Buenas prácticas en la administración de proyectos

The previous chapter outlines the research design of this study, in which was highlighted that the governance industry is developed as a concept in this research. This chapter is dedicated to defining the governance industry and demarcate the organisations belonging to it.

In 2015 the Dutch government invested € 3.8 billion in Official Development Assistance (ODA) (Zijlstra, 2014). The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsidises civil society organisations and companies. Projects as “Rebuilding 2012-2015” and the Human Rights Fund. When subsidising companies, the Ministry focuses on PPP’s (public-private programs), also known as the Dutch Diamond Approach (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-b). Forces and finances between public, private and semi- private organisations are joined to set up projects in, and transfer knowledge to, developing countries (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-b). Partially due to the financial crisis that hit in 2008, the Dutch central government has slimmed its budget for development aid, which is demonstrated by the table below.

Table 3. Official Development Assistance of the Netherlands

Year In Billion USD % of GDP

2004 5.060 0,730 2005 6.061 0,820 2006 6.261 0,810 2007 6.432 0,810 2008 6.705 0,810 2009 6.356 0,820 2010 6.532 0,820 2011 6.203 0,750 2012 5.767 0,710 2013 5.435 0,670 2014 5.523 0,640

For the GI this drop in funding for international projects is notable, because this is funding organisations in the industry make use of. Before exploring this development, this chapter seeks to define what the governance industry is, and why it is worth considering certain organisations as part of one industry.

4.1 What defines the Governance Industry?

The concept of the governance industry is a group of organisations who are involved in the export of knowledge about public governance, whether this is in the field of audit, public

management, public diplomacy, an efficient judicial sector or water and land governance. The industry consists of semi-public and public organisations or departments of such organisations, who are able to execute projects abroad partially funded by the Dutch government (Appendix D). The term governance industry has not been used academically before, and this research aims to develop and substantiate the concept. It is a term coined by Marc van den Muyzenberg (Van Den

Muyzenberg, 2013), taken from the sector in which the organisations reside. The common denominator of the organisations can also be referred to as transferring knowledge about good public governance, hence the label governance industry (GI). It is labelled an industry, because the organisations compete for funding and it requires a business approach to stay active in the field. Aside of this can the group also be framed as a group who is exporting a certain product, in this case Dutch public governance. The term governance industry was inspired by Bert Koenders, the then Minister of Development Cooperation, who noted in 2008 that the “help industry” needs to coordinate more, improve and suffers from fragmentation (Koenders, 2008). With the focus on reducing the fragmentation of the industry

The knowledge which is exported by the GI has the purpose of supporting countries which are seeking solutions for public problems or are going through a transitional change, for example in adopting the acquis communautaire through twinning to become part of the European Union, but

also the Dutch MATRA South programme, which was developed to help Arab and North-African countries through governmental transitions since the Arab spring (Rijksoverheid, 2014).

There are several points one could make about this concept. First, one could argue that it is not necessarily knowledge on Dutch structures which are being exported, because the organisations ultimately aim to work from what the beneficiary country asks of them (Appendix D). However, due to socialisation we can assume that the organisations created in the Netherlands, have a strong background in Dutch governance structures or a Dutch approach (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). DiMaggio and Powell discuss how socialisation as part of professionalisation has a strong influence on the culture within a company or organisation, and argue that this culture is adopted by all

members of the company or organisation (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Furthermore, the GIO have indicated, to indirectly transfer a Dutch way of approach; to include all stakeholders and finding consensus (Table B2).

Another argument could be that it is not an industry, because the GIO serve a public

purpose. It is a market in which supply and demand are important. The demand for projects and the extent to which the organisations can supply these. Furthermore, to ensure that the organisations or departments do not cease to exist, there is the need for financing, and competing for finance. Marketing and promoting oneself is also part of the GI. One of the interviewees also noted: “Also, this line of work requires a certain level of business approach. It is factually about acquiring a biggest as possible share of the market. The approach compared to a commercial industry is definitely different, but in the end it is about “selling” your programs, or being able to do as many projects as you can” (Willem van Nieuwkerk, personal communication, November 24, 2015).

4.1.1 The Criteria

This section outlines the organisations whose performance is analysed for the purpose of this research. They share that they export knowledge on governance structures in diverse sectors.

The focus of their projects is on to organise people or organisations to best pursue public governance. Their aim here is to enhance institutional capacity abroad. However, some of the organisations are actively building capacity abroad, but are simultaneously involved in transferring technical capabilities, e.g. about IT systems. To consider which organisations belong to the industry and which do not and hence define the governance industry, several criteria are outlined below. The criteria are based on the criteria for EU Mandated Bodies (Table 5, European Commission, 2014). These are expanded to fit the purpose of this research.

The decision to base the criteria for the governance industry on the mandated body criteria, was made because in twinning there is a public to public approach, which is one of the key elements of the governance industry. The GI criteria are listed below in Table 5.

Table 4. Mandated Body Criteria European Commission

1. proven competence in a field of the EU acquis or the Twinning project fiche’s relevant field of administrative co-operation;

2. non-profit structure, non-commercial business purpose; 3. public ownership;

4. under the permanent and structural supervision of a government authority;

5. a sufficient and proportionate level of permanent staff. This means, inter alia, that the

permanent staffing has to be commensurate with the requirements of the project so as to avoid the need to subcontract or temporarily hire experts for carrying out Twinning assignments.

Source: European Commission, 2014; 35

Table 5. Criteria for the Governance Industry

Criterium Measurement

1. The organisation’s main focus should be on the export of knowledge about governance structures or the organisation should have a separate department specifically catered to sharing knowledge abroad.

The organisation’s website, mission statement and organigram demonstrate to what extent the organisation itself considers international capacity building important for their organisation.

The first criterium was developed, because this demonstrates the nature of the governance industry. The second criterium distinguishes the governance industry from organisations who focus on technical capacity strengthening, such as implementing IT systems. The third criterium is contingent upon the independent variable of this research. The Dutch soft power, is concerned with national popularity. The relationship between the donor and the beneficiary country of this research hinges on perception. Therefore the organisations need to be identifiable with the Netherlands. Fourth, it is a public to public industry, therefore the organisations should be public or have a public background. Last, the governance industry deals with strengthening countries, not companies. Hence, the focus on aiding public organisations.

As a starting point I considered the European Commission’s (European Commission, 2015) list of mandated bodies and partner agreements between organisations (See Appendix C, for a review of the organisations, also several who did not make the GI.) However, this research only focuses on organisations or departments who’s main objective is to export knowledge about governance structures. To not be too exclusive, companies with a substantive focus are also considered. The following organisations meet the criteria:

2. The organisations/department should have a focus on the transferring of knowledge on governance structures vs. technical capacity; so terms as capacity building and institution building.

The greater part of the international projects is about sharing intangible knowledge vs transferring tangible technical knowledge.

3. The organisation/department needs to have a Dutch background and focus on the export of Dutch knowledge.

• The organisation/department should be led by a Dutch citizen

• This also considers the fact that international

socialisation and the approach of an organisation can blur the boundaries between Dutch knowledge and best practices, therefore this criterium is verified in the interviews.

4. The organisation/department should be public, semi-public or at least an

organisation without the aim to maximise profits. They can also have a public heritage.

• The organisation’s/department’s legal status is considered and their mission statement.

• An organisation automatically meets this criterium if it is an EC Mandated Body, a ZBO or a ANBI.

5. The organisation/department should aim to fulfil a public function and thus focus on aiding public institutions abroad

• The organisation’s projects should be public vs. private. This is verified in the interviews and on the organisation’s website.

1. VNG International 2. PBLQ International 11 3. Clingendael Academy 4. Kadaster International

5. Center for International Legal Cooperation 6. Raad voor de Rechtspraak

7. Belastingdienst Academie 8. Rijksacademie

9. De Algemene Rekenkamer 10. Nationale Ombudsman 11. Dutch Water Authorities 12. TMC Asser Instituut

13. Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy

This list is not exhaustive, which means that it is possible that there are more organisations out there which fit the criteria.

It is worth considering these organisations as an industry, because at times they cooperate together, but mostly ad hoc. However, most believe that more strategic cooperation could benefit all these organisations as some projects, which are shaped by the beneficiary country, require various types of expertise. It would be beneficial if all organisations would know about each other’s expertise, this could help to bring more projects to the Netherlands.

PBLQ came into existence as a fusion of ROI, HEC and ZENC. PBLQ itself does not have mandated body status, but 11

4.2 The Organisations of the Governance Industry

This section outlines how the organisations fit the criteria, per criterium five organisations are discussed. Table 7 presents an overview of how all organisations meet the criteria. Table B3 shows how other organisations were considered but excluded from the list. Appendix C textually outlines per organisation how they fit each criterium and gives more background information on the organisations.

4.2.1 Criterium 1

The organisation’s main focus should be on the export of knowledge about governance structures or the organisation should have a separate department specifically catered to sharing knowledge abroad.

VNG International’s (Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten International - Netherlands Association of Municipalities International) mission is to support processes of decentralisation abroad and support Dutch municipalities in their international activities. As VNG International is a daughter of VNG, it specifically caters to the exporting knowledge abroad (VNG, n.d.). CILC’s (Center for International Legal Cooperation) mission is to strengthen legal systems worldwide, and inherently fits criterium one. Just as VNG International, PBLQ International is the international department of the organisation. PBLQ International is strongly advocated on the website of PBLQ, as Europe and International is one of their 7 themes listed (PBLQ, n.d.). The Rijksacademie considers its international affairs important enough to clearly highlight it on their homepage (Rijksacademie, n.d.). Clingendael Academy is Clingendael’s (The Netherlands Institute of

International Relations) department catering to knowledge, it is a hub of expertise on the subject of international relations and it aims to share its knowledge all over the world. (Clingendael, n.d.).

4.2.2 Criterium 2

The organisations/department should have a focus on the transferring of knowledge on governance structures vs. technical capacity; i.e. terms as capacity building and institution building and not IT systems.

The Rijksacademie is an academy, hence all its projects abroad are focused on conveying knowledge. For Clingendael Academy this is the same. The Kadaster (Cadastre, Land Registry and Mapping Agency) has the division Kadaster International, they divide their projects into three levels; strategic, tactical and operational, for the latter they also transfer information systems and technology, still the focus of their international projects is on intangible knowledge transfers (K. De Zeeuw, personal communication, November 23, 2015). The Dutch Water Authorities is the

international department of the UvW (Unie van Waterschappen - the umbrella organisation for Dutch regional water authorities), their international projects focus on better water management, outlining regional water governance and management. There is also some technical knowledge involved, for example about monitoring water quality and recycling, but their focus remains on governance and management (M. de Ruijter, personal communication, November 25, 2015). The RvdR (Raad voor de Rechtspraak - Council for the Judiciary) is part of The Judiciary, an umbrella organisation for all courts, the High Council or Supreme Court, The Central Council of Profession (CrvB), Institute of Profession for the private sector (CBb).The nature of the RvdR’s expertise is similar to that of CILC, and hence their projects abroad all focus on the transfer of know-how on judicial systems (Raad voor de Rechtspraak, n.d.).

4.2.3 Criterium 3

The organisation/department needs to have a Dutch background and focus on the export of Dutch knowledge.

The Dutch Water Authorities has a strong root in the Dutch administrative traditions, as they have been in existence for about 800 years, being the first form of democratic government in the Netherlands. The Dutch geographical location, partly below sea level, requires strong cooperation. They aim to export knowledge on how this is done in the Netherlands (M. de Ruijter, personal communication, November 25, 2015). The RvdR draws from a completely Dutch expert pool for the execution of their international projects (Raad voor de Rechtspraak, n.d.), one can assume that the export of knowledge by Dutch jurists is based on their Dutch practices and how law is practiced in the Netherlands, because in every country this differs. The AR (Algemene Rekenkamer -

Supreme Court of Audit or Netherlands Court of Audit) also draws from only Dutch expertise for their projects abroad, aside of their approach to work from what the court of audit in the beneficiary country requires, they acknowledge to bring certain Dutch traditions into their projects (B. van Westing, personal communication, November, 30, 2015). The Nationale Ombudsman is a Dutch organisation, drawing exclusively from their own organisation for projects abroad, they confirmed that a Dutch approach was used in their international projects, be it through a cultural filter (S. Sjouke, personal communication, December 2, 2015). The TMC Asser Institute only slightly meets this criterium, it is led by a Dutch citizen, but draws from international experts for their projects abroad. It is part of the university of Amsterdam and founded in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, no response was given for an interview request, so this criterium could not be verified.

4.2.4 Criterium 4

The organisation/department should be public, semi-public or at least an organisation without the aim to maximise profits. They can also have a public heritage.

The Nationale Ombudsman is a semi-public organisation under the supervision of the Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations; just like the NCA, the Nationale Ombudsman is a High Council of State, by Dutch constitution they are independent and autonomous organisations,

but budgetary they fall under a Ministry (Rijksoverheid, n.d.-a). The TMC Asser Institute is a foundation, primarily funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. All three organisations mentioned here also have mandated body status, and are thus allowed to participate in the twinning exercise. The NIMD (Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy) does not have mandated body status, but is an ANBI (Algemeen Nut Beogende Instelling - Public benefit

organisation) and does not have profit maximisation as a goal. Last to discuss here is VNG International. It is a cooperation, but 100% under the control of the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG).

4.2.5 Criterium 5

The organisation/department should aim to fulfil a public function and thus focus on aiding public institutions abroad.

The nature of the expertise of RvdR makes that their projects all aim to support public governance abroad. Further, VNG International’s mission is to support local governments, they are inherently contributing to public governance abroad (VNG International, n.d.). All of CILC’s projects also aim to support governments or public organisations abroad (CILC, n.d.). The same is true for PBLQ International and the Rijksacademie (PBLQ, n.d., Rijksacademie, n.d.)

4.2.6 In sum

Table 6 summarises how the organisations meet the criteria for the governance industry. As mentioned before, Appendix C textually expands on this. It is clear that not all organisations fit the criteria in the same manner, especially for criteria one and three there is quite some variation. Some are listed as just the organisation, some as a daughter of another organisation and some as a

department active in the field of the governance industry. The third criterium was difficult to

them all equal in this regard. However, most organisations did also mention that the manner in which they convey their knowledge should not be a neo-colonial relationship, the focus should be on what the beneficiary wants to learn. To what extent can we then speak of transferring Dutch traditions? During the interviews, the respondents initially were reluctant to talk about exporting Dutch traditions, after careful explanation, that this is not the goal of transferring knowledge about governance, but merely comes as an extra, interviews spoke of the Dutch polder model, which seeks to incorporates all stakeholders and aims to find a consensus among these. These type of Dutch administrative traditions were mentioned in 9 out of 13 interviews, and within the industry 9 out of 11.

The organisations thus agree that, be it indirectly, they convey Dutch institutions in their approach of the projects.

4.3 Inside of the Governance Industry

The interviews highlighted several important developments in the sector. This section aims to explore these and go more into depth on what connects these organisations.

The organisations reported to have gone through a change in the past ten years. When asked whether the organisation had experienced changes, many reported that there had been an increase in professionalisation. Internationally, the attention for good public governance as a way for

preventing wars or internal conflict has grown. This has led to a higher demand for international projects for Dutch organisations.

Often more than could be provided for. The organisations reported to, at times, lack the capacity to meet all the demanded projects. This resulted in them being more strict about which projects to take on. Combined with a decrease in funding from the Dutch government, the

organisations have become more strict on the projects they can take on. However, some argue that