This research addresses the question whether there is social inequality in the impact of justiciable problems, and whether this unequal impact is itself a factor in the emergence of new problems. The study examines whether citizens in vulnerable circumstances are more likely to experience negative side effects – such as stress, sleep and health issues – of a justiciable problem than those in less vulnerable circumstances. And in turn whether these negative side effects increase the chance of new justiciable problems.
Using data from a nationwide survey of 2,575 Dutch citizens who experienced at least one justiciable problem over the period 2014-2019, we conclude, among other things, that low income groups, benefit recipients and single adult households are more likely to experience negative health effects, and these health effects in turn increase the chance of a new justiciable problem. Next to this indirect effect, income also has a direct effect: low-income groups are more likely to experience new justiciable problems than high-income groups, irrespective of other relevant characteristics.

In this article we study the policy ideal of providing personalized public services which has gained considerable ground in recent years: both in the Netherlands and abroad.
Personalization may be seen as an example of an ‘empty signifier’ (Laclau 1985): it is subject to diverse interpretations without making the distinctions explicit. As such, several policy objectives and interests can be covered without disagreeing about its overarching importance. It is therefore important to identify the different meanings given to personalization and determine the extent to which these can be reconciled. The case at hand is the Social Support Act (SSA) in the Netherlands which entails the open norm to provide tailored support. Policymakers presented this act as a remedy for numerous social problems, such as the fragmented provision of care and increased regulatory pressure.
By conducting a narrative policy analysis of personalization in policy discourse, we identified four different narratives of personalization: personalization as market logic of matching supply and demand; personalization as professional discretionary room, personalization as the emphasizing of self-reliance and problem-solving abilities of the clients themselves and those around him, and lastly, personalization as the coordination of integrated care.
These different meanings in policy discourse are not easily harmonized in daily practices. Based on recent empirical research on the existing bottlenecks in executing the SSA, we were able to identify key tensions between different narratives of personalization. For example, focusing primarily on activating one’s own problem-solving capacities is at the expense of professional room to adjust care to what the client needs. Integrated care has also lost its meaning due to the emphasis on empowerment and is mainly instrumental in obtaining a complete picture of the citizen and his network. These tensions create dilemmas for professionals, citizens and local policymakers. Moreover, in our case personalization provided the legitimacy for extensive public service reform in the changing welfare state, while political hang-ups, such as the associated cuts, could be circumvented. It is therefore of great importance that national policymakers and the legislator reflect on the complexities of personalization as a policy ideal and take into account the tensions between different meanings of personalization in practice.

The Netherlands endorses a unique criminal record system in which every job applicant can request the government to provide a risk assessment determining whether he or she is fit for a given job, known as the Certificate of Conduct (CoC). Yet, little is known about how these state-conducted risk and assessments are made. To fill this gap, we systematically analysed all case law on CoCs published online since 2004. We found surprisingly low chances of successfully winning a CoC by appealing against its denial (1.6%). Moreover, although judges have ample room for discretion and individualised assessment, only exceptional personal circumstances may lead to a reversal of the denial. In particular, cases with only one offence committed a long time ago or involving a professional assessment stating a low recidivism risk. These findings indicate a strong focus on risk prevention, oftentimes favouring public protection above the individual’s rehabilitation and socio-economic interests. This puts due process at stake, especially since very few applicants (0.6%) appeal the denial of a CoC.

The obligation to notify is a legal instrument, which aims to reduce unnecessary regulatory pressure for civilians and companies. Developed as an alternative to regulation by permit, it merely obliges anyone to notify the administrative authority when planning a specific activity that brings little hazard to the public interest. The notice informs the administrative authority about the planned activity, so it can supervise whether it is conducted in accordance with the general rules and can enforce these rules if necessary. Hence, supervision is assured, without people having to deal with a time consuming and labour intensive permit procedure.
However, the use of obligation to notify raises questions about the protection of public interests, legal certainty and the possibility to file an appeal against an administrative decision of a governmental body. This empirical legal study aims to answer these questions.