam which caused death to 14}

youngsters and many more people got injured.

(11)

11 accidents, disasters and crisis situations (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 2009, p. 23). Furthermore, each security region is responsible for the multidisciplinary organisation of disaster response and crisis management. Figure 1 displays the monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary tasks of each security region. This research will focus on the multidisciplinary task of the security regions concerning disaster response and crisis management.

Within this multidisciplinary task of disaster response and crisis management, there are five main processes that the security regions are responsible for. Figure 2 illustrates the five main processes. The first two processes are ‘proaction’ and ‘prevention’ and they are both part of risk management. Proaction focuses on preventing structural causes of insecurity, which for example have to do with infrastructure or spatial planning. Prevention focuses on risk mitigation measures that prevent crises and to make sure that if a crisis happens that the consequences are limited to the maximum extent feasible. This is achieved through legal frameworks, information provision and supervision. The other three processes are ‘preparation’, ‘response’ and ‘after-care’ and they belong to crisis management. Preparation consists of planning, training and practising. Response focuses on the execution of tasks, which occur during an actual incident and focuses on incident stabilization. The last process, after-care, focuses on accountability and care (Helsloot et al., 2010, p. 43; Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, 1993, p. 4). This research will focus on the governance of the security regions in the cold phase, meaning when no actual crisis is taking place. Thus this research will focus on the governance of the security regions in the first three processes, namely proaction, prevention and preparation.

(12)

12 2.3 Structure of the security regions

The Netherlands is divided into 25 security regions. The security regions are extended local government and can, in the multidisciplinary task of disaster response and crisis management, be regarded a Network Administrative Organisation (NAO). A Network Administrative Organisation is a distinct administrative body established with the specific task to “manage

and coordinate the network and its activities” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 448). The security

region is one such distinct administrative body (Linck, 2013). Within the multidisciplinary task of disaster response and crisis management, the security region is established with the purpose to govern the network. However, next to governing the network, it does provide services on its own in the cold phase, which are risk communication and its advisory task concerning licensing (Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013, p. 42).

The structure of each of the 25 security regions is different. All security regions have in common that they have a management board which is concerned with the policy-related tasks

(13)

13 of the security regions. The management board consists of all the mayors of the municipalities participating in the security region. The organisation and tasks of the management board are laid down in the Safety Regions Act (Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013). All the chairmen of the 25 security regions together form the Security Council9. This is a consultative body and it serves as a contact point for the minister in the field of fire services, the regional medical assistance organisation (GHOR) and disaster management and crisis management (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 2009).

Most security regions also have a Security Management10, Chief Consultation11, the Security Office12 and various working groups. The structure of each security region is different, but to get a better understanding of a possible structure of a security region, Annex 1 holds an overview of the structure of the security region Hollands Midden, explained by using their organisational chart.

2.4 Monitoring the security regions: The Inspectorate of Justice and Security

The security regions are overseen by the Dutch Inspectorate of Justice and Security (Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013, p. 51). The Inspectorate monitors the security regions on task execution on both the monodisciplinary task of fire services and the multidisciplinary task of disaster response and crisis management. The bases for the monitoring are incident studies, theme-based research and systemic research. The Inspectorate reports about its systemic research concerning the security region’s disaster response and crisis management in the state of the emergency response13.

9 Dutch: Veiligheidsberaad 10_{Dutch: Veiligheidsdirectie} 11_{Dutch: Hoofdenoverleg} 12 Dutch: Veiligheidsbureau

(14)

14

3. Theoretical framework

This section is divided up into two parts. The first part will focus on the theoretical concept of governance analysed by different scholars. The second part focuses on the concept of good governance and will specifically focus on what is considered good governance within public organisations, and which theoretical quality management models can be used as tools to perform a governance scan in a public organisation.

3.1 Governance

There is no one standardised unique definition of governance. Governance is a very popular term and many practitioners and scholars use the term widely in diverse disciplines. However, the term governance has a different meaning for different scholars in different disciplines (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004; Klijn, 2008; Kooiman, 1999; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996; Ysa, Albareda, & Forberger, 2014, p. 9). Bearing this in mind, this section endeavours to present and clarify what is meant by governance and aims to show how this term is used amongst different disciplines.

3.1.1 Defining governance

3.1.1.1 Governance is no equivalent of government

To understand what governance is, it is first important to understand that governance is no equivalent of government.

What is government?

The term government can refer to the governing body (or administration) of a state or community, but government can also refer to a more classic or traditional mode of government steering. This government steering mode is the classic mode of government steering and is characterized by hierarchy, top-down steering (vertical) and following established procedures, rules and guidelines (Binnema, Geuijen, & Noordegraaf, 2013; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004; S. Osborne, 2006). It is based on supply by the government, equality, predictability and the rule of law (Binnema et al., 2013, p. 12; S. Osborne, 2006). The bureaucracy, as described by Max Weber, had a central role in policy making and bureaucracy was in this traditional mode of governing regarded as something positive (D. Osborne & Gaebler, 1992, p. 12; S. Osborne, 2006, p. 378).

(15)

15 What is governance?

Whilst government refers to a more classic or traditional mode of governing, characterized by hierarchy, top-down steering and following procedures, governance rather “signifies a change in the meaning of government, referring to a new process of governing; or a changed condition of ordered rule; or the new method by which society is governed” (R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, pp. 652-653). So, a change has been made by the government from a more top-down/hierarchical approach to a new type of steering, referred to as governance.

3.1.1.2 Different uses and definitions of governance

Whilst many authors agree on the shift that took place from government (the traditional form of hierarchical steering) to governance (a new process of governing), there is no standardised unique definition of the term governance. The change towards mechanisms of governance has been discussed in diverse disciplines, such as “geography, international relations, economics, sociology, business administration, public administration and management, political science and economics” (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 143; Kooiman, 1999, p. 68), all providing different conceptualisations of ‘governance’. Multiple scholars have provided an overview of the usage of governance within those different disciplines (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004; Klijn, 2008; Kooiman, 1999; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996).

Governance has been used to refer to what is regarded as good or sound governance in the field of economic development, in private/business organisations and in public organisations (Charkham, 1995; Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, pp. 145, 147; Kooiman, 1999, p. 68; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, pp. 654, 656; World Bank, 1992). Moreover, governance is used to refer to the minimal state (Kooiman, 1999, p. 68; R. A. Rhodes, 1994; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, p. 653); as governance without government in international relations (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 145; Kooiman, 1999, p. 69; Murphy, 2000; Peters & Pierre, 1998; Ronit & Schneider, 1999; Sassen, 2000); as governance without government as self-organising societies (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 146); as economic governance (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 146; Kooiman, 1999, p. 69); as New Public Management (Klijn, 2008, pp. 507-508; Kooiman, 1999, p. 68; D. Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, p. 655); as network governance (Klijn, 2008, p. 508); as multilevel governance or inter-governmental relations (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 149; Klijn, 2008, p. 508); and as network governance focusing specifically on the private sector (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 151).

(16)

16 It is no surprise that all these distinct uses of governance in different disciplines led to many different definitions of governance. A few example definitions of governance are:

1. “Governance refers to self-organizing, interorganizational networks.” (R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, p. 660)

2. Governance as “Solving problems and creating opportunities, and the structural and

processual conditions aimed at doing so.” (Kooiman, 1999, p. 69)

3. “Governance refers to the entirety of regulations- that is, the processes by which

norms, rules and programs are monitored, enforced and adapted, as well as the structures in which they work- put forward with reference to solving a specific problem or providing a common good.” (Zürn, 2010, p. 80)

4. “Governance refers to a category of social facts, namely the processes of interaction

and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions.” (Hufty,

2011, p. 405)

Common features of the definitions of governance

Despite the many different definitions of governance, many authors have observed that most of the definitions have essential features in common (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004; Klijn, 2008; Kooiman, 1999; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996). First of all, they emphasize that governance is not government (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 152; Klijn, 2008, p. 508). This demonstrates that there is a focus on the process of governing rather than on the governing by the government (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 152; Klijn, 2008, p. 508; Sperling, 2014, p. 18). The processes revolve around “negotiation, accommodation, concertation, cooperation

and alliance formation rather than the traditional processes of coercion, command and control” (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 152). The second common feature is that networks

play a crucial role. In those networks, multiple different actors are working together, who are relatively independent or self-governing, but still interdependent (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 151; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, p. 660). They continuously interact with each other, working together towards a shared goal (R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, p. 660). The formal government may be one of the actors of the network, but this does not have to be the case (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 152). The third common feature is that governance is not focused on a single actor, but rather concerns a plurality of actors that cooperate (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 151; Ysa et al., 2014, p. 9). Lastly, many thoughts about how

(17)

17 governance is best enforced to reach a certain goal (good governance) are normative (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004, p. 152).

3.1.2 From government to governance

There is a general agreement among scholars that a shift has been made from the government steering in a more top-down/hierarchical approach to a new type of steering, referred to as governance (Crawford, 2002; Klijn, 2008; Kooiman, 1999; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996).

Traditional Public Administration, New Public Management and New Public Governance

Osborne (2006) argues that the shift towards governance has not been made in one go, but that Public Administration has passed through three prevailing modes of governance structures, namely Traditional Public Administration (TPA), New Public Management (NPM) and New Public Governance (NPG) (S. Osborne, 2006).

Traditional Public Administration

Traditional Public Administration is characterized by the aforementioned traditional hierarchical mode of government steering. The government has a rowing role, in which it delivers services itself (D. Osborne & Gaebler, 1992).

New Public Management

This has been replaced by a second mode from the early 1980s to the start of the 21st century, which came into being through New Public Management. New Public Management introduced market mechanisms in the public sector and is strongly focused on the functioning and performance of public sector institutions (Coppens, 2015, p. 39; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004, p. 99). The government takes a steering role (policy decisions) instead of a rowing role (service delivery), which they leave to other institutions (D. Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, p. 655). The main focus is on “intra-organizational processes and

management” in which contractual arrangements are central “within rather than without

government” (S. Osborne, 2006, p. 382).

New Public Governance

The last mode of government steering is often referred to as ‘New Public Governance’ and is characterized by ‘governance through networks’ (Enroth, 2014, p. 63; S. Osborne, 2006; R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, p. 653; Whelan, 2012, p. 4). It is no longer intra-organizational focused,

(18)

18 but rather inter-organizational in which multiple different actors are all augmenting the delivery of public services (S. Osborne, 2006, p. 384). In contrast to NPM which is contract-based, NPG is based on trust or relational contracts (2006, p. 384). However, it should be mentioned that whilst these modes have flourished after each other, they still exist side by side at the present time (Binnema et al., 2013, p. 11).

When governance refers to what Rhodes (1996) refers to as governance, namely that

“governance signifies a change in the meaning of government, referring to a new process of

governing; or a changed condition of ordered rule; or the new method by which society is governed” (R. A. W. Rhodes, 1996, pp. 652-653), both NPM and NPG can be regarded as a new process of governing. Therefore both can be regarded as governance. However, both modes should be distinguished; whilst NPM theories are mainly focused on improving the bureaucratic functioning of public organisations, and emphasize that “politics should be

setting clear goals, steering with clear and cleverly designed incentives and then leaving implementation to other organizations”, this is different from the post-NPM New Public

Governance, which “in contrast, tends to emphasize the horizontal relationships between

governmental organizations and other organizations” (Klijn, 2008, p. 509).

Why from government to governance?

Various scholars have written about the reasons why this shift took place. Multiple scholars argue that one factor explaining this shift is the trend originating from a few decades ago, in which citizens started to have exorbitant expectations of the state. They expected the state to provide more and better services in a way that it became impossible for the state to meet those demands (Enroth, 2014, p. 64; Goetz, 2008, p. 258). Another reason explained in literature for the change from government to governance is that challenges in society increased in complexity. These increasingly complex challenges are what Rittel and Webber (1973) refer to as “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber, 1973). The increased complexity of problems meant that governments alone could no longer solve problems but needed to cooperate with other societal actors to accomplish their goals (Enroth, 2014, p. 64; Klijn, 2008, p. 506; Kooiman, 1999, p. 73). This dependency of societal actors on each other in addressing complex problems is often mentioned as the main reason why governance increased in prevalence.

(19)

19 The increased complexity of challenges facing society and the fact that the state could not live up to citizens’ expectations made it impossible for the government to govern, leading to what Goetz refers to as a ‘state of ungovernability’ (Goetz, 2008, p. 259). The more traditional bureaucratic government steering model did not suffice in response to the increased complexity of challenges and increased expectations from citizens. Governments in Western societies had to take up a different strategy and responded to these problems with ‘governance’ (Goetz, 2008, p. 260; Kooiman, 1999, p. 74). In this governance, the government focuses on establishing partnerships with various other actors in society to solve complex problems (D. Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). This is that Rhodes (1997) refers to as ‘hollowing out of the state’, which holds that “the state has been hollowed out from above

(for example, by international interdependence); from below (by marketization and networks); and sideways (by agencies and the several species of parastatal bodies)” (R. A.

W. Rhodes, 1997, p. 6). The government’s role changed from having a central role within the welfare state in which it was keen to intervene to a more facilitative role (Devroe, 2012, p. 86; Kooiman, 1999, p. 73).

Examples of the shift from government to governance

This shift from government to governance has been described by multiple authors (Crawford, 2002; Garland, 1996; Prins & Cachet, 2011). Garland (1996) describes this shift when talking about governing crime in the UK. He explains that a development took place in which the government no longer sought to counter crime only through its own state agencies, but also wanted to involve organisations and agencies not belonging to the state. This was because the state alone could not effectively prevent and control crime (Garland, 1996, p. 453). The government did this by making non-state organisations, agencies and individuals feel that they also have a responsibility to act upon crime and thereby activate them. This is referred to as a ‘strategy of responsibilization’ (Garland, 1996, p. 452). However, Garland emphasizes that this new governing strategy does not mean that the state is just discharging its functions, but that it is rather a new form of governing crime, namely ‘governance-at-a-distance’ (Garland, 1996, p. 454). In this governance-at-a-distance, the state keeps its main functions, and, in addition “takes on a new set of co-ordinating and activating roles, which, in time, develop

into new structures of support, funding, information exchange or co-operation” (Garland,

(20)

20 Crawford (2002) also exemplifies the shift from government to governance focusing on crime, in which he uses the term ‘relocalisation’ to describe the process by which crime prevention duties are redirected from a core central authority to local-based actors and civilians (Crawford, 2002, p. 27). Policing became a plural task, in which not only the central government but also other actors became involved in making and implementing policies focused on crime (Crawford, 2002). This shift from the central bureaucratic government to involve more actors at a decentralised level in tackling societal problems is what has been referred to as ‘governance’ (Crawford, 2002).

This shift from government to governance can also be recognised in the development of crisis management in the Netherlands. As described in the background section of this research, during the Cold War, it was the state’s responsibility to address crises. The state had a rowing role (service delivery). However, after the Cold War, new threats were recognised and a reorganisation needed to take place to address these new threats. A decentralisation process took place in which disaster management became primarily a local responsibility. Municipalities became primarily responsible and the state had a facilitative role. Organisations were expected to be able to cope with crises if they made use of the opportunities offered by their network of organisations. Crisis management became network management (Helsloot et al., 2010, p. 15). When new modern threats after 9/11 and various assessments of disasters showed that the municipalities were too small to tackle crises, crisis management was organised on a bigger organisational scale than the municipality scale. The security regions were established for this as a form of extended local government. More actors were involved in the security region with all actors having their own responsibilities and tasks. This shift from the state having a rowing role in which it was responsible for crisis management to the decentralisation of crisis management in which more actors were involved and in which crisis management became network management can be regarded a shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’.

Concluding remark: What is governance?

There are many different definitions of governance, even though most have essential elements in common. There is an overall agreement among scholars that a shift has been made from the traditional hierarchical steering mode by the government to governance, which refers to a new mode of governing.

(21)

21 Yet, to cover the complexity, one can argue it hinges upon the situation and circumstance on which the term governance is applied to when deciding which is best suited. Different definitions and understandings of governance are therefore useful in different situations (Kooiman, 1999, p. 70; Ysa et al., 2014, p. 9). For example, when one is interested in the governance at an organisational level and is interested in how an organisation is directed and controlled, it would be recommended to work with definitions of corporate governance or good governance in public organisations. Governance as good governance defined by the World Bank would suit better when one is looking at national situations, and global governance would, for example, be more relevant to international situations.

3.2 Good governance

As explained in the previous section, governance is used in many different disciplines. One of the uses of governance is governance referring to what is regarded good (or sound) governance in the field of economic development, in private/business organisations and in public organisations. Because the focus of this research is on governance in public organisations, it needs to be examined what is considered good governance in such organisations. This section will first explain how good governance is used in different disciplines and will then specifically focus on what is considered good governance in public organisations and how this can be measured.

Good governance in the field of economic development

In the field of economic development, good governance has for example been used by international organisations such as the World Bank, the European Union (EU), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations (UN). Those definitions of good governance are often about the management of government. Whilst the definitions may have minor differences between the organisations, overall a clear set of common global public values can be found in the definitions of good governance from those organisations, such as accountability, compliance with the rule of law, transparency and effectiveness (Jørgensen & Sørensen, 2012, p. 72; Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development, 2006; Williams & Young, 1994).

(22)

22 Good governance in private/business organisations

Another use of good governance is often found in business/private organisations, where it refers to ‘corporate governance’ or ‘good corporate governance’. Corporate governance generally refers to “the system by which companies are directed and controlled” (Hopt, 2011, p. 10). Good corporate governance then refers to “running a good company” (Carter, Simkins, & Simpson, 2003, p. 35) or using power “in a proper way for the agreed purpose of

the organization” (Spanhove & Verhoest, 2007, p. 3). In much of the existing literature, it has

been defined what is regarded as good corporate governance (ASX Corporate Governance Council, 2007; Farrar, 2008; Fung, 2014; OECD, 2004; Rider, 2015; Shleifer & Vishny, 1997).

Good governance in public organisations

Good governance in public organisations, also referred to as ‘government governance’, is the main focus of this research as security regions are public organisations and this research focuses on governance at an organisational level. In order for security regions to be assessed on their governance, it needs to be examined what is regarded good governance in public organisations.

Government governance focuses, just like corporate governance on the “process by which an

organization is directed, controlled and held to account” (Spanhove & Verhoest, 2007, p. 2).

Spanhove & Verhoest (2007) already noticed that there is much more literature available about good governance in the private sector than good governance in the public sector (Spanhove & Verhoest, 2007, p. 4). The literature on good governance in public organisations is rather limited. After a thorough literature review, this observation can be said to be confirmed.

However, the transfer of good governance in business organisations (corporate governance) to a framework for good governance in public organisations is difficult to accomplish. One reason for this is because not all principles and models from the private sector can be applied to the public sector. This is because the public sector has some particularities which are not the case in private sector businesses. One example is the fact that public organisations cannot act for their own good, but always need to take public interest into account (Spanhove & Verhoest, 2007, pp. 4-7). Another example has to do with the goals of public organisations. Whilst the purpose of public organisations may be to provide a service in a good or efficient

(23)

23 way, this is difficult to measure, because most goals are subjective and unquantifiable (Eliassen & Kooiman, 1993, p. 51; Hodges, Wright, & Keasey, 1996, pp. 10-11). This is different in the private sector where the goal may be a certain amount of profit and this can be measured in an exact, quantitative manner.

The Dutch Ministry of Finance (2000) and Bossert (2002) have defined what is considered good governance in public organisations. They argue that good governance is “guaranteeing

the mutual coherence of the way an organisation is steered, controlled and monitored, focusing on an efficient and effective realization of the policy goals, as well as an open way of communication and accountability towards the stakeholders” (Bossert, 2002, p. 245;

Ministerie van Financiën, 2000; Spanhove & Verhoest, 2007, p. 4). As a basis for this definition, they have distinguished four main processes which are necessary to achieve good governance in public organisations. Those processes are steering, controlling, monitoring and accountability (Bossert, 2002; Spanhove & Verhoest, 2007; Timmers, 2000). They should not be seen as independent, but rather as interdependent (Timmers, 2000). Those four main processes are then guided by the principles ‘efficiency, effectiveness and an open way of communication/transparency’.

Moreover, Spanhove & Verhoest (2007) have looked through various different international sources to examine which principles are thought of to be important for good governance within public sector organisations. They established a list of five essential normative principles which are prominent in each of the sources and are regarded core principles of good governance in public sector organisations. These are accountability, transparency (openness), efficiency, effectiveness and ethical conduct (Spanhove & Verhoest, 2007, pp. 14-15).

3.2.1 The working definition of good governance

Taking the five essential normative principles of good governance into consideration, it can be seen that the definition from the Dutch Ministry of Finance (2000) covers almost all of the most important aspects mentioned. However, there are two things to note. The first thing is that Spanhove and Verhoest (2007) mention accountability not as one of the main processes, but as one of the core normative principles guiding the three main processes. This research will follow Spanhove and Verhoest, meaning that the definition of good governance is based on three main processes and five guiding principles. Second, the essential principle ‘ethical

(24)

24 conduct’ is missing in this definition. Therefore, the working definition for this research will be based on how the Dutch Ministry of Finance (2000) and Bossert (2002) define governance, with the principle of ‘ethical conduct’ added. The following will be the theoretical working definition of good governance of this research:

“Guaranteeing the mutual coherence of the way an organisation is steered, controlled and monitored, focusing on an efficient and effective realization of the policy goals, as well as an open way of communication and accountability towards the stakeholders. All these activities must be conducted in an ethical manner.”

This definition can be applied to different levels, ranging from a focus on the entire administrative system controlled by the government (macro), to a focus on the level of a specific policy sector or ministry (meso) to a focus specifically on a particular public sector organisation (micro) (Spanhove & Verhoest, 2007, p. 7). This definition will be applied on a micro level to the Dutch security regions, where the security region is regarded as one organisation.

3.3 How to measure good governance in public organisations?

When this theoretical definition good governance is applied, it can be viewed as an analysis tool. When examining all aspects of the definition of good governance within an organisation, so when a governance scan is applied, this can help bring to the fore whether there is good governance within the organisation or can highlight any deficiencies regarding the governance of the organisation and can pinpoint the areas where action is necessary (Timmers, 2000, p. 10).

The next step is to examine how good governance can be measured within the said organisation. For this, quality criteria need to be established for each of the main processes and underlying principles. There are multiple different theoretical quality assessment systems or models in place which contain quality criteria for organisations. These different systems or models can be adapted and used as a tool through which governance can be assessed (Timmers, 2000, p. 11; Wiley, 2005, p. 74). Four prevailing models, namely the International Standard Organisation (ISO), Balanced Scorecard (BSC), the European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence Model (EFQM) and the Common Assessment Framework Model (CAF) will be shortly discussed(Bouckaert & Halligan, 2007, pp. 19, 111).

(25)

25 International Standard Organisation (ISO)

The European organisation ISO has provided a set of quality criteria for the management of an organisation, which is now known as the ISO 9000-series (Bovaird & Löffler, 2009, p. 172; Chung, 2002; Hoyle, 2001, p. 1; Schlickman, 2003). The quality criteria are based on eight quality management principles, namely ‘Leadership, Customer focus, continual improvement, mutually beneficial supplier relationships, involvement of people, factual approach, system approach and process approach’ (Coppens, 2015, p. 71; Hoyle, 2001, p. 26).

Balanced Scorecard (BSC)

The Balanced Scorecard was developed in 1996 by Robert Kaplan and David Norton (Farnham, Hondeghem, & Horton, 2005, p. 17; Niven, 2005, p. 12). It was established because it was believed that more indicators than only financial measurements are important for predicting the organisation’s financial success (Bouckaert & Halligan, 2007, p. 111; Niven, 2005, p. 13). The mission and vision of the organisation are at its core and this is accomplished by the determination of goals and objectives in four perspectives, namely ‘financial, internal business process, learning and growth and customer’ (Niven, 2005, pp. 13-14). The Balanced Scorecard focuses mainly on what is necessary to achieve the organisation’s goals and missions. It can help managers focus on the actions that are necessary to achieve these goals (Andersen, Lawrie, & Shulver, 2000, pp. 3-4).

European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) and the Common Assessment Framework (CAF)

The EFQM Excellence Model was established in 1991 and a new version came out in 1999 (Bouckaert & Halligan, 2007, p. 111). The EFQM serves as an analytical framework to assess the progress of an organisation and to develop improvement activities (Coppens, 2015, p. 69). The model exists of five organisational focus areas (also referred to as the ‘enablers’) and four result-oriented focus areas (also referred to as the ‘results’). The focus areas have been broken down in criteria. The organisation is assessed in terms of the quality of each of the sub-criteria. Thereby it lays the foundation for an improvement cycle. The idea behind the model is that quality is more than the quality of the final product or service, but can be found within the entire organisation and should be subjected to continuous improvement (Bou-Llusar, Escrig-Tena, Roca-Puig, & Beltrán-Martín, 2009; Coppens, 2015; Wongrassamee, Simmons, & Gardiner, 2003).

(26)

26 The EFQM Excellence model was often criticized to not be relevant for public sector organisations. Therefore, a revised model was established through the cooperation of EU ministers in charge of public administration. This revised model was established specifically for public sector organisations, and was named the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) Model (Bouckaert & Halligan, 2007, p. 111; Farnham et al., 2005, p. 17). The model is drawn up in the same way as the EFQM Excellence Model with the nine focus areas, however, the CAF Model takes into account the specific context of the public sector. The CAF Model is applicable at different layers of public administration (Coppens, 2015, p. 73). The main ambition behind the establishment of the model is “to provide a fairly simple, free and

easy-to-use framework which is suitable for self-assessment of public sector organisations across Europe and which would also allow for the sharing of good practices and benchmarking activities” (Engel, 2002, p. 35). Both the EFQM Excellence Model and the Common

Assessment Framework Model can be used for self-assessment, however, they can also be used as a basis for assessment by external parties (Bovaird & Löffler, 2009, p. 173).

3.3.1 Common Assessment Framework Model as working model

The four discussed theoretical quality management models have many things in common. In essence, they exist as tools and frameworks to identify and evaluate quality areas and criteria within an organisation. The models are thereby focused on the quality management principles and the achieved results. Depending on those results, actions can be taken to improve them. This contributes to the learning capabilities of an organisation. For this research, the focus will be on the CAF Model. The choice for this model is due to it being specifically designed for public organisations and established through European cooperation amongst the EU ministers in charge of Public Administration (EIPA, 2017). This free model can be used as a tool for public organisations to work on improving quality, and it enables comparison between different organisations. Moreover, it can be used for public organisations whose results are not quantifiable. Furthermore, the model is in place for a long-term orientation and the model enables the organisation or external party (the one who is assessing the organisation using the CAF Model) to keep track of its improvements when the assessment is repeated (Verweire & Van Den Berghe, 2004, p. 62).

(27)

27 How does the Common Assessment Framework Model work?

The CAF Model was established in 2000 as a quality management instrument designed specifically for the public sector and was inspired by the EFQM Excellence Model (CAF, 2013). Figure 3 illustrates the CAF Model.

The model exists of 9 boxes which are considered the main aspects that the organisation must look at. The left side of the model consist of the organisational boxes, which are referred to as the ‘enablers’ and the right side of the model are the results boxes, referred to as ‘results’. Each of these boxes consists of quality criteria which need to be taken into account when an organisation is being assessed. Each of the quality criteria is supplemented by examples that provide possible areas which could be addressed and further elaborate on the content of the criterion. Those examples are based on good practices in Europe; however, not all of them are compatible with every organisation (CAF, 2013, p. 10). When the outcomes from the assessment (of both enablers and results) are taken into account and used as a basis for improvements, this constitutes to innovation and learning.

It is important to take into account that there is a connection between the enablers and the results. The enablers can be regarded as the causes of the results, which are considered the effects. Moreover, it should be taken into account that there is also a connection between the boxes and criteria on the enablers’ side (CAF, 2013, p. 10).

(28)

28 3.4 Conclusion theoretical framework

This theoretical framework has shown that the term governance has been used in many disciplines by many different practitioners and scholars. However, which definition and use of governance fits best depends on the situation and circumstance on which the term governance is applied. This research will focus on good governance, more specifically in public organisations. The theoretical framework has analysed what is regarded as good governance in public organisations, leading to a theoretical definition of good governance for this research. With this working definition in mind, the next step was to examine how good governance can be assessed in public organisations. For this, theoretical quality criteria are necessary for each of the main processes and underlying principles in the definition of good governance. There are multiple different theoretical quality assessment systems or models in place which contain quality criteria for organisations. For this research, the Common Assessment Framework Model will be used as the leading tool. The analysis in the theoretical chapter has led to the following research question: “To what extent can the theoretical

framework of “good governance” and of the “Common Assessment Framework Model” be applied as an assessment tool for oversight on Dutch security regions, and how?”

In the next section the research design, which will be used to find an answer to this question, will be elaborated upon.

(29)

29

4. Methodology

4.1 Research question and sub-questions

Referring to the main research question studied, three sub-questions have been created to fully portray the aims of the research:

1. Following the working definition of good governance, which quality criteria from the

CAF Model are necessary to assess a public organisation on its governance?

2. Which theoretical quality criteria of good governance should be included in an assessment framework for oversight on Dutch security regions, and why?

3. Which theoretical quality criteria of good governance should be excluded from an assessment framework for oversight on Dutch security regions, and why?

The first sub-question will find an answer by operationalizing the theoretical insights. An analysis of the quality criteria of the CAF Model that possibly fit or not fit the theoretical definition of good governance will be presented. The second sub-question explains which of these theoretical quality criteria of good governance are regarded to be important to be included in an assessment framework for oversight on Dutch security regions and examines why these are regarded to be important. The third sub-question explains which of these theoretical quality criteria of good governance are regarded to be not important for an assessment framework for oversight on Dutch security regions and explains why.

After answering these sub-questions, the main research question can be answered and a theoretical framework to assess the Dutch security regions on the quality of their governance can be established. However, whilst this research is focusing on the security regions, it also aims to point out which quality criteria are specifically important for the case (the security regions) and which quality criteria can be used in other settings, enabling further insights for assessment frameworks that establish the quality of governance of other public organisations. A part of the conclusion will be dedicated to this.

(30)

30 4.2 Research design and methods

This research is a theory testing one and an explorative one because this exercise has not been developed before. In this research was opted for a qualitative research design with a qualitative small-N. This design was chosen to gain an understanding of contextual elements (Buchanan & Bryman, 2009) and to achieve the required depth of understanding (Patton, 2002). More specifically, qualitative survey research is conducted, which is useful for exploratory, descriptive as well as explanatory research (Babbie, 2015, p. 247). There are different ways to collect data for survey research. Examples are mail questionnaires, online surveys, face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews (Babbie, 2015). For this research, it was chosen to conduct face-to-face expert interviews (Aberbach & Rockman, 2002). The reasons for this choice are multiple. First, face-to-face interviews allow for the probing of responses, resulting in more comprehensive and complete answers. When an expert would have a questionnaire and the expert is asked to elaborate on his/her answer, this could lead to the expert not filling in the answer or only a very limited answer of for example one line. However, face-to-face interviews allow for probing for answers when the answer seems to be incomplete. Second, with the face-to-face interviews, there is less probability of the expert misunderstanding the question, thereby increasing its validity compared to, for example, questionnaires. Third, face-to-face interviews allow for the observation of the experts and therefore non-verbal cues can also be captured (Babbie, 2015).

The face-to-face interview will be a semi-structured interview. Consequently the interview will consist of key questions reflecting the main criteria or areas to be discussed, but it also allows the expert to elaborate or explain his/her answer or idea in more detail (Gill, Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008, p. 291; Lavrakas, 2008, p. 260). The full interview format is included in Annex 2.

Sampling

This research will make use of non-randomized purposive sampling. More specifically, it will make use of expert sampling (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). Accordingly, experts in the field of security regions are addressed to participate in the interview. This allows for the selection of experts who are expected to have an abundance of useful information for the research (Patton, 2002). The decision has been taken to select experts from both the Inspectorate of Justice and Security as well as experts from the operational management of

(31)

31

Table 1: Overview of the expert interviews

the security regions. Consequently, knowledge is gained from both fields: supervision and execution. This also allows for the possible observation of variations between these fields. Table 1 provides an overview of the experts.

Method Number Source (expert)

Expert interviews 7

Inspectors 4 Functions: Coordinating Specialist Inspector: Inspectorate of Justice and Security (2x), Strategic Inspector: Inspectorate of Justice and Security, Senior Inspector: Inspectorate of Justice and Security

Operational management

3 Functions: Director security region Hollands Midden, Head Security Office security region Hollands Midden, Director security region Midden- en West-Brabant

4.3 Operationalisation and measurement

In this paragraph this first sub-question will be answered: ‘Following the working definition

of good governance, which quality criteria from the CAF Model are necessary to assess a public organisation on its governance?’

It will present the operationalisation of the variables/aspects of the theoretical working definition of good governance and the measurement in the interview. The full interview is presented in Annex 2.

4.3.1 Good governance

The theoretical working definition of good governance used within this research is:

“Guaranteeing the mutual coherence of the way an organisation is steered, controlled and monitored, focusing on an efficient and effective realization of the policy goals, as well as an open way of communication and accountability towards the stakeholders. All these activities must be conducted in an ethical manner.”

Next to testing which theoretical quality criteria of good governance from the CAF Model are most suitable to develop an assessment framework for oversight on Dutch security regions, this research will also examine whether the theoretical notions of good governance

(32)

32 correspond to experts’ perception of good governance in practice. This might bring to the fore new knowledge or insights about good governance in public organisations. Therefore, the interview will hold multiple questions about what is considered good governance: about whether the theoretical working definition of good governance aligns to the experts’ perception in practice; whether there are aspects that are regarded to be important but missing in the definition; and whether aspects of the definition are regarded not relevant for good governance. The following questions will be included in the interview:

- What do you think that good governance within public organisations is?

- Does this working definition of good governance align with what you regard as good

governance in public organisations?

- When looking at the working definition of good governance, do you think there are

elements that need to be left out or added to the definition?

Moreover, after all the criteria for each main process (steering, controlling and monitoring) have been assessed, a question will be asked whether the expert feels whether there are criteria missing in the process (steering, controlling or monitoring):

- These were all quality criteria belonging to the process ..., do you miss any quality

criteria which you think are also necessary to include in an assessment framework for good governance?

4.3.2 Theoretical quality criteria of good governance

Taking the theoretical working definition as a basis, it will now be examined which theoretical quality criteria from the CAF Model are needed to assess the security region on its governance.

The theoretical working definition is:

“Guaranteeing the mutual coherence of the way an organisation is steered, controlled and monitored, focusing on an efficient and effective realization of the policy goals, as well as an open way of communication and accountability towards the stakeholders. All these activities must be conducted in an ethical manner.”

The definition reflects the three main processes and the five guiding principles of good governance. It will now be established which quality criteria from the CAF Model reflect the definition and are necessary to assess the security regions on its governance. Each of the

Assessment of the quality of good governance in security regions in the Netherlands