Reforming the Dutch water chain: how radical ambitions turned into a moderate pace of change

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explain how and why the initially ambitious reform of the Dutch water sector turned into a moderate pace of change. The explanations are based on institutional theory.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper is a case study at the organizational field level of the Dutch water sector.

Findings

In order to enhance efficiency and transparency, Dutch Central Government initially attempted to enforce top‐down radical changes, including the formation of integrated water chain companies. However, after discussions and reactions of the interested parties, the central government authorised a bottom‐up approach, giving discretional powers to the individual water organizations. This transition to a bottom‐up approach can mainly be explained by the limited pressure exerted by the central government to change and the powerful position of the relevant organizations within the water sector, as well as their ability to establish strong coalitions to avoid mandatory radical changes.

Research limitations/implications

The theoretical background is useful in analysing the change processes in other public sectors.

Practical implications

The Dutch way of consensus seeking might be threatened by its own inertia, and in the case of ineffectiveness, it could be replaced by a more top‐down and radical reform package.

Originality/value

Unravelling public sector reform into goals, means and approaches is useful, because although goals can remain the same during the change process, the means and approaches may be altered. Resistance to radical changes might stimulate convergent change options, such as reinforcement of the existing means of reform and may also decrease the embededdness and impermeability of the institutional fields.

Citation

Argento, D. and Jan van Helden, G. (2009), "Reforming the Dutch water chain: how radical ambitions turned into a moderate pace of change", Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 321-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/18325910910986954