In Dutch healthcare, new market mechanisms have been introduced on an experimental basis in an attempt to contain costs and improve quality. Informed by a constructivist approach, we demonstrate that such experiments are not neutral testing grounds. Drawing from semi-structured interviews and policy texts, we reconstruct an experiment on free pricing in dental care that turned into a critical example of market failure, influencing developments in other sectors. Our analysis, however, shows that (1) different market logics and (2) different experimental logics were reproduced simultaneously during the course of the experiment. We furthermore reveal how (3) evaluation and political life influenced which logics were reproduced and became taken as the lessons learned. We use these insights to discuss the role of evaluation in learning from policy experimentation and close with four questions that evaluators could ask to better understand what is learned from policy experiments, how, and why.
AminzadeR (1992) Historical sociology and time. Sociological Methods Research20(4): 456–80.
2.
ArkesteijnMVan MierloBLeeuwisC (2015) The need for reflexive evaluation approaches in development cooperation. Evaluation21(1): 99–115.
3.
ButlerJ (2010) Performative agency. Journal of Cultural Economy3(2): 147–61.
4.
CallonM (1998) The Laws of the Market. Oxford: Blackwell.
5.
CampbellDT (1998) The experimenting society. In: DunnWN (ed.) The Experimenting Society: Essays in honor of Donald T. Campbell. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 35–68.
6.
De Wildt-LiesveldRRegeerBVan Amstel-van SaaneMet al. (2013) Triple P value propositions – from a value trade-off to synergy. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review14(3–4): 194–210.
7.
DirksmeierPHelbrechtI (2008) Time, non-representational theory and the ‘performative turn’ – towards a new methodology in qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Social Research9(2): art. 55.
8.
Dixon-WoodsMBoskCLAvelingELet al. (2011) Explaining Michigan: Developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. The Milbank Quarterly89(2): 167–205.
9.
DufloEKremerM (2005) Use of randomization in the evaluation of development effectiveness. In: PitmanGKFeinsteinONIngramGK (eds) Evaluating Development Effectiveness, Vol. 7. London: Transaction Publishers, 205–31.
10.
GarretyKBadhamR (2004) User-centered design and the normative politics of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values29(2): 191–212.
11.
GeelsFWSchotJ (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy36(3): 399–417.
12.
GreenbergDHMorrisS (2005) Large-scale social experimentation in Britain: What can and cannot be learnt from the employment retention and advancement demonstration?Evaluation11(2): 223–42.
13.
GritKZuiderent-JerakT (2015) Making markets in long-term care: Or how a market can work by being invisible. Health Care Analysis. Epub ahead of print 8May2015. DOI: 10.1007/s10728–015–0292–0
14.
FriedmanVJ (2001) Designed blindness: An action science perspective on program theory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation22(2): 161–81.
15.
FuchsS (2001) Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
HarrisonMICalltorpJ (2000) The reorientation of market-oriented reforms in Swedish health care. Health Policy50(3): 219–40.
17.
HeldermanJKSchutFTVan der GrintenTEDet al. (2005) Market-oriented health care reforms and policy learning in the Netherlands. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law30(1–2): 189–210.
18.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
LudwigJKlingJRMullainathanS (2011) Mechanism experiments and policy evaluations. The Journal of Economic Perspectives25(3): 17–38.
20.
LuhmannN (1996) Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
21.
MacKenzieDAMuniesaFSiuL (2007) Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
MarresN (2013) Why political ontology must be experimentalized: On ecoshow homes as devices of participation. Social Studies of Science43(3): 417–43.
23.
MarshallMN (1996) Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice13(6): 522–6.
24.
MartinSSandersonI (1999) Evaluating public policy experiments: Measuring outcomes, monitoring processes or managing pilots?Evaluation5(3): 245–58.
MuniesaFCallonM (2007) Economic experiments and the construction of markets. In: MacKenzieDAMuniesaFSiuL (eds) Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 311–57.
27.
OakleyA (2007) Evidence-informed policy and practice: Challenges for social science. In: HammersleyM (ed.) Educational Research and Evidence-Based Practive. London: SAGE, 91–105.
28.
PattonMQ (2008) Advocacy impact evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation5(9): 1–10.
PicciottoR (2012) Experimentalism and development evaluation: Will the bubble burst?Evaluation18(2): 213–29.
31.
RegeerBJDe Wildt-LiesveldRVan MierloBet al. (2016) Exploring ways to reconcile accountability and learning in the evaluation of niche experiments. Evaluation22(1): 6–28.
32.
RegeerBJHoesACVan Amstel-van SaaneMet al. (2009) Six guiding principles for evaluating mode-2 strategies for sustainable development. American Journal of Evaluation30(4): 515–37.
33.
SabelCFZeitlinJ (2012) Experimentalist governance. In: Levi-FaurD (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University press, 169–86.
34.
SelkerHPWasserJS (2014) The Affordable Care Act as a National Experiment. New York: Springer.
35.
VaessenJRaimondoE (2012) Making sense of impact: A methodological framework for assessing the impact of prizes. Evaluation18(3): 330–47.
36.
Van AsscheKBeunenRDuineveldM (2014) Evolutionary Governance Theory: An Introduction. Heidelberg: Springer.
37.
Van MierloBArkesteijnMLeeuwisC (2010) Enhancing the reflexivity of system innovation projects with system analyses. American Journal of Evaluation31(2): 143–61.
38.
VarvasovszkyZBrughaR (2000) A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning15(3): 338–45.
39.
WolpinKI (2007) Ex ante policy evaluation, structural estimation, and model selection. The American Economic Review97(2): 48–52.
40.
AgemaF (2012) In:Kamer wil stoppen met tandarts-experiment [video sample]. Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, 26June.
41.
Dutch Consumer Organisation (2012a) Stop experiment vrije tarieven mondzorg per direct [campaign statement]. Consumentenbond, 25June.
KuikenAVoortmanL (2011) Motie leden Kuiken/Voortman over niet invoeren van experiment [Discussion in the Dutch House of Representatives]. Available at: www.tweedekamer.nl Reference: 32620-18, 30June.
44.
KuikenA (2012). Motie Kuiken c.s. over stoppen van het experiment met vrije prijzen [Discussion in the Dutch House of Representatives]. Available at: www.tweedekamer.nl Reference: 32620-68, 5July.
45.
NOS (2011) Wat worden uw nieuwe tandarts tarieven?NOS, 1November.
46.
NOS (2012a) Vraag om zwarte lijst dure tandartsen. NOS, 26January.
47.
NOS (2012b) Kabinet-Rutte gevallen. NOS, 23April.
48.
NZa (2006) Visiedocument: theoretisch kader liberalisering vrije beroepen in de zorg. Utrecht: Nederlandse Zorg Autoriteit.
49.
NZa (2009) Bekostigingsstructuur mondzorg: transparante mondzorg met vrije prijzen - de consument kiest. Utrecht: Nederlandse Zorg Autoriteit.
50.
NZa (2012a) Marktscan Mondzorg: publicatie prijsontwikkeling februari 2012. Utrecht: Nederlandse Zorg Autoriteit.
51.
NZa (2012b) Marktscan Mondzorg: weergave van de markt tot en met maart 2012. Utrecht: Nederlandse Zorg Autoriteit.
52.
Powned (2011) De tandartsrekening wordt vanaf januari voor veel mensen hoger, ook al hebben ze een goede verzekering. Available at: www.powned.tv (accessed 20 October).
53.
SchippersE (2011a) Betreft vrije prijsvorming mondzorg [letter to the Dutch House of Representatives]. Available at: www.rijksoverheid.nl Reference: CZ/EKZ-3045178, 10February.
54.
SchippersE (2011b) Betreft vrije prijsvorming mondzorg [letter to the Dutch House of Representatives]. Available at: www.rijksoverheid.nl Reference: CZ/EKZ-3066609, 6June.
55.
SchippersE (2011c) Betreft vrije prijsvorming mondzorg [Written response to the Dutch House of Representatives]. Available at: www.rijksoverheid.nl. Reference: CZ-U- 3070960, 29June.
SchippersE (2012) Reactie op Motie Kuiken over stoppen van het experiment met vrije prijzen [Discussion in the Dutch House of Representatives]. Available at: www.rijksoverheid.nlReference: 32620-68, 5July.
58.
SchippersE (2015) Het jaar van de transparantie. Available at: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl Reference: 723160 -133094-MC, 2March.
59.
VarkevisserM (2012) Marco Varkevisser over marktwerking in de zorg [video sample]. Tilburg: Me Judice, 29May.
60.
WMG (2006) Wet Marktordening gezondheidzorg. Available at: www.wetten.overeid.nl (accessed 28 September 2016).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
