This staggering fact was brought home during The New Zealand Initiative's recent expedition to the Netherlands. The delegation of 42 top business leaders witnessed first-hand how one of the world’s most flood-prone nations became one of its most prosperous societies.
Dutch prosperity is no accident. A quarter of the Netherlands lies below sea level. This simple geographic fact has shaped a national mindset. Adaptation is not optional. It demands foresight, cooperation, and resilience. When your future depends on keeping the sea at bay, you do not waste time on ideological distractions. You focus on what works.
The stark numbers tell the story. Dutch workers produce 51% more output per unit of input than Kiwis. They achieve this while working 300 fewer hours annually than us. We are not losing because we lack effort. We are losing because we lack systems.
But which systems matter most? Twenty years ago, the Netherlands faced a familiar problem: death by a thousand regulatory cuts. But unlike most nations that merely complain about red tape, they decided to weigh it.
Their Standard Cost Model turned regulatory burden from abstract irritation into hard mathematics. Hours spent on compliance, multiplied by wages, multiplied by affected businesses. Every form had a price tag. The result? A 25% reduction in administrative burden within four years. Four billion euros liberated annually for productive use.
The Dutch then created an independent Advisory Board on Regulatory Burden with genuine authority. Last year, it advised against 60% of proposed regulations. No diplomatic niceties. Just ruthless defence of economic efficiency.
This mindset extends well beyond spreadsheets. The Dutch regulate for real risks, not imagined ones. Canal boats come without compulsory lifejackets. Cyclists are not encumbered by mandatory helmets, yet Dutch cities remain among the safest in the world for riders. Officials open meetings with substance, not toilet directions. Infrastructure and norms do the work, not compulsion
It is a society built on trust in personal responsibility, not bureaucratic liability management. In a country where we barely saw a road cone, it was hard not to reflect on New Zealand’s orange cone epidemic – symbols of a safety-is-everything culture that often puts theatre ahead of real risk.
Meanwhile, New Zealand has tumbled from 2nd to 20th in the OECD’s regulatory quality rankings since 1998. We now rank dead last for administrative burdens. Yet some still query the need for the regulatory hygiene-checks proposed in the Regulatory Standards Bill.
The contrast extends beyond regulatory discipline. At Wageningen University & Research, we witnessed "Food Valley" – a world-leading hub where science and industry collaborate to commercialise agricultural innovation. The origins of this cluster lie in a pragmatic merger, initiated in the early 2000s, between the university and public research institutes in response to revive agri-science amid falling enrolments.
While government supported the consolidation, what followed was not bureaucratic central planning but a thriving, industry-facing ecosystem. Secure property rights, stable regulations, and institutional independence enabled private investment and collaboration to flourish.
At Wageningen, the delegation also witnessed what rational agricultural policy actually looks like. While Auckland Council sanctifies “highly productive soils” on urban fringes – blocking houses where families might live, Dutch horticulture builds upwards. Multi-storey greenhouses produce more tomatoes per square metre than our protected paddocks could dream of achieving.
This is not ideology masquerading as environmental protection. It is technology solving real problems in a place where land is scarce. The Dutch feed Europe from a country smaller than Canterbury.
The Maeslantkering storm surge barrier embodies Dutch thinking perfectly. Two curved gates, each the length of the Eiffel Tower, capable of sealing Rotterdam from the North Sea. It has closed twice since 1997.
Some might question the economics. The Dutch remember the 1953 floods that killed 2,551 people. When you live below sea level, you do not gamble with the North Sea. This is rational risk management, not monument building.
That distinction matters. The Dutch invest in infrastructure that generates measurable returns. They do not build cycleways where nobody cycles or rail lines where buses would suffice. The Dutch learned in the 1970s that protected infrastructure could transform habits – but they have always built for use, not virtue. Every euro must justify itself.
The foundations matter. In 2013, 47 parties – government, business, unions – signed an Energy Agreement. Twelve years later, those commitments still guide infrastructure investment. This was consensus, not coercion.
This created something powerful: predictability. Dutch firms invest knowing the rules will not change with the political winds. Workers train knowing their industries will not be regulated into oblivion. Infrastructure gets built based on cost-benefit analysis, not electoral calculations.
Compare that with us. We have perfected the art of delay and indecision. Where the Dutch say yes unless there is good reason to refuse, we wrap opportunity in precaution – and then shift the rules halfway through.
Investors in New Zealand face not just red tape, but policy whiplash: reversals, overcorrections, and reviews that never end. What began as caution has become unpredictability. The result? Higher capital costs, fewer investments, and an economy working harder each year to fall further behind.
The Dutch built their prosperity not through grand government schemes, but through stable institutions. Not through heavy-handed intervention, but by enabling business to thrive. Not by doing more, but by doing less – competently.
Time we learned how.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
The stark numbers tell the story. Dutch workers produce 51% more output per unit of input than Kiwis. They achieve this while working 300 fewer hours annually than us. We are not losing because we lack effort. We are losing because we lack systems.
But which systems matter most? Twenty years ago, the Netherlands faced a familiar problem: death by a thousand regulatory cuts. But unlike most nations that merely complain about red tape, they decided to weigh it.
Their Standard Cost Model turned regulatory burden from abstract irritation into hard mathematics. Hours spent on compliance, multiplied by wages, multiplied by affected businesses. Every form had a price tag. The result? A 25% reduction in administrative burden within four years. Four billion euros liberated annually for productive use.
The Dutch then created an independent Advisory Board on Regulatory Burden with genuine authority. Last year, it advised against 60% of proposed regulations. No diplomatic niceties. Just ruthless defence of economic efficiency.
This mindset extends well beyond spreadsheets. The Dutch regulate for real risks, not imagined ones. Canal boats come without compulsory lifejackets. Cyclists are not encumbered by mandatory helmets, yet Dutch cities remain among the safest in the world for riders. Officials open meetings with substance, not toilet directions. Infrastructure and norms do the work, not compulsion
It is a society built on trust in personal responsibility, not bureaucratic liability management. In a country where we barely saw a road cone, it was hard not to reflect on New Zealand’s orange cone epidemic – symbols of a safety-is-everything culture that often puts theatre ahead of real risk.
Meanwhile, New Zealand has tumbled from 2nd to 20th in the OECD’s regulatory quality rankings since 1998. We now rank dead last for administrative burdens. Yet some still query the need for the regulatory hygiene-checks proposed in the Regulatory Standards Bill.
The contrast extends beyond regulatory discipline. At Wageningen University & Research, we witnessed "Food Valley" – a world-leading hub where science and industry collaborate to commercialise agricultural innovation. The origins of this cluster lie in a pragmatic merger, initiated in the early 2000s, between the university and public research institutes in response to revive agri-science amid falling enrolments.
While government supported the consolidation, what followed was not bureaucratic central planning but a thriving, industry-facing ecosystem. Secure property rights, stable regulations, and institutional independence enabled private investment and collaboration to flourish.
At Wageningen, the delegation also witnessed what rational agricultural policy actually looks like. While Auckland Council sanctifies “highly productive soils” on urban fringes – blocking houses where families might live, Dutch horticulture builds upwards. Multi-storey greenhouses produce more tomatoes per square metre than our protected paddocks could dream of achieving.
This is not ideology masquerading as environmental protection. It is technology solving real problems in a place where land is scarce. The Dutch feed Europe from a country smaller than Canterbury.
The Maeslantkering storm surge barrier embodies Dutch thinking perfectly. Two curved gates, each the length of the Eiffel Tower, capable of sealing Rotterdam from the North Sea. It has closed twice since 1997.
Some might question the economics. The Dutch remember the 1953 floods that killed 2,551 people. When you live below sea level, you do not gamble with the North Sea. This is rational risk management, not monument building.
That distinction matters. The Dutch invest in infrastructure that generates measurable returns. They do not build cycleways where nobody cycles or rail lines where buses would suffice. The Dutch learned in the 1970s that protected infrastructure could transform habits – but they have always built for use, not virtue. Every euro must justify itself.
The foundations matter. In 2013, 47 parties – government, business, unions – signed an Energy Agreement. Twelve years later, those commitments still guide infrastructure investment. This was consensus, not coercion.
This created something powerful: predictability. Dutch firms invest knowing the rules will not change with the political winds. Workers train knowing their industries will not be regulated into oblivion. Infrastructure gets built based on cost-benefit analysis, not electoral calculations.
Compare that with us. We have perfected the art of delay and indecision. Where the Dutch say yes unless there is good reason to refuse, we wrap opportunity in precaution – and then shift the rules halfway through.
Investors in New Zealand face not just red tape, but policy whiplash: reversals, overcorrections, and reviews that never end. What began as caution has become unpredictability. The result? Higher capital costs, fewer investments, and an economy working harder each year to fall further behind.
The Dutch built their prosperity not through grand government schemes, but through stable institutions. Not through heavy-handed intervention, but by enabling business to thrive. Not by doing more, but by doing less – competently.
Time we learned how.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
11 comments:
I have thought for some time that low-rise warehouses virtually on Turners & Growers doorstep could/should be used for hydroponic growing.
Sure, but the Netherlands don't have the maori to deal with.
It is hard to take some of these articles seriously. Roger goes on and on about productivity and how bad NZ is compared to a country we have nothing in common with.
Then in the next breath he happily extolls the virtue of high levels of unskilled immigration that keeps us a low wage economy.
The ability to hold two conflicting ideas, at the same time, seems to be a modern requirement.
Very good article highlighting successful practices in a Western European country that could be emulated here.
The Netherlands is hardly "a country [NZ has] nothing in common with". They're both Western parliamentary democracies - NZ has more in common governance-wise with Holland than with most countries in the world.
It's also worthy of note that the Dutch were the largest continental European immigrant group to come to NZ.
Barand, apart from our form of government? Population? Population density? Close neighbours? An indigenous group that must be given priority?
Sure, CXH, but the article is about govt policies and regulations, especially as those affect the running of the economy, so I focused on governance.
Watching the submitters to the Regulatory Standards Bill - Select Committee , the low level of productivity in NZ is obvious. The overwhelming submitters were do gooders on donated money. The Maori groups masquerading as essential is mind blowing and the cost to NZ astronomical. All claimed partnership with the Crown, There isnt one,
Most claimed relevance to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which there also are none and then complained about the proposed Treaty Princoiples Bill which was scuttled by PM Luxon for them..
NZ needs a very stern look at NZ wasteful spending , which I am sure was a high priority for the Dutch Companies the Initiative group visited
We are often told how bad the bureaucracy is in France. Well, having lived in France for a number of years I can assure you that NZ is many, many times worse. The individual freedom in France makes this country feel like a police state by comparison.
I cannot see that New Zealand will ever achieve a world class economy while it's dragging the ball and chain of co- governance and Iwi Koha behind it.
Barand, fair call. However the article makes it sound like it is all perfect over there. That rules and regulations are only supportive of all and sundry. Yet their farmers find it any thing but. So what else is glossed over to make them seem perfect, compared to us?
Also, even if we both had the same rules and regulations, our differences are so large it is impossible to really compare what the outcomes would be.
Yes, the Netherlands does not have a 180 year old "treaty" that gets reinterpreted every decade since like Alice in Wonderland
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.