Dutch Spatial-economic Investment Policy Revised: Strengthening the Role of Parliament

Abstract

The central research questions in this contribution are: how are spatial-economic investment projects assessed, selected and prioritized nation wide, and how can the role of Parliament be defined and, if necessary, be strengthened? In practice, this centres on the issue of how to avoid “entrapment”. A critical assessment of the current Dutch policies to strengthen the economic structure of the country is followed by a discussion of the proposals presented in 2004 by the Dutch Parliamentary Commission on Infrastructure Projects. This contribution concludes that the acceptance of (the majority of) the Duivesteijn Commission's proposals will greatly clarify and strengthen the position of the Dutch parliament in selecting and prioritizing spatial-economic investment projects. The Dutch experience may be relevant for parliaments in other countries as well.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Jacco Hakfoort (Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs) and Jeroen Smit (secretary of the Dutch Interdepartmental Commission on Economic Structure Policy ICRE) for their comments to an earlier version of this paper. Only the author is responsible for any remaining errors.

Notes

http://www.norges-bank.no/nbim//pension_fund/, accessed 25 August 2006.

Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 1996, 51 and 52.

Here, a “functional relationship” may be inferred if a project related to the ecological main structure, is intended to negate, mitigate or compensate the demonstrable negative effects of a project falling under point 1. See Proceedings of the Lower House, 1994–1995, 24: 146, No. 3.

This section is largely drawn from Priemus (2004).

The Duivesteijn Commission proposes an alternative name: CoRES (Commission for Spatial Economic Structural Structure Enhancing).