This is, overall, an informative study addressing the issue of institutional change in Dutch land policy. While studying both theoretical as well as practical implications of land governance re-structuring the researchers attempt not just applying to the selected case (land policy in the Netherland) the concepts of "institutional design" and of "institutional evolution" but also to suggest they own theoretical framework of institutional change which was inspired (as the authors mention) by works of Kingdon.

Despite this positive evaluation, there are several main issues the researchers should pay attention to further improvement of the research: First of all, the title of the work should be re-written since one theory of institutional change does not exist; different schools e.g. Old and New Institutionalism: Historical, Sociological, Discursive, etc. understand and interpret “institutional change” differently. Therefore, the researchers need to be specific and define already in the title from lenses of which theoretical school of thought they are going to analyze the case. Even if the researcher suggesting they own theoretical framework/approach of institutional change the authors need to be specific in placing the suggested framework within already exiting theories of institutionalism and institutional change.

Concerning the title additional remark should be made: the researchers mention in the title both agency (City-Provinces) and policy (Land Policy). Such a mixture of the agency and the policy in the title sounds for the readers confusing because logically land policy could be just one sector in the work of City-Provinces; Also depending on the school of thought different schools of Institutionalism consider Agency more important than the Context and vice versa. That is why, while mentioning in one title such notions as Institutional Theory: then Agency and then Policy, authors risk to perplex and confuse readers even more.

Secondly, in the abstract researchers mention such notions as "institutional design" and "institutional evaluation" but do not provide any reference to these notions; the application of references might help the research to sound more solid and professional as well as undoubtedly will help the readers to understand the discussion better.

The researchers did a good job in the identification of the research question as to: "why, under seemingly comparable conditions, some cases show substantive institutional transformations while others do not." (Buitelaar et.al: 2007, p. 891). However, the methodological part of the abstract is missing. The authors just mention: "We briefly discuss two cases from the Netherlands ...some instrumental changes in land policy" (Ibid, p. 891). The researchers need to define clearly which cases in which regions of the Netherlands they consider as cases and also to explain how they understand the notion of "instrumental changes", namely how it presented in academic literature (Ibid, p. 891). Thirdly, if to take a look at the references used in the paper easily could be revealed that none to little of the famous works related to theories of Institutionalism were used (except North, March, and Olsen). Since the researchers are trying to suggest their theoretical framework it is essential to study the works related to the Institutionalism theory such as Historical Institutionalism (Thelen and Steinmo: 1992), Sociological (DiMaggio: 1998), and others. If the authors complement their study with references to these studies the work will sound more professional.

It is possible to notice that researchers several times mention the works of Kingdon, however, in the reference list appears the only one work of the author. Needless to mention that Kingdon is the author of a large number of highly influential scholarly works in the field of public policy, except the works of author itself there are also dozens of works related to re-consideration or discussion of his works and concepts such as the concept of "policy window" in academic literature, etc. Therefore it is highly recommended to add to the reference list after the analysis, more works capturing these discussions. Fourthly, the structure of the works seems incoherent, the introduction section comprises 5 pages, which are purely devoted to the description of different theories of Institutionalism, followed by a description of theories of institutional change and only at page 12 (the article itself consist of 15 pages) starts the explanation of land policies in the Netherlands. Thus, the readers lost in a long description of theories of institutionalism. The researchers should take into account that readers usually are professionals who are aware of theories of Institutionalism, even if this is not the case, the researchers need to define the focus right from the beginning namely from the perspective of which theoretical framework thy analyze the problem. In a long description of theories of institutionalism such as rational choice, historical, sociological, discursive, the researchers may lose the attention of readers and most importantly the focus of their own research work.

Fifth, the text is hard to follow because researchers are asking questions addressing the audience almost after each paragraph. This might be a good "trick" to capture readers' attention, but if to use it too often, at the beginning of each paragraph, this sounds rather disturbing and illogical. For instance, only on one page, it is possible to read different quite broad questions such as: "what may explain the perseverance of institutions that support inefficient forms of organizing and policymaking?" (Ibid, p. 893),

"What is particularly important is the dynamic nature of this path? (Ibid, p. 893), "To what extent does a historical perspective assign a role to institutional design?" (Ibid, p. 893); then in the next pages: "How can we account for the fact that institutional change may not be accompanied by increasing efficiency?" (Ibid, p. 894), "What does such a perspective mean for our understanding of institutional design?" (Ibid, p. 895) etc. It is highly advisable to reduce the number of questions, as this might seem rather distracting from the main focus of the paper.

Sixth, the theoretical part is present, but researchers do not identify which theoretical framework they selected. On page 896 researchers just mention: "Following this logic, our approach is close to what Schmidt (forthcoming) would call discursive institutionalism" (Ibid, p. 896) and referring to forthcoming work of Schmidt (2007). Needless to mention, except Schmidt, much earlier several authors coined the notion of "Discursive Institutionalism" such as Cambell &Pedersen: 2001), “discursive polity” (Hansen & Sorensen: 2005), etc. Thus, it is highly advisable to authors to add discussions related to the discursive institutionalism to the paper, if this framework is considered to be the main in the research.

Seventh, the methodological part is absolutely missing in the work, this fact is highly surprising taking into account that the article will be published in the academic journal. Just in the abstract, the researchers mention that they selected two cases: two municipalities in the Netherlands. Thus, readers just can assume that researchers have selected the case study analysis as a method of research. This is a serious issue, that researchers have to pay attention to, as without applying or explaining the applied methodology of the work it is not possible to consider the work acceptable. Since the methodological part explanation is missing, the whole discussion of paper results seems rather descriptive and lacking the causal mechanism between the research question asked and the paper results. Without an explanation of the methodological part, it is hard, even impossible to construct internal as well as external validity of the research.

In conclusion, researchers emphasized that: "With the help of the work of Kingdon we have developed an analytical tool to explain the institutional change, the result of which has been conceptualized in a two-stage model of change." (Ibid, p. 905). Authors should be more specific by identifying from the beginning which works of Kingdon they are applying and how their own elaborated approach is going to fill the gap in the existing literature. Thus, a comprehensive revision of the work is essential. Summarizing, as the work strong side is possible to consider the attempt of authors to suggest their own elaborated theoretical framework which is believed to complement previous studies in the field. However, there are several major drawbacks of the paper such as lack of convincing arguments on how exactly the study complements already existing knowledge; this weakness partially might be due to the absence of the methodological part explanation.

In addition, language is sometimes hard to follow as the text seems incoherent because authors shifting the focus of the audience by asking a different broad and comprehensive questions in the main body of the text, which should be devoted to unpacking the problem rather than a description of the existing knowledge. Taking into account all these factors, the paper could be accepted but only in case of comprehensive major changes.