In this paper we address the way boundary organizations can accommodate tensions in the science – politics interface. Literature on boundary organizations suggests that this type of organization can provide stability in science – politics interaction, but how these organizations function over a longer period of time is not a point of theoretical or empirical attention. We study a boundary organization, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), by analyzing the ideas that guided the foundation of the MNP and by analyzing two cases in which the MNP advised Dutch policy makers. In both cases the MNP had to adjust its boundary orientation because of changes in its institutional context. These findings show that the dynamics involved in boundary organizations should be included in academic research. We conclude by discussing two conceptual frameworks that may help to capture these dynamics: the notion of ‘learning organizations’ and a typology of roles of experts in politics.
BeckJ PBuringhEWieringaK, 2005Beoordeling van het luchtkwaliteitsplan 2004Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau, Bilthoven
2.
Bemelmans-VidecM L, 1984Economen in overheidsdienst; bijdragen van Nederlandse economen aan de vorming van het sociaal-economisch beleid 1945 – 1975University of Leiden, Leiden
3.
BennetG, 1991, “The history of the Dutch National Environmental Policy Plan”Environment336–9
4.
BonneuxL, 2006, “Het raadsel van de verdwenen lijken”Medisch Contact61156
5.
CashD WClarkW CAlcockFDicksonN MEckleyNGustonD HJaegerJMitchellR B, 2003, “Knowledge systems for sustainable development”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1008086–8091
6.
Council of the European Union, 1999, “Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air”Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL20137–47, 31 July (European Commission, Brussels)
7.
De KoningM E L, 1994In dienst van het milieu. Enkele memoires van oud-directeur-generaal Milieubeheer prof. Ir. W.C. Reij (Samson H D Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan den Rijn)
8.
DekwaadstenietH, 1999, “Milieuinstituut liegt en bedriegt”Trouw 20 January
9.
De VriesA S, 2008Towards Do-ability: Dealing with Uncertainty in the Science – Policy InterfaceUniversity of Twente, Enschede
10.
DockeryD WSpeizerF EStramD OWareJ HSpenglerJ DFerrisB GJr, 1989, “Effects of inhalable particles on respiratory health of children”American Review of Respiratory Disease139587–594
11.
DockeryD WPopeC AXuXSpenglerJ DWareJ HFayM EFerrisB GSpeizerE E, 1993, “An association between air pollution and mortality in six US cities”The New England Journal of Medicine3291753–1759
12.
FolkertR J M, 2005Consequences for the Netherlands of the EU Thematic Strategy on Air PollutionMilieu- en Natuurplanbureau, Bilthoven
13.
GierynT F, 1983, “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists”American Sociological Review48781–795
14.
GierynT F, 1995, “Boundaries of science”, inBoundaries of Science Eds JasanoffSMarkleG EPetersenJ CPinchT, (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 393–443
15.
GilsonCDunleavyPTinklerJ, 2009Organizational Learning in Government Sector Organizations: Literature ReviewPublic Policy Group, London School of Economics, London
16.
GustonD H, 2000Between Politics and Science. Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
17.
GustonD H, 2001, “Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction”Science, Technology, and Human Values26399–408
18.
HajerM A, 1995The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process (Clarendon Press, Oxford)
19.
HalffmanW, 2003Boundaries of Regulatory Science: Eco/toxicology and Aquatic Hazards of Chemicals in the US, England, and the Netherlands, 1970 – 1995 (Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam)
20.
HalffmanWHoppeR, 2005, “Science/policy boundaries: A changing division of labour in Dutch expert policy advice”, inDemocratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-making Eds MaasenSWeingartP, (Springer, Dordrecht) pp 135–152
21.
HisschemöllerM, 1993De democratie van problemen: De relatie tussen de inhoud van beleidsproblemen en methoden van politieke besluitvormingVU Uitgeverij, Amsterdam
22.
HisschemöllerM, 2005, “Participation as knowledge production and the limits of democracy”, inDemocratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-making Eds MaasenSWeingartP, (Springer, Dordrecht) pp 189–208
23.
HoekGBrunekreefB, 1992, “Time trends in repeated spirometry in children”European Respiratory Journal5553–559
24.
HuitemaDTurnhoutE, 2009, “Working on the boundary between science, policy and politics. A discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency”Environmental Politics18576–594
25.
HuitemaDvan SnellenbergT, 1999. “Policy in style” Environmental Politics877–98
26.
JasanoffS, 1990The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Harvard University Press, Boston, MA)
27.
JasanoffS, 2005Designs Of Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
28.
KoemanN S J, 2005, “Het besluit luchtkwaliteit: Hoe nu verder?”Bouwrecht6504–509
29.
LeroyP, 1994, “De Ontwikkeling van het Milieubeleid en van de Milieubeleidstheorie”, inMilieubeleid: Een Beleidswetenschappelijke Inleiding Ed. GlasbergenP, (VUGA, Den Haag) pp 35–55
30.
LijphartA, 1968The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
31.
MarchJ G, 1991, “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”Organization Science271–87
32.
MelseJPetersenA C, 2002Van onderzoeker naar ondersteuner? Over positivisme, post-normal science en reflexiviteit; ontwikkelingen in het denken over wetenschap, politiek en maatschappij, en de betekenissen daarvan voor MNP en MNP'ers, een discussiestukRijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid, Bilthoven
33.
MillerC, 2001, “Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime”Science, Technology and Human Values26478–499
34.
MNP, 2005Particulate Matter: A Closer Look. The State of Affairs in the Particulate Matter Dossier from a Dutch PerspectiveMilieu- en natuurplanbureau, Bilthoven
35.
NoordegraafMBrandsenTHuitemaD, 2006, “Fragmented but forceful: Dutch administrative sciences and their institutional evolution”Public Administration48989–1006
36.
PassenierJ, 1994Van planning naar scanning, een halve eeuw Planbureau in Nederland (Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen)
37.
PeschU, 1999, “Het CPB en de sjablonen van het economisch beleid”, Masters thesis, Philosophy of Science, Technology, and Society Department, University of Twente, Enschede
38.
PeschU, 2002, “Het CPB als argument”Bestuurswetenschappen16318–336
39.
PetersenA C, 2006Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-simulation Uncertainties and their Role in Climate Science and Policy Advice (Het Spinhuis, Apeldoorn)
40.
PielkeR A, 2007The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
41.
RIVM, 1988Zorgen voor MorgenRijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid, Bilthoven
42.
RIVM, 2002On Health Risks of Ambient PM in the NetherlandsRijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid, Bilthoven
43.
SiraaH TVan der ValkA JWissinkW L, 1995, Met het oog op de omgeving, Een geschiedenis van de zorg voor de kwaliteit van de leefomgeving (SDU-Uitgevers, Den Haag)
44.
TavenierJ JWoldendorpH E, 1996, “Krijgt Nederland een Milieuplanbureau?”Milieu and Recht23210–213
45.
TordoirW, 2005, “EU grenswaarden voor fijn stof krakkemikkig”NRC-Handelsblad 17 November
46.
TurnhoutEHisschemöllerMEijsackersH, 2008, “Science in Wadden sea policy: From accommodation to advocacy”Environmental Science and Policy11227–239
47.
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 1989Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan: Kiezen of verliezen (SDU, ‘s-Gravenhage)
48.
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 1996Wijziging van de wet Milieubeheer (SDU, ‘s-Gravenhage)
49.
van der SluijsJ PRisbeyJ SKloproggePRavetzJ RFuntowiczS OQuintanaS CorralGuimarãesAMarchiBPetersenA CJanssenP H MHoppeRHuijsS W F, 2003RIVM/ MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Detailed GuidanceCopernicus Institute, Utrecht
50.
VisserJHemerijckA, 1997A Dutch Miracle (Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam)
51.
VROM, 2004Nationaal Luchtkwaliteitsplan 2004Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu, ‘s-Gravenhage
52.
WealeA, 1992The New Politics of Pollution (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
53.
WeissC H, 1991, “Policy research: Data, ideas, or arguments”, inSocial Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads Eds WagnerPWeissC HWittrockBWollmannH, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 307–332
54.
WittrockB, 1991, “Social knowledge and public policy: Eight models of interaction”, inSocial Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads Eds WagnerPWeissC HWittrockBWollmannH, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 333–353
