Inter-municipal Cooperation in the Netherlands

  • Pieter-Jan Klok
  • Marcel Boogers
  • Bas Denters
  • Maurits Sanders
Part of the Governance and Public Management book series (GPM)


In this chapter, we describe some of the features of the Dutch way of organizing inter-municipal cooperation, using a nation-wide study. The permissive institutional structure provides municipalities with a wide range of organizational structures for cooperation, including both public and private law options. This has resulted in a wide range of almost 800 inter-municipal cooperations and in high variations in both the level and complexity of inter-municipal cooperations for different municipalities. All in all this ‘crazy-quilt’ pattern of cooperation seems to be working quite well, as both democratic quality and performance in terms of perceived benefits and (transaction) costs are for most cases at a satisfactory level.


  1. Boedeltje, M., & Denters, B. (2010). Step by step: Territorial choice in the Netherlands. In H. Baldersheim & L. E. Rose (Eds.), Territorial Choice: The politics of boundaries and borders (pp. 118–137). Houndmils etc.: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boogers, M. (2013). Het raadsel van de regio: waarom regionale samenwerking soms resultaten oplevert. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.Google Scholar
  3. Boogers, M., Klok, P.-J., Denters, B., & Sanders, M. (2016). Effecten van regionaal bestuur voor gemeenten, Bestuursstructuur, samenwerkingsrelaties, democratische kwaliteit en bestuurlijke effectiviteit. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.Google Scholar
  4. Denters, B., Mike, G., Ladner, A., Mouritzen, P. E., & Rose, L. E. (2014). Size and local democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denters, S. A. H., & Klok, P. J. (2005). The Netherlands: In search of responsiveness. In S. A. H. Denters & L. E. Rose (Eds.), Comparing local governance. Trends and developments (pp. 65–82). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feiock, R. C. (2007). Rational choice and regional governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heinelt, H., & Kübler, D. (Eds.). (2005). Metropolitan governance in the 21st century: Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ministerie BZK. (2017). Staat van het Bestuur 2016. Den Haag: Ministerie BZK.Google Scholar
  9. Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ostrom, E. (1972). Metropolitan reform: Propositions derived from two traditions. Social Science Quarterly, 53, 474–493.Google Scholar
  11. Ostrom, V. (1989). The intellectual crisis in American public administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  12. Provan, K. C., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schaap, L. (2005). Reform and democracy in the Rotterdam region. In H. Heinelt & D. Kübler (Eds.), Metropolitan governance in the 21st century: Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter-Jan Klok
    • 1
  • Marcel Boogers
    • 1
  • Bas Denters
    • 1
  • Maurits Sanders
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Public AdministrationUniversity of TwenteEnschedethe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of Governance, Law & Urban DevelopmentSaxion University of Applied SciencesEnschedethe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations