Opinion: Renaming ministries plays crucial role in shaping political agenda
Three new ministries have been formed in the Netherlands: Asylum and Migration, Housing and Spatial Planning & Climate and Green Growth. Of course, this is not merely an administrative act. These ministries carry a strong and political charge and play a crucial role in shaping a government's political agenda. Professor Kutsal Yesilkagit lets us know exactly how this works.
The significance of name changes
Name changes within ministries often reflect the changing policy priorities and ideological shifts of a new government. These changes are a way for politicians to communicate their policy preferences and concerns to the public and other stakeholders. As indicated in the research by Kutsal Yesilkagit, Julia Fleischer (University of Potsdam) and Philippe Bezes (Sciences Po Paris), name changes signal 'increased political attention' to certain policy issues.
An example is the name change from the Dutch 'Ministry of Justice' to 'Ministry of Security and Justice' in 2010, which highlighted the government's focus on security and counterterrorism. Similarly, the recent creation of the Ministry of Climate and Green Growth can be seen as an explicit message that climate change and sustainable growth are high on the political agenda of the current government.
Theory of the ‘Politics of structural choice’
The research by Yesilkagit and his colleagues is based, among other things, on US political scientist Terry Moe's 'theory of the politics of structural choice'. Following this theory, researchers argue that the structure of public organisations is not neutral but the result of political choices and strategic decisions. Politicians use structural changes to exercise control, enforce accountability and influence policy outcomes.
Structural choices are therefore also implicitly policy choices. This means that reorganising ministries and changing their names are not just administrative adjustments, but also reflect the government's policy priorities. Restructuring ministries can be a means of making policy changes and achieving political goals.
'Politicians use structural changes to exert control'
Cabinet Schoof I
The recent formation of new ministries in the Netherlands can be seen as an example of how name changes and ministerial restructuring serve as tools for agenda-setting. The creation of the Ministry of Asylum and Migration emphasises the importance of immigration policy in the current political context. This ministry can now develop and implement specific policies focused on migration issues, indicating that these issues are a high priority for the government.
The Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, on the other hand, points to a renewed focus on housing and spatial planning. This change responds to growing concerns about the housing market and the need for sustainable spatial development. Centralising these topics in a specific ministry not only improves internal coordination but also sends a clear message about policy priorities.
'Tools for agenda-setting'
Symbolism or real adaptation?
While name changes and the creation of new ministries can be powerful symbolic signals, the question arises to what extent these changes actually lead to substantial policy improvements. There is a risk that these changes are merely cosmetic, designed to influence public perception without making deep structural or policy changes.
In addition, it is important to recognise that bureaucratic restructuring is often accompanied by significant costs and organisational disruptions. Implementing new ministries requires investments in infrastructure, staff and resources, which can lead to temporary inefficiencies and implementation problems.
States in Shock
This question is at the heart of the NWO-project ‘States in Shock’ by Leiden researchers Kutsal Yesilkagit, Sanneke Kuipers, Brendan Carroll and Thijs de Boer. The research focuses on the impact of crisis situations on the structure and organisation of government. The project examines how different states react to shocking events, such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters or economic crises, and analyses how these reactions lead to changes in the organisation and functioning of government institutions. The aim is to understand the resilience and adaptation mechanisms of states in times of crisis and the role of bureaucracies in implementing policies during and after these crises.
Conclusion
Ministry name changes and the creation of new ministries play a crucial role in shaping a government's political agenda. They serve as powerful signals of policy priorities and ideological shifts, and are an important tool for politicians to communicate their policy intentions.
Nevertheless, it is essential to remain critical of these changes and evaluate the extent to which they actually contribute to substantial policy improvements. Only then can name changes and ministerial restructuring be more than symbolic gestures, and actually lead to effective and sustainable policy outcomes.
Text: Kutsal Yesilkagit
As professor of International Governance, Kutsal Yesilkagit is driven by a desire to understand how political-administrative systems work. His work is to research and teach about how politicians, officials and public institutions influence the outcomes of policies and social events, and thus the lives of individual citizens and groups.
Governing Polarized Societies
Following a series of shocks that pose existential threats to our livelihoods, our societies have become increasingly polarised. Governing Polarised Societies (GPS) is a research programme at Leiden University in The Hague that focuses on how states and policymakers can govern under challenging circumstances.