Collective governance versus unilateral decision-making in the water authorities of Bunschoten and Mastenbroek prior to 1800

The standard picture of public governance in the Dutch Republic (1579-1795) is one of consultation with multiple stakeholders, peaceful negotiations with representatives from a range of governmental institutions, and agreements and compromise. This picture has been the subject of much debate among historians and other scholars. One question concerns the extent to which this kind of governance evolved from the traditional practices of water authorities, as these institutions emerged very early, at the end of the thirteenth century. A further question is whether it is correct to assume that these peaceful negotiations did in fact involve participation by a wide range of societal stakeholders. This book contributes to this debate by presenting the results of new research into the development of governance by water authorities prior to 1800. In the late Middle Ages and Early Modern period, these institutions changed as a result of ecological, socio-economic and political developments. The central question is how these developments affected the evolution of and governance within the water authorities. The research focuses on two inter-local water authorities: first, the water authority of the Bunschoten Veen and Velden dikes in the Province of Utrecht; and second, the water authority of Mastenbroek polder in the Province of Overijssel. How were landholders represented in such authorities, and what was the relationship between developments in representation and participation in decision-making? The positions and backgrounds of the board members of these two water authorities were investigated, as well as the process of decision-making. The theoretical framework was provided by theories of consociationalism (Lijphart 1968 and Putnam 1993), in which peaceful governance is defined in terms of consensus politics or politics of accommodation. A set of criteria was formulated to assess the occurrence of participative decision-making by stakeholders. These criteria were tested against the discussions and decisions found in archival sources, such as the minutes of board meetings, records of conflicts, or plans for capital-intensive projects such as the covering of dikes with stone, or the building of sluices or new polder-mills. A detailed quantitative analysis of the financial management of the two water authorities was carried out, using data from annual accounts covering the entire period under study, including expenses and income, long-term debts and assets. These data are presented in time series. The series concerning the development of the debts and solvency of the water boards proved particularly useful when explaining the authorities’ policies. In the course of the eighteenth century, the two water authorities’ decision-making procedures diverged. The Bunschoten board increased the opportunities for wider participation, whereas the board of Mastenbroek reduced them. In both cases, the board’s financial position turned out to be crucial. In Bunschoten, capital was readily available, as the water authority was situated closer to the capital markets of the Province of Holland. As a result, flexibility and consensus politics could become institutionalised as a style of governance. The board of Mastenbroek, by contrast, suffered from a lack of funds. It was precisely this lack of urban capital that led to the exclusion of minor rural landholders from decision-making on water management