When redress means different things
An exploratory study of conceptions of redress in the design of state-led redress programmes
E.M. van Bemmelen (TU Delft - Technology, Policy and Management)
H.G. van der Voort – Mentor (TU Delft - Technology, Policy and Management)
M. Sand – Mentor (TU Delft - Technology, Policy and Management)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
State-led redress programmes are commonly established by governments to respond to large-scale institutional failures and repair damaged relationships with citizens. However, such programmes frequently struggle to meet the needs and expectations of those they aim to compensate. While these shortcomings are often framed as implementation failures, this thesis argues that difficulties may originate earlier in the policy process, namely in how the concept of “redress” is initially understood and translated into policy design.
This research therefore examines how different actors conceptualise state-led redress during the early phase of a redress process and how these conceptions shape subsequent design choices. The redress operation following the Dutch childcare benefits scandal serves as an in-depth case study. The study adopts a qualitative and interpretative research approach grounded in systems thinking, combining desk research with semi-structured interviews with actors operating at different institutional levels. Two analytical lenses structure the analysis: perceived procedural justice, focusing on citizens’ experiences of fairness, and networked governance, highlighting the institutional complexity of multi-actor governance contexts.
The findings show that redress is not conceptualised as a single, stable policy problem. Instead, actors emphasise different objects of restoration, leading to three main conceptions of redress: financial repair, emotional recognition, and institutional legitimacy. These conceptions are closely related to actors’ institutional positions and influence design choices such as standardisation, flexibility, and accountability mechanisms. Because these perspectives coexist, tensions between financial compensation, relational recognition, and institutional legitimacy become embedded in the design of redress processes.
The thesis develops a reflective framework to support dialogue about these tensions during the design of future redress programmes. By making underlying assumptions and trade-offs explicit, the framework aims to support the development of redress processes that are both experienced as fair by affected citizens and workable within complex governance systems.