Abstract
ABSTRACTResearch on policy advisory systems has rapidly proliferated over the last decade and now focuses on advisory system change dynamics. Yet, empirical studies predominantly focus on the study of policy advisory systems in Westminster systems and it is those studies upon which theorization relies. This paper argues that this Westminster-prevalence resulted in a Westminster-bias of our understanding of policy advisory systems and directs attention to more abstract or general analytical dimensions that may be relevant for the comparative study of policy advisory systems and research on advice systems in transitional and developing countries.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have