Strengthening citizen engagement in the budget process: the case of the Netherlands

Each year, the Dutch House of Representatives invites 100 citizens to support the House scrutinizing the annual accounts of government. Here are some lessons learned from seven years of trying to strengthen citizen engagement in the Dutch Parliament. Disclaimer: we are still learning. 

But first, why is this important?  The Dutch government is in good financial shape, and the debt ratio is currently at an historic low. But the pressure on government finances is mounting, also in the Netherlands. Without substantial reforms, Dutch public debt will increase significantly due to increasing spending pressures on health care, pensions, climate, and defense.  

And money is not the only problem. Tight labour markets, government’s limited implementation capacity and a shortage of physical space, nitrogen space, CO2 emissions, and net capacity also force the government to prioritize and make tough choices affecting citizens one way or another. 

Addressing those challenges requires public support. Support that is not self-evident. Because not only is public debt low; trust in Dutch politics is also low. A recent survey tells us people still expect politicians to come up with solutions. But in their view, this does not happen, or not in the right way.  

Increasing citizen engagement in the budget process might help boost public support, and every little bit helps. In the Dutch House of Representatives, we have gained several years of experience inviting 100 citizens to help support the House.

How did we start? In 2017, on the initiative of the Public Expenditure Committee and in close co-operation with the Netherlands Court of Audit, the House launched a citizen event as one of the building blocks of a larger-scale approach to underscore the importance of  ‘Accountability Day’  as a counterbalance to Budget Day. Aim was to directly involve citizens in the House’s work to hold the government to account and increase trust in politics.

The format in a nutshell: In a one-day pressure-cooker format, 100 participants contribute to the House’s scrutiny of the government’s annual accounts, focusing on topics suggested by standing parliamentary committees. At the end of the day and after a closed session with some Members of Parliaments, participants present a set of concrete questions in an open-door setting to the Speaker of the House. Those questions must be answered by the Cabinet prior to the debates on the accountability documents. 

Since 2017, the Dutch House of Representatives has thus welcomed hundreds of citizens, including 100 vocational students, 100 young researchers, 100 local journalists, 100 SME entrepreneurs, and 100 clients of public service providers.

Over the years we have tweaked the format somewhat, but overall the concept did not change a lot. But if there is one thing we have learned, it is that recruiting potential participants is easy but selecting them less so. Simply working on a first-come first-serve basis will not do, if only because interests groups and other “usual suspects” are likely to be the first to report.   

After some trial and error, we now select participants from a predetermined target group through a two-pronged approach. We reach out to organizations with easy access to the target group and we use the House’s own channels, with registration open to all.  

We keep the final selection of participants in our own hands and aim to select with an eye to a diversity of perspectives and a broad representation of the target group. Nevertheless, selection remains somewhat arbitrary and requires continued attention.  

We are also learning to move beyond stand-alone sessions to allow for participants’ input to have real impact. The conversation should not stop after the day is done. 

While most participants are enthusiastic about their visit to parliament and the chance to contribute, there are always some participants disappointed with the actual results. One reason is government’s answers to questions asked. More often than not, those answers amount to mere explanatory statements justifying past actions. Another reason, of course, is that policies do not change overnight. Asking one question will not do.  

Over the years we have seen several examples of ways to continue the conversation. Some Members of Parliament explicitly addressed issues citizens raised when debating the annual accounts with ministers and kept pressing ministers to provide better answers. Others also submitted motions with a specific mandate for the cabinet or Parliament itself.  

But we need more and must continue to seek opportunities to bring the issues raised into the political debate. In budgetary proceedings, policy debates, or other meetings. Persistence pays off. 

And finally, we now know that trade-offs should be part of the conversation. Because perhaps the most important challenge is for citizens to understand that being truly engaged in the budgeting process does not mean all wishes will come true. Budgeting is not a win for all. It is about constraints, trade-offs, and choosing in the public interest.  

To strengthen public support to address the challenges ahead, simply inviting citizens to join the conversation is not enough. Citizens’ input is important, but there is an inherent tension between strengthening ‘input legitimacy’ and safeguarding the public interest.  

Similarly, governments will hit a brick wall if they do not address those trade-offs and use post-hoc rationalisations of budget choices already made. Presenting “stories” only buttressing options chosen, is not going to create the necessary public support. It is also not going to help deliver good policy outcomes. 

Instead, we need to talk about why we need to make choices, in upcoming citizen engagement sessions and beyond. We need to talk about budget options, and the pros and cons of those options. About public values we should base our choices on, and possible dilemmas. And about difficult but real trade-offs to confront between competing budget priorities.  

This is not an easy conversation. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be.  Strengthening citizen engagement in the budget process may still seem like a nice-to-have, but is essential for public support for those choices that inevitably have to be made. 

This blog is part of a series of opinion pieces that highlight diverse perspectives on the need to restore public finances. Building public support for budget reforms has become a pressing need for OECD countries. This collection offers insights into some of the most promising ongoing efforts to empower public understanding, featuring contributions from thought leaders and practitioners in national governments, multilateral organisations, academia, and civil society.

The OECD webinar series on Empowering Public Understanding of Public Finances runs through to end of 2026. Register now to join upcoming sessions and explore full details.

This blog article should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the authors.