The Impact of Expert Ideas on Political Debates

(1)

The Impact of Expert Ideas on Political Debates

regarding the influx of refugees to the Netherlands

between 2002-2017

Master thesis

AUTHOR: Lisa Waage PROGRAM:

MSc Public Administration, Leiden University DATE: 13th of March 2019 SUPERVISOR: Dr. J. Christensen CONTACT: Address: Fultonstraat 28 Phone number: 0031 – (0)6 27 888 202 E-mail: lisawaage@hotmail.nl

(2)

List of tables /figure

Names

Figure 1.1 Distinction between immigrant groups Table 3.1 List of respondents and motivation Table 3.2 Overview measures key variables

Table 4.1 Party policy ideas CDA harsh measures 2002-2017 Table 4.2 Party policy ideas CDA soft measures 2002-2017 Table 4.3 Party policy ideas VVD harsh measures 2002-2017 Table 4.4 Party policy ideas VVD soft measures 2002-2017 Table 4.5 Party policy ideas PvdA harsh measures 2002-2017 Table 4.6 Party policy ideas PvdA soft measures 2002-2017 Table 4.7 Party policy ideas SP harsh measures 2002-2017 Table 4.8 Party policy ideas SP soft measures 2002-2017 Table 4.9 Party policy ideas D66 harsh measures 2002-2017 Table 4.10 Party policy ideas D66 soft measures 2002-2017 Table 4.11 Strategic agreement 2002

Table 4.12 Coalition agreement 2003 Table 4.13 Coalition agreement 2006 Table 4.14 Coalition agreement 2010 Table 4.15 Coalition agreement 2012 Table 4.16 Coalition agreement 2017

(5)

List of abbreviations

Abbreviation Name in full English Name

VVD People’s Party for Freedom Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en

and Democracy Democratie

PvdA Labor Party Partij van de Arbeid

PVV Party for Freedom Partij voor de Vrijheid

CDA Christian Democratic Appeal Christen-Democratisch Appèl

SP Socialist Party Socialistische Partij

D66 Democrats 66 Democraten 66

GL GreenLeft Groenlinks

CU ChristianUnion ChristenUnie

SGP Reformed Political Party Staatskundig Gereformeerde Partij

PvdD Party for the Animals Partij voor de Dieren

LPF List of Pim Fortuyn Lijst Pim Fortuyn

UNHCR United Nations High Verenigde Naties Hoge Commissioner for Refugees Commissaris voor de Vluchtelingen

AMA Unaccompanied minor asylum Alleenstaande minderjarige

seeker asielzoeker

WRR Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Scientific Council for Government

Regeringsbeleid Policy

SGP Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau Social and Cultural Planning Office

(6)

Preface

I would have never been able to turn in this thesis without my strong support group that has helped me every step of the way. First of all, my parents, sister and dog Jack who have supported me from the beginning to the end with lots of love and understanding. Secondly, I would like to give a special shout out to my uncle Herbert ter Beek as he helped me to stay on the right track when I lost my clear thoughts and provided me many times with interesting insights on the subject. Finally, I would like to show my appreciation to my supervisor Mr. Christensen who has patiently provided me with advice and guidance throughout the research process of the last six months.

(7)

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The impact of expert ideas on political debates

Within the study of political science, the concept of expertise in government has become more important than ever before. Knowledge utilization in general is premised on the idea that precise and technical information creates well-thought out policy ideas to give an appropriate mean to a satisfactory end. In this reasoning, politicians and policy-makers rely on scientific publications that are produced by social scientists and academics or other experts that have profiled themselves within a particular policy area. This premise is based on the instrumental knowledge utilization model as it implies that the knowledge produced by experts has the potential to amend the policy outcome. Following this logic, it can be argued that experts have to some degree influence over which policy ideas are present within politics and the political debates. The aforementioned scenario is an ideal situation in which information is perceived to be ‘’perfect’’ which refers to its empirical accuracy, its thoroughness and obtainability to anyone at no cost (Stone, 2012). Consequently, society and politics would than as a result profit from it. Yet, in practice it is expected that this is not the case as there are many sociological factors at play during political debates among political parties. Stone (2012) refers to this as the ‘Policy Paradox’ in the sense that the most suitable policy idea does not automatically mean that it will be convey during the political debates or in politics in general.

1.2 The theoretical model….

Due to the contemporary political sphere and the often highly politicized and contested nature of policy areas, a broad array of policy ideas and discourses have emerged over the years making politics more complicated than ever before. Consequently, there are many competing ideas present in the political and public sphere, it has been become challenging to achieve consensus on one policy idea. This is in particular the case within a multi-party system in which numerous parties exist with each different party ideologies, interests and policy preferences. In addition, the interpretation of the perfect policy idea is expected to differ greatly per political party. Symbolic use of expert knowledge might change the nature of the political debate highlighting a political struggle over policy ideas. Politicization and social contestation have greatly increased the number of idea sets and discourses within a policy

(8)

area. It is therefore expected that expert policy ideas are selectively chosen on the basis of party ideologies and interests which emphasizes the ‘fuzzy’ reality of contemporary politics.

1.3 …. and the fuzzy reality

The policy paradox refers to the idea that rational and scientific analysis is in no sense a leading factor to embrace a particular policy idea in the political debate. The fuzzy reality of politics refers to the idea that political debates and processes are socially constructed involving ideas and beliefs of what ought to be. Politicians in this sense are driven by how individuals and the general public interpret information as frequently political actors strive to control interpretations of a particular policy issue. That is not to say that the policy ideas produced by experts are not of importance for politicians. It implies that the knowledge provided by these experts is utilized in a different manner involving careful consideration and how the particular expert idea can benefit the political party. As Stone (2012 reported: ‘’Political candidates and their campaign advisers are notorious for their creative presentation of information, or spin’’ (p. 31). It is part of strategic manipulation that can serve as a legitimating tool or political ammunition to validate policy ideas that were already decided in advance (Boswell, The political functions of expert knowledge, 2008). A struggle over power, policy ideas and interests has become vital in the ‘fuzzy’ politicized policy areas.

1.4 Focus on immigration debate

This research focuses on the immigration debates in the Netherlands. Immigration debates have a wide range of topics, therefore it is important to outline is that this thesis only focuses on refugees and not on other types of immigrants (see. figure 1.1).World-wide, immigration issues have become a highly politicized policy-area as it covers a complex and transnational problem making it a global contemporary issue. The relevance of studying immigration is therefore necessary due to the contemporary nature of the issue at hand as well as the urgent need for a suitable policy idea. The Netherlands is chosen as the unit of analysis as it is an interesting case as the Netherlands has a multi-party system involving a fragmented community with diverging policy ideas. Nevertheless, the one political party nearly never obtains a qualified majority meaning that a compromise between parties is unavoidable and needed in Cabinet. Within this majority coalition, different parties need to cooperate and

(9)

propose policy ideas while having different policy preferences, interests and possibly goals making the political debates immensely complex.

Figure 1.1 Distinction between immigrants groups

1.5 Research question

Therefore it is interesting to research whether expert policy ideas that are backed up by scientific insights are capable to possibly influence political debates regarding immigration issues in the Netherlands. A community of individual Dutch experts has researched the topic extensively and how current immigration affairs will affect the future of the Netherlands. Therefore, the following research question has been formulated:

’What is the influence of expert ideas on political debates regarding the influx of refugees in the Netherlands between 2002 and 2017?’’.

1.6 Methodological approach

This thesis has an explanatory nature and aims to find a causal relationship between the two key variables: expert ideas and political debates. This research will focus on understanding and explaining why and how political actors utilize expert policy ideas in political debates. In addition, this thesis uses a deductive research approach as it aims to generate a theory which will be outlined in the theoretical framework which will be tested against the collected data. The data includes in-depth interviews with experts and spokespersons of the political parties,

(10)

political documents found in the Documentation Center Dutch Political Parties on the website of the University of Groningen as well as relying on secondary literature and internet search.

After collecting the relevant data for this thesis, the information will be analyzed as a within-case analysis as The Netherlands is the sole unit of analysis of this research. The different types of obtained data will be compared and conclusions are drawn.

Analyzing the influence of expert policy ideas in the Dutch immigration political debates will contribute scientifically as it is important to consider what exactly drives political behavior in politicized policy areas. In addition, it is important to consider why and how certain expert policy ideas are utilized and others are not. Important questions that can be asked are why some of these experts heard (to some extend) are and others then ignored? To what extent are politicians open-minded when information is provided to them? This research also has an important societal relevance as The Netherlands is known for its multiculturalism. Immigration is highly present in the Netherlands, as it is visible in every aspect of daily life if people want to see it or not. Immigration concerns all citizens living in The Netherlands as it has an impact on society as a whole. Whether decisions include multiculturalism or selective admission, either way it will affect Dutch society. Therefore, it is of societal importance to find out what drives political behavior.

Firstly, the theory chapter will outline a clear conceptualization of the expected relationship between the concepts as well as providing a clear theoretical argument. Secondly, the methodology chapter will outline the research design, the methodological approach as well as the limitations of the study. Thirdly, a systematic analysis will be provided which is divided into four main parts. The first part of this chapter will include the historical case context pre-2002. The second part will highlight a few expert policy ideas. The third part involves data regarding the political debates in the Netherlands between 2002 and 2017. The final part of the analysis chapter involves the interpretation of all the presented data. Finally, a conclusion will be draw that emphasizes the most important findings of the thesis and highlights a few possible recommendations for future research.

(11)

2 Theory

The purpose of this thesis is to research what the influence of expert policy ideas is on political immigration debates in the Netherlands between 2002 and 2017. The aim of this chapter is to find out why expert ideas are utilized by politicians in the first place as well as finding out how these expert ideas influence political debates e.g. a shift in party preferences. Therefore, this chapter is divided into four main parts:

1. First, the two key variables will be conceptualized, namely expert ideas (IV) and political debates (DV) which will be outlined in paragraph 2.1.

2. Second, the importance of expert ideas in political debates is presented in paragraph 2.2.

3. Third, several knowledge utilization models will be introduced to outline why politicians utilize expert ideas and possibly influence political debates. This part will be outlined in paragraph 2.3.

4. Last, the theoretical argument will be outlined followed by an expectation that is formulated to help answer the research question. This part can be found in

paragraph 2.4.

2.1 Conceptualization of expert ideas and political debates

Across social sciences, there is a wide-ranging scope of definitions for the concept of ‘experts’ that is frequently used interchangeable. In the broad sense, experts can be regarded as experts or academics in a particular policy field as they have studied and researched the policy area intensively for many years. They have researched the issue on many different occasions and have obtained technical information on the matter compared to ordinary people. These experts have spent many years researching particular phenomena within the field often contrary to politicians who rotate every so often. Experts can be able to transfer technical information and policy ideas to politicians with the intent that it might benefit politicians to formulate policy solutions for a particular problem at hand.

The aforementioned definition is a far-reaching conceptualization of the concept expert. There are multiple scholars in the field of social sciences that refer to different concepts of the term expertise. Haas (1992), for instance, refers to the concept of epistemic communities,

(12)

Sabatier (1978) as advocacy coalitions and Béland and Cox (2010) to expert ideas. These concepts refer to one another in the general sense, yet have different explicit definitions. This interconnectedness of these concepts is inaccurate and does not imply the same definition of ‘experts’. Having a closer look at the concept epistemic communities, Haas (1992) refers to epistemic communities as ‘’a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competences in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area’’ (p. 3). These networks or communities all have a few things in common, namely shared normative and principled beliefs as well as shared interests about cause-effect relationships. Sabatier’s (1978) concept also refers to a community in which a group of experts and politicians form a coalition together against at least one other coalition. Each coalition shares the same policy ideas and beliefs that are favored to be visible in the political debate. The concept provided by Béland and Cox (2010) do not refer to a group of experts that all hold the same beliefs and policy ideas rather they refer to individual social scientists or academics who is able to provide legitimate policy ideas on a particular matter. Expert ideas refer to the ideas that are generated by experts in order to resolve policy issues, i.e. finding an appropriate means to an end. The goal of expert ideas is to provide the most suitable policy solution and thus indirectly (and sometimes directly) influence political behavior. The distinction between the different concepts is imperative and therefore these notions should not be used interchangeable as these notions have a different meaning.

This thesis conceptualizes the notion ‘experts’ as social scientists, academics, and other independent specialists that have profiled themselves within a specific policy domain who have a adequately legitimate claim to a body of knowledge that they utilize to generate appropriate expert policy ideas to solve complex policy issues.

This definition refers to the idea that experts may provide advice, or are consulted by politicians, to bring their expert interpretation to solve the policy issue at hand. As stated by Haas (1992) political actor’s value expert ideas, especially when uncertain circumstances are at play. The expert’s interpretation and opinion might be of importance for politicians as these are ‘’based on their own causally informed vision of reality and their notions of validity’’ (Haas, 1992, p.21). Béland and Cox (2010) claim that expert policy ideas can provide a clear understanding of the situation at hand and the political problems that are linked to in. In addition, experts are presumed to scientifically research the issue and consequently try to offer a feasible policy solution to politicians. As cited by several scholars

(13)

(Campbell, 2002; Béland and Cox, 2010; Hall, 1993) expert ideas can be relevant for politicians as it combines causal and normative principles which might be valuable for society.

In politics, political debates are frequently held to negotiate with other politicians to find the most appropriate mean to an end. This is a dynamic process in which at least two parties are expected to spar ideas and policy solutions. This process becomes even more complex in a multi-party system in which multiple parties aim to win the debate by sparring ideas. In a parliamentary democracy, a multi-party system is usually present. Most often a coalition among different parties is needed to gain majority support in parliament. Due to the fact that parliamentarism refers to a multi-party system in which there are multiple parties present in the political debate, many diverging policy ideas are present as well within the policy area. In particular many policy ideas are present as each political party represents a different section of society. For instance labor, liberal and Christian parties are divided over the left-center-right wing spectrum with each their own party ideologies, interests and policy preferences resulting in diverging policy ideas and interpretation of the problem. The parties that are forming the coalition need to agree or find a reasonable compromise. Often political debates refer to a political ‘fight’ among politicians in order to win the argument. It involves a dynamic process in which sometimes nobody wins. Nevertheless, political debates are the tools to start the negotiation and exchange and convey policy ideas in order to persuade the other parties to follow their policy preferences.

This thesis conceptualizes the concept of political debates as a dynamic process or discourse between at least two parties that have different policy preferences and who both aim to influence political behavior during the debates and the policy-making process.

Before the political ‘fight’ among different parties commence as outlined above, each individual party needs to come up with their own preferences which may or may not be with the help of the consultation of scientific experts. This process might involve persuasion from the expert to the politicians or political parties seeking advice from experts. In the political science literature, expert ideas are increasingly recognized as major factors in politics (Béland & Cox, 2010). The next section will outline the importance of the presence of expert policy ideas in political debates.

(14)

2.2 The importance of expert ideas in political debates

Expertise has become an important factor in societies and in policy-making. Over the years, policy-making processes have become more complex in nature due to the increasing uncertainty in the political environment. Decision-makers are challenged with voluminous uncertainties that are ever more complex and technical in nature. As stated by Schön and Rein (1994) it is not uncommon for certain policy areas to cope with ‘’wicked’’ or intractable’’ disputes due to rise of politicization and social contestation. Politicians were not familiarized to this broader range of uncertain and intractable policy issues resulting that politicians have turned to experts to alleviate uncertainties and complexities to help them comprehend contemporary policy problems and future directions (Haas, 1992). Uncertainty is a key driver for politicians to consider expert ideas in political debates. Conditions of uncertainty in this sense is characterized as ‘’make[ing] choices without adequate information about the situation at hand or in the face of the inadequacy of available general knowledge needed for assessing the expected outcomes of different courses of action’’ (Haas, 1992, p. 13 ).

A growing number of policy issues faced by decision-makers nowadays can be argued to be in need of expert interpretation. Haas (1992) argues that external shocks might drive political actors to search for legitimate help from experts in order to get a better understanding of the policy issue. Following this logic it can be assumed that often political actors are not aware of their possible limited understanding of a complicated policy issue until after an external shock has occurred. Birkland (1997) refers to these external shocks as a focusing event which stimulates issue expansion and group mobilization. In this research it would imply that politicians mobilize themselves to seek additional support and help from experts resulting in research-policy interaction. It has become clear that politicians and policy-makers have become aware that scientific insights and expert policy ideas can create opportunities and within the political arena. Even more importantly, several scholars state that the use of expert ideas has become an important determinant in political debates and discourses by shaping the content of public policies (Christensen, 2018), and when experts ideas are conveyed into political debates, it can be argued that these experts have to a certain degree influence over political debates and discourses.

(15)

Within these political debates and discourses, each political party presents their policy preferences in order to persuade other parties in following their policy ideas. Political debates involve interactive negotiations among political parties. Each party presents its own policy stance and ideas making it a dynamic process. Discursive intuitionalism (DI) provides explanations for the dynamics within these political debates. DI scholars contend that there are two spheres that are of importance when talking about conveying ideas within political debates and discourses.

1. The first step is the coordinative sphere in which political parties individually formulate their policy ideas and positions. In this step, a wide range of actors are present which might include the consultation of experts (Schmidt 2010).

2. The next step is the communicative political sphere, in which the formulated policy ideas that have been formulated in the previous step are communicated and deliberated with all the political parties in the political debate (Schmidt, 2010).

This thesis only focuses on the first step outline why and how expert ideas are present within the coordinative sphere. When experts are consulted by political parties in the coordinative sphere, the experts might influence the dynamics of the communicative sphere in order to win the argument via legitimization or substantiation functions. In this sense, the utilization of expert ideas by politicians could benefit politics in coordinating accurate policy solutions that are scientifically backed up. Therefore, three knowledge utilization models will be outlined which may provide explanations as to why and how politicians utilize expert ideas and vice versa.

2.3 Knowledge utilization models

Following the logic that many social scientists, academics and other intellectuals are strategic and legitimate sources to investigate feasible policy ideas (Campbell, 2002), several scholars have addressed why and how politicians utilize expert ideas (Knorr 1977; Pelz 1978;Weiss 1980; Weiss and Bucuvalas 1980; Boswell, 2008; Beyer, 1997). Across the social sciences literature, different knowledge utilization models are formulated that may be able to provide a clear explanation and understanding of why some experts are able to influence political

(16)

debates and consequently why some experts are not. Three main types of research utilization models are identified:

1. The instrumental knowledge utilization model (paragraph 2.3.1) 2. The conceptual knowledge utilization model (paragraph 2.3.2) 3. The symbolic knowledge utilization model (paragraph 2.3.3)

2.3.1 The instrumental knowledge utilization model

The instrumental model is a research model that is based on meritocracy. In theory when the government encounters a complex policy issue, they seek assistance from experts to fill in the gaps with expert knowledge i.e. sound reasoning and empirical knowledge to deal with the issue at hand (Boswell, 2008). During the selection of expert ideas, experts are carefully chosen on the basis of merit and evidence. The instrumental knowledge utilization model is comparable to the rational choice model. In this sense, expert ideas are valued in an instrumental and analytical manner helping the political party or parliament to deal with the complex and uncertain policy problem. Research is an instrument for politics to create rational policy ideas which is assumed to have a direct effect on the policy itself. Politicians tend to utilize research and expert ideas to guide policy. This type of knowledge utilization is often referred to as the ‘evidence-based policy-making’. Weiss (1979) refers to a similar model, namely the ‘problem-solving’ model which emphasizes as well that the selected expert policy idea will be directly applied to solve the problem. Beyer (1997) and Boswell (2008) refer to this as the instrumental model involving politicians to maximize their authority as well as achieving their goals.

In addition, this model relates to an extent to Habermas’ work. His theory was that science should engage in politics in order to solve policy issues. This refers to the process of ‘scientification’ in politics. The scientification of politics highlights the idea that governments seek advice from individual researchers or from academic institutions to solve policy issues within a democracy. Habermas emphasized that governments rely on expert ideas as these ideas often lead to a pragmatic nature which falls within technological rationality (Habermas, 1988). This model can be implemented via a principal-agent structure in which political actors (principal) request assistance from experts (agents) to formulate evidence-based policy ideas. The expectation is that the expert research provides empirical evidence and

(17)

recommendations that aid to put a mean to an appropriate end. In this scenario, policy preferences are not taken into account. The instrumental knowledge utilization rather examines the most opportune policy outcome.

Nevertheless, this model of knowledge utilization has received many criticisms over the years due to the cognitivelimitations of calculating rationality i.e. bounded rationality as well as the lack of realism (Amara, Ouimet & Landry, 2004). The latter limitation of this model was confirmed in the study conducted by Caplan, Morrison, & Stambaugh (1975) whose research findings suggest that policy ideas that are utilized instrumentally may sporadically result to a direct application on political debates and decisions. In all the other cases, diffuse and indirect influence of the policy idea may be more suitable in explaining why politicians utilize ideas. This brings us to the next knowledge utilization model, namely the conceptual or enlightenment model.

2.3.2 The conceptual knowledge utilization model

The conceptual model refers to expert ideas that have an indirect influence on policy by shedding light on problems within the political arena. The conceptual knowledge utilization model is to an extent similar to the instrumental model, yet the policy ideas do not directly affect the political debates and decisions. Expert ideas permeate the political debate via creating awareness in the public debate. The logic follows that if experts voice their ideas in the public debate, citizens will become informed about their expert ideas resulting in a possible shift of how people interpret policy issues and the proposed policy solutions (Weiss, 1979). Weiss (1979) refers to this model as the enlightenment model as it ‘enlightens’ the public and prompts political actors to utilize specific expert ideas to deal with the policy issue. In this sense, there is no assumption that politicians are consulting experts when faced with a policy issue or even that they are open-minded to listen to them. Politicians are not expected to directly utilize expert ideas within this type of model, but they may be influenced by them in a less obvious and more indirect way. The overall focus is that experts voice their expert ideas in the public debate in order to create awareness and shed light on some delicate matters they have researched.

When expert ideas are present in public dialogues, it might still reach politicians. Citizens, NGO’s and other non-state actors might agree with the findings and start public involvement

(18)

programs and initiatives to transfer the expert idea from public dialogues to the political debate. This process has been made easier by the media which often serves as an intermediary. The media serves as a mediator that sends information from one place to another. The end goal is to inform the public as well as the political sphere and to possibly influence the coordinative policy sphere. Nevertheless, the intermediary can be irrelevant as experts now have the opportunity to transfer their policy ideas to the public discourse. With the emergence of social media, experts are able to put their publications and policy ideas directly on the internet potentially leading to awareness. Even though this model does not directly affect the content of public policies, this model can be powerful when politicians become interested in the presented policy ideas presented in the public discourse. It would in that case be possible for the expert to have a degree of influence once the expert idea enters the political debate i.e. coordinative sphere.

2.3.2 The symbolic knowledge utilization model

The final model discussed is the symbolic knowledge utilization model that favors policy preferences over policy outcomes. It refers to the idea that politicians have a relatively fixed set of ideological preferences which may result selectively utilizing research ideas that best promotes such preferences (Boswell, 2009). Within this model there are two types of functions politicians tend to use when utilizing expert ideas, namely the legitimizing and substantiating function (Boswell, 2008). The former function indicates that utilizing an expert idea is just a symbolic act as it highlights the political party’s capacity to make sound decisions via enhancing the legitimation of the propose policy solution (Boswell, 2008). Formulating policy solutions with the consultation of scientific experts might increase the acceptance of the proposed policy solution. As Boswell (2008) reported: ‘Where actors in the environment set store by expert knowledge, they will be keen to demonstrate a commitment to research’’ (Boswell, 2008, p. 474). Experts are asked for advice resulting in a possibly better acceptance of the proposed policy solution as the policy solution is backed up by empirical evidence. In that sense when expert ideas are taken in implemented in the political discourse, the political party that utilizes the idea can have the power to justify a particular mean to an end. This model selects a policy idea that fits within the party’s interests as well as backing their policy choice up with evidence-based research to increase legitimacy.

(19)

The substantiating function goes one step further than the legitimating function as in this function the policy solutions are already predetermined in advance. Evidence-based research still plays an important factor however it is not so much about the content of the expert idea rather than the pure fact that research has been done (Weiss, 1979). The empirical research and expert idea serve as political ammunition for an already pre-determined political idea (Weiss, 1986; Sabatier, 1978; Majone, 1989). To substantiate an expert idea can serve as an instrument to deviate from critique or to scientifically legitimizing an already preordained policy solution. Weiss (1979) and Whiteman (1985) refer to this model as the political model. By the same token, Whiteman (1985) concluded that most noteworthy difference between this substantiating function and other functions within the knowledge utilization models is the fact that policy ideas have been decided upon in advance. Weible (2008) outlines this function as knowledge utilization function that strategically legitimizes predetermined policy ideas. Knorr (1977) provides the same definition for the political use of knowledge, yet Knorr highlights that information and ideas are utilized ‘selectively and often distortingly’ (Knorr, 1977). This type recognizes the credibility of the knowledge produced by experts as factual claims even though the experts are carefully selected on the basis of the content of the predetermined policy.

Key factors of the substantiating function that may lead to the use of the substantiating function can be influenced by two features of the policy area (Boswell, 2008). The first includes the amount of social contestation is involved in the policy area. If there is a lot of social contestation within the policy area, politicians might try to find extra credibility to support the predetermined policy choice (Boswell, 2008). The second feature involves the mode of settlement that is technocratic versus democratic modes (Boswell, 2008). Frequently, these modes of settlement are present in a policy area that has multiple diverging policy ideas present within the debate (Radaelli, 1999) which is often in highly politicized policy areas. This refers back to the multi-party system that has multiple parties with each of them having different interests using expert ideas to their advantage highlight the policy positions that were already made in advance.

(20)

2.4 Fragmented communities and multiple ideas within politicized policy areas Many scholars within the field political science and public administration have become interested in finding out how certain expert ideas drive political behavior and the political debates. One of the leading factors that might encourage how expert ideas are utilized by politicians may result from the nature of the particular policy area. Politicization is expected to play an important determinant to enhance the utilization of expert policy ideas. Once an issue becomes politicized, it can be expected that legitimate political debates and discourses do not only involve the elite politics, now also including mass politics and public discourses. One indicator of the concept politicization is social contestation as politicization enables the emergence of new modes of decision-making. A policy issue that is highly politicized and contested in nature might result in a conflict between political parties with diverging policy ideas. Therefore, politicians are in need of expertise to gain support as well as credibility in their predetermined policy ideas.

This thesis assumes that politicians will utilize expert ideas in a symbolic manner, in particular a substantiating manner, when politicians are seeking for evidence-based policy-ideas to increase credibility. The sole reason for this expectation results from the fact that within a multi-party system, party ideologies and preferences are of key importance to the public interest. Political parties would under no unnecessary circumstance suddenly change policy preferences without a certain external focusing event that would mobilize such a change. Therefore, political competition is expected between at least two parties with different ideologies and interests. It can thus only be expected that these opposite parties would seek advice from or consult experts that have the same type of policy ideas to promote the party’s overall goals and preferences. Or it is possible to consult experts in order to deflect from opposite party’s policy preferences to alienate voters or diminish credibility in their particular policy idea.

Symbolic use of expert ideas is expected to occur in both a highly politicized and contested in nature with multiple policy ideas. Weiss (1980) claims that, indeed, the symbolic model is more dominant in politics compared to the other knowledge utilization models. Even more importantly, a study conducted by Scholten and Verbeek (2015) researched multiple hypotheses of which one referred to the idea that symbolic model is used more often than instrumental knowledge utilization models in politicized policy-areas, which in fact was

(21)

proven to be true. Their research assumes that symbolic use, in particular the substantiating function, is often included in the process of knowledge utilization. Politicized policy areas have a high level of contestation and often include a political and societal fragmentation of groups with different idea sets. It is expected that within a parliamentary system a fragmented community of parties exists with each their own interests and preferences making specific expert ideas extremely difficult to be implemented in political debates. Nevertheless, as political talks involve a struggle for power, each party is aiming to take the lead and trying to win the argument. Expert ideas can serve as the missing political ammunition tool to win the argument in the political debate.

Sociological factors are becoming an important determinant in deciding which expert idea is able to successfully penetrate political debates and why other ideas are not. The argument presented in this research follows the idea that each political party has a socially constructed idea of what reality is. Political parties have their own ideas and interpretations of reality which as a result affects the creation of policy solutions as well as which experts are called upon for advice. The concept of reality is mediated by prior assumptions, expectations and experience. There is no objective basis for pinpointing what reality is making all claims for objectivity socially constructed. Politicians and parties have an interest in utilizing knowledge that is close to their interpretation of what reality is contrary to instrumental knowledge utilization. This reasoning emphasizes the fit between the expert idea and the environment. Peter Hall (1989) argues that the adoption of Keynesian ideas depends on how well ideas fit within the political-economic environment as well as within the party’s goals and interests. This results in different interpretations of problem definition as well as formulating solutions for the problem leading to dissimilar policy ideas within the policy area. Therefore, the following hypothesis/expectation is formulated:

H1: In a highly politicized and contested policy area, political parties only tend to symbolically utilize expert ideas that are in line with their public interests.

If politicians only utilize expert ideas symbolically to increase credibility for predetermined policy ideas, the influence of experts on political debates might be questioned as it is not about the policy outcome any longer, rather about the policy preference.

(22)

3 Methodology

3.1 Type of research

The overall aim of this research is to explore whether there is a causal relationship between the concepts expert ideas and political debates. The research has an explanatory nature as its main purpose is to attempt to shed light on a particular phenomenon. The research solely focuses on one unit of analysis that is the Netherlands. This study solely focuses on the influence of expert ideas on the political immigration debates in the Netherlands making this study a case study as one phenomenon is researched over a longer period of time. A within-case analysis is applied in the research analysis in order to explore the within-case of the Netherlands in more detail. and find out possible patterns throughout the political debates. The main focus of this research is to what extent experts may influence the political debates. To shed light on this question, this thesis uses a deductive research approach as it aims to generate a theory which will be tested against the collected data (see chapter3.3). In order to test the data, qualitative methods as well as retrieving important political documents will guide the analysis chapter to answer the research question.

3.2 Case selection

The unit of analysis for this research is the Netherlands. There are several reasons for selecting the Netherlands as the case study. The first reason involves the politicized nature of the political immigration debates in the Netherlands. Over the years, the immigration debates have undergone a severe shift in policy ideas to the extent that anti-immigrant parties have emerged trying to lead the debates. The Netherlands is selected for this case-study as the Netherlands is one of the first Western European countries where an anti-immigration party became successful and gained parliamentary representation. It is interesting to find out whether experts have had an influence in the shift of policy ideas throughout the years. At first anti-immigration ideas were seen as taboos (pre-2002) for many years which eventually have shifted the debate to a different direction i.e. from multicultural towards selective admission policy ideas. Therefore, the time period for this research begin in 2002 as that was the start when immigration debates became interesting as non-political ideas entered the debate.

(23)

Within the theme of immigration, a clear gap between the left-wing and right-wing parties has occurred. This can be linked to the fact that the Netherlands enjoys a multi-party system in which multiple parties have to compromise with one another to gain majority support. It is not uncommon that right-wing and left-wing parties form a coalition together. When a coalition is formed each political party still has its own preferences and policy positions, yet political parties need to agree during political debates on what policy ideas to take on. It is therefore interesting to find out whether non-state experts and their expert ideas on immigration have had an influence on the Dutch political debates regarding immigration. Therefore, the Dutch case has been selected to examine the possible causal relationship between expert ideas and political debates in the Netherlands.

3.3 Data collection

To find out what the influence of expert ideas is on the Dutch immigration debates, several data sources have been collected. The first collected data involves desk research and internet search. Secondary literature about the topic had been collected in order to find out what has already been written about the topic, to also shed some light on the Dutch case as well as researching different experts within the policy area of immigration. In addition, political documents from the Documentation Centrum Dutch Political Parties archive from the University of Groningen will be consulted. These political documents entail election programs from five political parties in the Netherlands between 2002 and 2017. These programs will be used to analyze the political debates throughout the years. Finally, several in-depth interviews will be conducted in order to present a well-balanced analysis. A group of individual experts as well as the representatives of the five political parties have agreed to participate in this study. The interviewees have been carefully selected via a non-random sampling technique. All the respondents have been informed about the purpose of the research and that participation is voluntary. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interviewees were all aware of the fact that they were being recorded and all agreed to this. Privacy issues are guaranteed and when favored received the possibility to remain anonymous. A copy of the informed consent letter that has been send to each respondent can be found in Appendix V.

Below a list of all names of the selected interviewees and motivation for selection can be found, see table 3.1.

(24)

Interview respondents Motivation

Mr. van de Beek  Mathematician and anthropologist. Publication name:‘’Kennis, Macht en Moraal: de productie van wetenschappelijke kennis over de economische effecten van migratie naar Nederlands, 1960-2005’’.

Mr. van Dijk  Fraction member of the SP, spokesperson of migration issues

Mr. Emmer  Historian. Publication name: wegsturen of binnenlaten?’’ Mr. Groothuizen  Fraction member of D66, spokesperson of migration

issues

Mr. Lucassen  Historian, published several migration publications Mr. Penninx  Sociologist and anthropologist, published several

migration and integration publications

Ms. Tseggai  City council member of The Hague, spokesperson of migration issues, PvdA

Mr. Werdmölder  Criminologist and anthologist, published several migration and integration publications

Anonymous  City council member, spokesperson of migration issues, VVD

Table 3.1 list of respondents and motivation

3.3 Data analysis

The aim is to find whether expert ideas are able to influence political party’s positions regarding the influx of refugees. The main key concepts of this research are expert ideas which will serve as the independent variable (IV) and political debates which will serve as the dependent variable (DV). Both variables will be measured via a number of measurements. A clear overview of the indicators and measurements can be found in table 3.2.

3.3.1 Independent variable

Firstly, expert ideas will be measured via desk research and internet search. A lot of information can be found in books and article. This is in particular very relevant as the expert publications and the presented policy ideas had to be reviewed and examined. In addition, several books about expertise were consulted in order to obtain a clear understanding about expertise and expert ideas. In addition, internet search was conducted. Several online

(25)

websites as well as newspapers will be analyzed in order to obtain a full understanding of the expert idea.

Secondly, in-depth interviews were conducted in order to ask the expert interviewees about their expert ideas in general as well as trying to obtain additional information and insights about how they look at their own influence on the political debate. In order to avoid research bias, careful consideration of the expert ideas and the differences among them were investigated in order to outline a broader range of expert ideas within the theme of immigration. The five experts were selected non-randomly on the basis of the diversity of proposed policy ideas. The interview guide including all the interview questions can be found in Appendix IV.

Finally, the expert ideas will also be measured via analyzing the election programs. This will be done via looking at the political debate data and trying to find traces of the outlined expert ideas. To find possible traces, each expert idea is categorized into either the multicultural or selective admission category (see 3.3.3.). Afterwards the expert ideas will be compared against the political debate data, which is obtained from the Documentation Center Dutch Political Parties from the University of Groningen archive, in order to find out whether the proposed expert ideas could have had an impact on the debates by looking at potential shifts in party stances.

3.3.2 Dependent variable

Firstly, the political debates will also be measured via desk research. Knowledge about the political parties’ public interests and ideologies are examined beforehand. To add, internet search will also take place in order to find additional information about immigration issues that have taken place in the public and political immigration discourse in the Netherlands over the years. Therefore, news articles will be reviewed as well as secondary literature such as journals and articles about the topic.

Secondly, in-depth interviews have been conducted with four representatives of political parties. The political party standpoints on immigration were asked and more importantly their views on the influence of experts on political debates. The in-depth interviews might shed light on the accessibility of experts’ ideas in the political debates as well as the

(26)

open-mindedness of political actors to utilize expert ideas. The accessibility and open-open-mindedness are important criteria for an expert idea to have an impact in order to reach the political debates. Important to note is that the aim of this study was to interview five representatives of the five political parties that are often placed in Cabinet. In reality, four of the five political party representatives (fraction or municipality) were able to conduct an interview, namely the VVD, PvdA, SP and D66. A complete list of all the respondents can be found in figure 3.1. The representatives were also selected on the basis on non-random sampling techniques as each representative works in the field of immigration, asylum of integration issues for the fraction or a municipality. The interview guide including all the interview questions can be found in Appendix IV.

Finally, the election programs between 2002 and 2017 were analyzed in combination with the coalition agreements that were agreed upon that election year. The election programs are obtained from the Documentation Center Dutch Political Parties from the University of Groningen archive. The aim is to find out whether the expert ideas did to some extent influence the direction of the immigration discourse and whether political parties’ positions changed over the years. The positions of the political parties will be categorized into two types of categories, namely multicultural and selective admission(see 3.3.3). The aim is to trace back possible influences from the expert ideas in the political debates between 2002 and 2017. The categorization of both the expert ideas as well as the political debates will make the possible trace easier to identify and measure. Finally a look at the coalition agreements will outline whether the ideas that were present in the political debates were taken on in the agreement.

Expert ideas (IV) Political debates (DV)

Desk research and internet search Desk research and internet search

In-depth interviews In-depth interviews

Election programs 2002-2017 Election programs 2002-2017 Coalition accords 2002-2017

(27)

3.3.3 Description of the categories

Two categories have been created in order to simplify whether expert ideas have had a shift in party stances. These categories have been created as it is difficult to exactly pinpoint one specific expert idea to a shift in party stances. These categories will provide a general direction of the debate within the political party to still obtain a clear overview whether the expert idea had an influence in general.

The multicultural frame refers to those who want to ‘safe’ all asylum seekers and want to provide a safe haven for them in the Netherlands. This preference is linked to the philanthropic world view. When exhausted refugees cannot to return to their country of origin, they often may stay in the Netherlands and eventually receive a permanent Dutch residence permit.

The selective admission frame refers to those that put national interest on top as it is often unclear whether they are helping ‘real’ political refugees or economic refugees. As the distinction is difficult to determine, preventive and restrictive measures are taken for instance to situate political refugees outside of the country i.e. shelters in the region. Once it is confirmed that the refugees are indeed fleeing from persecution, they possibly can be resettled in the Netherlands but preferably in the region of origin. This preference highlights national interests as well as helping those that are really in need of an accommodation. When the danger in the country has passed, refugees have to return. Sometimes quotas are put in place to determine how many refugees the Netherlands will take in.

3.4 Limitations

The first limitations involves the time period in which this research was conducted, namely between October 2018 and March 2019. Not all spokespersons of all parties were reachable or willing to participate in this research on short notice. Alternative measures were taken to still obtain information about the political party from city council members. However, not all political party representatives, either fraction or council member, were interviewed, namely none of the fraction or city council members of the CDA were interviewed. This is a limitation; however the interviews of the political parties are complementary to the election programs. The interview data that is missing in is still ben to some extent present in the election programs.

(28)

The second limitation includes the lack of representative reliability. Non-random sampling was used to select five experts that will serve as the sample frame for the entire population. A more suitable sampling technique would be stratified sampling as it involves randomization of the sample population. In this case, the strata would be divided into those that are in favor and against the admission of asylum seekers in the Netherlands. Subsequently, the obtained data would be more reliable regarding generalization of the total population. This sampling technique was ruled out as the individual social scientists and academics in the field of migration are rather limited. Therefore, during the non-random selection of experts a careful consideration was made between the experts and their research findings, meaning that experts from left and right wing ideas were approached, in order to avoid selection bias and increase the level of representative probability. In addition, a nonresponse rate table was included to compensate for potential biases.

The third limitation is that this research is solely based on the immigration debates in the Netherlands between 2002 and 2017. That is not to say that there is no external validity, as there might be some lessons to draw for other Dutch policy issues that are highly politicized or for other countries regarding immigration debates in politics.

The fourth limitation involves the manual categorization of the positions and the expert ideas into the two types of preferences. The categorization is made on my personal interpretation and is therefore subjective. As reality is socially constructed, interpretations might differ. Therefore, face validity might be a limitation of the research.

The fifth limitation includes that other factors can also possibly influence political debates. There are many alternative reasons why something happens and why something does not happen. In the analysis of immigration debates in the Netherlands, alternative reasons have been included. However, it is impossible to fully outline every possible aspect that might have influenced a particular policy decision.

(29)

4 Analysis

4.1 Historical overview and problem definition pre-2002

Looking back at the past, the immigration debates within the Netherlands has changed significantly. Before 2000, the public and political debates on immigration issues were rather limited. Immigration issues it was unheard of to speak negatively about immigration and the consequences it brought to Dutch society. There was a general consensus to not talk about immigration in a negative way.

However, a gradual shift from multicultural ideas to deviating ones within immigration and integration debates took place. This was the start of the emergence of conflicting policy ideas in political debates which brought to light the negative unintended consequences of immigration. The introduction of new policy ideas outlining the negative effects of immigration was seen as non-political correct idea. Bolkestein, who was the leader of the VVD at that time, had shared his concerns about immigration consequences to the public. Bolkestein claimed that integration problems, originating from immigration, should be tackled with ‘courage’ meaning that the Dutch liberal values should be adhered to by all newcomers. Bolkestein argued that the ethnic minority groups should be perceived as a burden for the Dutch Welfare State as they often took in a marginal socio-economic position within society.

This was the start of the introduction of conflicting policy ideas in the political debates. However, it was Pim Fortuyn who broke the taboo. Pim Fortuyn’s expressed his anti-immigration views which led to the acceptance of his right-wing ideas. This caused a change in political debate. For the first time in years, deviant ideas and non-politically correct statements became accepted among the public. This had led to the LPF to become the first electorally successful anti-immigration party in the Netherlands in 2002. The LPF eventually was rewarded with 24 seats in the Second Chamber as his constituency increased by enormously resulting from excessively using the media as a tool to get his ideas across the public. As a result, the tone of political immigration debate has shifted greatly: from an unproblematic policy area to a highly contested and politicized policy area.

The rise of new anti-immigration policy ideas has led to a divided country consisting of many competing policy ideas about how to cope with the influx of refugees. After 2002, the

(30)

political debates have changed even more. With this shift in political debates throughout, party ideologies have become important to form the social construction of the refugee issue at hand, especially since more conflicting policy ideas have emerged due to politicization. The next part will outline a few expert ideas.

4.2 Expert ideas

Within the Netherlands, individual immigration experts have researched and voiced their expert ideas on the refugee influx and immigration issues of the last decade. Due to the complex nature of the refugee issue, multiple expert idea sets are present within society. This section will outline a few of the expert ideas that have been selected on the basis of research findings. There are many more experts present within the public debate, however it is almost impossible to present all expert idea sets on this topic. The main purpose of this section is to outline that there are different policy ideas in Dutch society about immigration.

Paul Scheffer, who is a publicist, wrote ‘’Het Multiculturele Drama’’ in 2000 in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad. This publication highlighted the idea that the multicultural society in the Netherlands has failed as integration problems came to the surface (Scheffer, 2000). The multicultural drama refers to the idea that immigrants, and the generations afterwards, were falling behind as they formed an ethnic underclass stayed compared to Dutch natives. Scheffer might have been one of the first experts that have shed light on immigration and integration issues as it was not discussed in politics at that time. As a result, Scheffer (2000) outlined that a gap had risen between Dutch natives and immigrant children which was growing steadily and in need of political attention. This point was also brought to light in Werdmölder’s article which will be discussed next. In Scheffer’s publication, predictions were made originating from the SCP rapport stating that Dutch society would be burdened and possible collapse if Dutch policy-makers would not deal with these immigrant integration issues (Scheffer, 2000).

Werdmölder, who is a criminologist and anthropologist, wrote an article ‘’Politiek Correct Denken’’. In his article he stated that it was unheard of to speak negatively about migration and integration issues: it was perceived as a taboo. Werdmölder (2002) referred to this taboo with the concept of ‘non-political ideas’ (niet-politieke opvattingen) that should not be present within the political debate. Several definitions of this concept was provided: it can be

(31)

understood as a form of tolerance and inner civilization towards immigrants, or it could refer to political cowardice and naivety which had led to real issues in Dutch society which cannot be discussed (Werdmölder, 2002). In general it can be said that political correctness refers to the enforcement of taken-for-granted norms compelling others towards tolerance. In his article, Werdmölder (2002) poses critical reflection towards intellectuals, journalists and minority experts by saying that they did not understand the complex nature of the taboos and the political correctness at that time. Migration issues were discussed in political debates according to Werdmölder, however, this debate was limited to the acknowledgement of International treaties, humanitarian principles and the right of political asylum (Werdmölder, 2002). Alternative ideas, or taboos, were according to Werdmölder shoved under the carpet. Deviant ideas about immigration were not tolerated; when deviant ideas were introduced social scientists were either labeled as right-wing intellectual or a racist (personal communications, 2018). Werdmölder (2002) stated that on the left-wing spectrum, the debate consisted of dominant sociological and legal thoughts originating from humanitarian principles while turning a blind eye to the scope and gravity of the social issue at hand.

Piet Emmer, who is a historian, and Hans Wansink published the book ‘’Wegsturen of binnenlaten?’’. In the publication, the advantages and disadvantages of immigrants were outlined in the form of ten questions which the authors tried to answer. In general, the idea outlines that the demographic population in the Netherlands is shrinking as the amount of birthrates is declining which would result in a problem to maintain our current population (Emmer & Wansink, 2005). Therefore, the authors propose the idea to selectively allow immigrants to work in the Netherlands, in particular labor immigrants. This group of immigrants will be able to provide benefits for society as a whole. The idea outlines that political refugees are often uneducated and will cost more than they will be able to provide for Dutch society which is said to be a burden (Emmer & Wansink, 2005). Overall, the publication looks at the income pyramid in the Netherlands and discovered that non-western migrants perform badly in the Dutch economy. The conclusion of the book was that is the Netherlands does not selectively allow a small group of immigrants to work in the Netherlands than it is impossible to allow migration flows in the Netherlands. The authors propose two possibilities: or you abolish the welfare state so no more assistance, no unemployment benefit for immigrants, and that they have to figure it out on their own (Emmer & Wansink, 2005). In that case migration to the Netherlands can work. Or you do

(32)

not allow any immigration and maintain the welfare state. There is no way in between. The best solution the authors propose is to only allow migrants to the Netherlands which will most certain earn modally or more.

Van de Beek, who is a Mathematician and anthropologist, has a similar idea how the Netherlands should proceed in the upcoming years. In his PhD dissertation, Kennis, Macht en

Moraal, van de Beek wanted to research about the economic effect of migration to the

Netherlands (Beek, 2010). In his work he described that it regulating migration is important to control the population decline and growth. Without immigration, the population would shrink from 17 to 12 million in 2100 due to the aging and the low birthrate per woman (Beek, 2010). If the net migration continues to grow as it did over the years, the population can reach 24 million inhabitants according to van de Beek (2010). Therefore, van de Beek argues that regulating migration is needed as a population decline comes with several challenges in Dutch society and vice versa when the population in growing significantly (personal communications, 2018). To add, van de Beek (2010) outlines that the Welfare State also requires migration regulation. All in all, van de Beek (2010) proposes for these reasons that the Netherlands should regulate immigration and selectively admit immigrants that are beneficial to the Netherlands to prevent overcrowding or wage pressure.

Lucassen, who is a historian, has written several publications about migration. Overall, Lucassen makes a clear standpoint that he is not in favor of a restrictive policy. Lucassen mentioned in his book Voorbij Fort Europa that he perceives restrictive policy measures as deadly and expensive (Houtum & Lucassen, 2016). Another point made by Lucassen is that Islamic refugees would not be problematic for Dutch society as a whole which is according to Lucassen backed up by scientific reports from the SCP and the WRR (personal communications, 2018). In the WRR publication, Lucassen came to the conclusion that future migration policy can only be effective when policy-makers and politicians change the ‘pessimistic’ view of what causes migration (Lucassen, Naar een duurzaam migratiebeleid: lessen uit het verleden, 2018). Lucassen (2015) outlines that currently migration issues in the Netherlands are highly structured around by the ‘guest workers drama’ which has been become more popular since the 90s when Islamophobia emerged. Consequently, anti-immigration parties emerged which have strengthened the ‘culture pessimistic turn’ (Lucassen & Lucassen, 2015).

The Impact of Expert Ideas on Political Debates