Background The base assumption of crime fighting is that if crime does not pay, the incentive to conduct criminal activities goes away. This is the main underlying assumption of the act of...Show moreBackground The base assumption of crime fighting is that if crime does not pay, the incentive to conduct criminal activities goes away. This is the main underlying assumption of the act of confiscating criminal assets. The targets set by the policies surrounding confiscating criminal assets in the Netherlands however do not seem to correspond to the scale to the problem. This master thesis inquires if the lack of (scientific) clarity on the scale of the problem and/or the lack of a clear political stance on the size of the problem, prevent the confiscation targets to correspond to the scale of the problem. Policy with a clear problem definition backed by scientific insights makes for a more Evidence-Based Policy Making (EBPM). This case study might enrich EBPM surrounding salient cases. Method A systematic review of the literature surrounding evidence-based policymaking is made. Especially the barriers of evidence-use, and the existing literature surrounding confiscating criminal assets are described. A case description of the current policy of confiscating criminal assets has been made. And interviews have been conducted with mostly street-level professionals in the field of confiscating criminal assets. With data triangulation between multiple sources of literature, public policy papers, and in-depth interviews with professionals, the main research question; ‘Why do confiscation targets not correspond to the scale of the problem?’, has been answered and thus a picture has been painted if the policy of confiscating criminal assets is evidence-based. Results There seems to be no clear scientific consensus on the scale of the criminal economy and thus the size of the problem. Various studies have attributed the lack of research as a significant barrier to Evidence-Based Policymaking (EBPM). The lack of scientific consensus or clarity however, seems not to get cited as a very big issue or obstacle by interviewees or policy documents. Nonetheless in no official document there is an attempt to relate or connect the confiscation targets to the perceived yearly circulation of criminal assets. And what results achieving the targets would bring. This has been confirmed in the analysis. The consensus being: what chain partners confiscate on an annual basis is neglectable. All interviewees agree that the seizure potential is greater than what is achieved right now. In policy documents a large emphasis is put on strategy in a sense of what the government wants to do or make possible, but not what they are expecting from it. Conclusion The Dutch government itself does not state, or attempts to estimate, the size of the criminal economy and/or the confiscation potential. The lack of substantiated confiscation targets, be it scientific wise, but especially policy wise, leaves everyone in doubt. Some rationalization of what effects hitting the confiscation targets pursues, even with queries about not being very well substantiated, makes the confiscation targets correspond to the scale of the problem better than how the situation is right now. A clear political stance might also further the scientific debate. Formulating a position, might and most likely will evoke a (scientific) responds. This in turn might result in more scientific consensus which in turn can lead to more evidence-based policymaking.Show less
Academic literature indicates an increasing demand for independent evaluation within the government. At the same time, external consultants are progressively deployed to meet this demand. This...Show moreAcademic literature indicates an increasing demand for independent evaluation within the government. At the same time, external consultants are progressively deployed to meet this demand. This study focuses on the independent position of external consultants because truly independent research is merely possible if the preconditions for evaluation are reliable. That being said, the Dutch government has not implemented overarching guidelines for shaping the independent position of external consultants, leaving ministries free to give their own interpretation or direction. Consequently, differences across ministries possibly exist in shaping the independent position of external consultants. This study tries to uncover how the characteristics of ministries shape the independent position of external consultants, and how those differences can be explained across ministries by analysing policy reviews. Three pre-determined characteristics are used: experience, size and salience. Nine different policy reviews are analysed across six different ministries. In total, 22 interviews are conducted, with both civil servants (thirteen interviews) and external consultants (nine interviews). Additionally, document analysis is utilised to provide information that cannot be gathered through interviews. The results indicate that no definite conclusion could be made on the link between experience and the independent position and size and the independent position. However, experience and size are linked on some occasions. That is that staff changes and reorganizations within the ministry have caused losses in capacity, which consequently harms the institutional memory of the bureaucracy. Furthermore, a plausible link between salience and the shaping of the independent position of external evaluators is discovered. Salience seems to have changed the ministry’s work culture, thereby focussing more on scientifically, independent evaluations. In addition, salience seems to also have strengthened the evaluation organization within various ministries. Moreover, this study uncovered three additional characteristics that could shape the independent position: the work culture, evaluation function and the character of the policy domain in which the ministry operates.Show less
