The Netherlands is often viewed as a world model of urban planning and sustainable transport practices. This article reports on a study which charts the planning policy transfer activity between the Netherlands and other countries. The study reveals that many foreign ‘policy tourists’ are impressed and inspired by Dutch planning achievements. However, policy transfer efforts based on Dutch examples of planning have rarely resulted in concrete actions or hard outcomes abroad. Contextual differences in culture, social setup, language, planning legislation and financial resources, as well as the failure to involve political elites in transfer processes, are potential obstacles to embedding Dutch planning policies elsewhere.
BensonDJordanA (2011) What have we learned from policy transfer research? Dolowitz and March revisited. Political Studies9: 366–378.
2.
BulkeleyH (2006) Urban sustainability: Learning from best practice?Environment and Planning A38: 1029–1044.
3.
CookI (2008) Mobilising urban policies: The policy transfer of US business improvement districts to England and Wales. Urban Studies45(4): 773–795.
4.
CookIWardK (2011) Trans-urban networks of learning, mega-events and policy tourism: The case of Manchester’s Commonwealth and Olympic Games projects. Urban Studies48(12): 2519–2535.
5.
DolowitzDMarshD (2000) Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration13(1): 5–24.
6.
EvansM (2009a) New directions in the study of policy transfer. Policy Studies30(3): 237–241.
7.
EvansM (2009b) Policy transfer in critical perspective. Policy Studies30(3): 243–268.
8.
GonzálezS (2011) Bilbao and Barcelona ‘in Motion.’ How urban regeneration ‘models’ travel and mutate in the global flows of policy tourism. Urban Studies48(7): 1397–1418.
9.
HealeyP (2010) The transnational flow of knowledge and expertise in the planning field. In: HealeyPUptonR (eds) Crossing Borders: International Exchange and Planning Practices. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–26.
10.
LeeY-SHwangE-J (2012) Global urban frontiers through policy transfer? Unpacking Seoul’s creative city programmes. Urban Studies49(13): 2817–2837.
11.
McCannE (2013) Policy boosterism, policy mobilities, and the extrospective city. Urban Geography34(1): 5–29.
12.
McCannEWardK (2012) Assembling urbanism: Following policies and ‘studying through’ the sites and situations of policy making. Environment and Planning A44: 42–51.
13.
MacmillenJSteadD (2014) Learning heuristic or political rhetoric? Sustainable mobility and the functions of ‘best practice’. Transport Policy35: 79–87.
14.
MarsdenGSteadD (2011) Policy transfer and learning in the field of transport: A review of concepts and evidence. Transport Policy18: 492–500.
15.
MarsdenGFrickKMayA. (2011) How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy18(3): 501–512.
16.
PeckJTheodoreN (2010) Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum41(2): 169–174.
17.
PojaniDSteadD (2014) Dutch planning policy: The resurgence of TOD. Land Use Policy41(2014): 357–367.
18.
Roodbol-MekkesPvan der ValkAKorthals AltesW (2012) The Netherlands spatial planning doctrine in disarray in the 21st century. Environment and Planning A44(2): 377–395.
19.
RoseR (2005) Learning from Comparative Public Policy: a Practical Guide. London & New York: Routledge.
20.
SagarisL (2010) From sustainable transport development to active citizenship and participatory democracy: The experience of living city in Chile. Natural Resources Forum34(4): 275–288.
21.
SteadD (2012) Best practices and policy transfer in spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research27(1): 103–116.
22.
SteadD (2013) Convergence, divergence, or constancy of spatial planning? Connecting theoretical concepts with empirical evidence from Europe. Journal of Planning Literature28(1): 19–31.
23.
TemenosCMcCannE (2012) The local politics of policy mobility: Learning, persuasion, and the production of a municipal sustainability fix. Environment and Planning A44: 1389–1406.
24.
VettorettoL (2009) A preliminary critique of the best and good practices approach in European spatial planning and policy-making. European Planning Studies17(7): 1067–1083.
25.
WolmanHPageE (2002) Policy transfer among local governments: An information-theory approach. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions15(4): 477–501.
26.
WolmanHFordCHillE (1994) Evaluating the success of urban success stories. Urban Studies31(6): 835–850.
27.
WolmanHHillEFurdellK (2004) Evaluating the success of urban success stories: Is reputation a guide to best practice?Housing Policy Debate15(4): 965–997.
