However, there is also a risk: as cooperation grows, it becomes harder for municipal councils to maintain oversight and to steer and control effectively. Research by Rob de Greef of VU Amsterdam shows that while the system is legally sound, democratic control can be under pressure in practice.
Regional cooperative arrangements
Tasks such as waste management, public safety, or regional planning are often organized through so-called joint arrangements, based on the Dutch Wet gemeenschappelijke regelingen (Joint Arrangements Act, Wgr). Municipalities, provinces, and water boards join forces in these arrangements to tackle shared problems and distribute costs.
On paper, the system works well. Leaders of the cooperative arrangements are supervised by the elected municipal councils, through the principle of extended local governance: councils oversee their own aldermen or mayors who participate in the regional arrangement.
In practice, however, this system can be challenging. “Formally, the system works,” says De Greef. “But as more tasks are handled through regional collaborations, it becomes harder for municipal councils to track what is actually happening and to exercise real influence.”
When is direct democracy needed?
In his research, De Greef analyzed international treaties, the Constitution, national laws, and parliamentary history to determine when a governing body should be directly elected by citizens.
He found that a directly elected body is necessary when a government independently makes important policy decisions, can establish rules, and manages its own budget. In such cases, the principle of democracy requires direct citizen representation.
Most regional collaborations formally do not meet these criteria, since their powers ultimately stem from existing municipal councils. Therefore, a directly elected board is usually not required.
The issue is not the law, but the practice
Formally, the Wgr meets minimum democratic standards. In theory, municipal councils can set frameworks, request information, and monitor their representatives.
In practice, however, this does not always work well. The law treats almost all cooperative arrangements the same, even though they differ greatly. Some arrangements handle only practical tasks, while others have significant influence over policy and manage large budgets. Additionally, councillors are losing oversight as the number of collaborations grows. Decisions are often prepared at the regional level, meaning municipal councils only have influence late in the process. “If more and more decisions are made outside the direct view of municipal councils, democratic oversight risks slowly eroding,” says De Greef.
Differentiating between types of cooperation
Collaboration between governments remains necessary, says De Greef. Many societal challenges, from public safety to infrastructure, do not respect municipal boundaries. The challenge is to organize cooperation in a way that preserves democratic oversight. According to De Greef, this can be achieved by distinguishing between different types of collaborations: operational tasks can be organized more lightly, while policy-intensive regional bodies require stronger democratic supervision. “Efficient cooperation is important,” he says. “But citizens must still be able to see who is responsible for decisions and how they are made.”
The findings provide concrete guidance for policymakers, administrators, and elected representatives to organize collaboration that is both effective and democratic.
De Greef will defend his dissertation on this research at VU Amsterdam on 18 May.