{"id":54601,"date":"2026-08-22T17:30:35","date_gmt":"2026-08-22T15:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.turner.nl\/uncategorized\/from-distrust-to-trust-in-public-services\/"},"modified":"2026-08-22T17:30:43","modified_gmt":"2026-08-22T15:30:43","slug":"from-distrust-to-trust-in-public-services","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.turner.nl\/en\/public-sector\/from-distrust-to-trust-in-public-services\/","title":{"rendered":"From Distrust to Trust in Public Services"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Public sector<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

From Distrust to Trust in Public Services<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Public services are under pressure. The combination of difficult-to-implement laws and regulations and budget cuts has weakened service delivery. At the same time, implementation is expected to be more agile, to contribute to societal challenges, and to maintain a human touch in service delivery. But how can this be achieved? A key factor lies in how policy departments steer implementation and how implementation is held accountable. We need a different approach to implementation: from mistrust to trust. This means a different balance is needed in the steering and accountability indicators. Data innovation can accelerate this process. In doing so, implementing organizations must focus more on the interests of citizens and society, and less on the interests of policy. This article outlines the current bottlenecks, explains how we arrived at this point, and offers practical perspectives for change. <\/p>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Reading time: 7\u20138 minutes<\/p>

By Christiaan Gort and Tjalle Hoekstra of Turner<\/em><\/p>

<\/em><\/p>

From the principal-agent model to the stewardship model<\/strong><\/span><\/p>

The principal-agent model has long been the guiding framework for the relationship between policy ministries and implementing agencies. This model assumes information asymmetry and is based on control, mistrust, and conflicting objectives. This economic model aligned well with the New Public Management (NPM) philosophy<\/em>, in which the government is primarily viewed as a business, with an unequal relationship between policy and implementation. This has translated into performance indicators focused on details and inputs, extensive accountability requirements, and limited autonomy. The report *Werk aan Uitvoering*[i]<\/a> calls for replacing the principal-agent model with the stewardship model. This model is based on equality between policy and implementation, with trust, outcome agreements, and shared objectives. The stewardship model is better suited to the public sector, where organizations focus on realizing public values, and it better facilitates the transition toward a more human-centered approach to service delivery. This desired change requires a reassessment of the current management and accountability indicators. <\/p>

<\/strong><\/p>

Challenges indicate that the focus on implementation is too one-sided<\/strong><\/span><\/p>

We have identified three main issues regarding the current management and accountability indicators used by implementing agencies.<\/p>

  1. Implementing organizations feel that their accountability burden is too heavy.<\/strong><\/span> Driven by a focus on control, risk avoidance, and mistrust, the demand for accountability has gone too far. It even appears to be having a counterproductive effect. The purpose of accountability is to ensure that resources are spent lawfully, effectively, and efficiently during implementation. The high pressure to be accountable increases the administrative burden during implementation. As a result, overhead and administrative costs are rising, leaving less time and resources available for service delivery. The high level of detail required for accountability also reduces agility. This means that those carrying out the work have less flexibility to do what is necessary to achieve their objectives. <\/li>
  2. Current management and accountability indicators are often one-sided and quantitative<\/span>. They <\/strong>focus primarily on output, efficiency, and\/or compliance. Too little attention is paid to indicators that focus on quality and citizen-centeredness. Because of this one-sidedness, management primarily focuses on efficiency and the letter of the law rather than on client needs and the intent of the law. Frontline professionals are primarily driven by productivity targets due to agreements with policy departments. They do want to provide more personalized services to citizens, but are hindered from doing so. This is because such services take more time, which means agreed-upon production targets are not met. This undermines the human touch in service delivery. <\/li>
  3. Current indicators focus too much on the past and not enough on shared objectives for the future<\/strong>.<\/span> Implementing agencies are increasingly expected not only to deliver services but also to contribute to societal challenges. Think, for example, of sustainability and diversity goals. Policy and implementing agencies must establish shared performance agreements to give substance to these goals. This calls for indicators that focus more on outcomes and outputs<\/em> and less on inputs and throughput<\/em>. The primary focus should not be on accountability, but on joint steering. These indicators facilitate the necessary dialogue between implementation and policy and clarify which scarce resources should be prioritized in implementation. <\/li><\/ol>

    <\/strong><\/p>

    Legality and efficiency-oriented thinking still too dominant in management<\/strong><\/span><\/p>

    These challenges can be readily explained by the evolution of thinking regarding the role of public services. In this regard, we see three primary perspectives that have succeeded one another. [ii]<\/a><\/p>