Informalisme in de wet: onnodig en riskant

Informalism in the law: unnecessary and risky The childcare benefits scandal in the Netherlands has led to numerous initiatives, including strengthening the Safeguard Function of the Administrative Law Act. One notable aspect of this law is the requirement to include informal resolution of in the appeal procedure, which is based on the concept of psychological procedural justice (PPJ). This theory inspired the project ‘Pleasant Contact with the Government’ (PCMO). While there is nothing wrong with a friendly demeanor, embedding this in law is risky because the justification used by the legislators is scientifically unfounded. In this article, the author refers to this informality as ‘informalism’: an overly extreme and irresponsible belief in the informal approach, lacking the counterbalance of rule-of-law values. Due to enthusiasm, no research was conducted on the potential side effects and problems of the informal approach, despite their prevalence and explicit warnings to the government. These side effects include unintended arbitrariness and potential integrity issues, which have been extensively studied in sociology of law, public administration, and forensic science. At the end, an alternative is suggested: revaluing quality and objective law.