Policy Advisory Systems Research Articles

Polycentric governance and policy advice: lessons from Whitehall policy advisory systems

In countries worldwide, the provision of policy advice to central governments has been transformed by the deinstitutionalisation of policymaking, which has engaged a diverse range of actors in the policy process. Scholarship should therefore address the impact of deinstitutionalisation in terms of the scope and scale of policy advisory systems, as well as in terms of the influence of policy advisors. This article addresses this gap, presenting a programme of research on policy advice in Whitehall. Building on Craft and Halligan’s conceptualisation of a ‘policy advisory system’, it argues that in an era of polycentric governance, policy advice is shaped by ‘interlocking actors’ beyond government bureaucracy, and that the pluralisation of advisory bodies marginalises the civil service. The implications of such alterations are considered against the backdrop of governance changes, particularly the hybridisation of institutions, which has made policymaking processes complex, prone to unpredictability and at risk of policy blunders.

Behavioural Insights Teams (BITs) and Policy Change: An Exploration of Impact, Location, and Temporality of Policy Advice

Behavioural Insights Teams (BITs) have gained prominence in government as policy advisors and are increasingly linked to the way policy instruments are designed. Despite the rise of BITs as unique knowledge brokers mediating the use of behavioral insights for policymaking, they remain underexplored in the growing literature on policy advice and advisory systems. The article emphasizes that the visible impact that BITs have on the content of policy instruments, the level of political support they garner and their structural diversity in different political departments, all set them apart from typical policy brokers in policy advisory systems connecting the science–policy divide.

Peering into the black box of government policy work: The challenge of governance and policy capacity

There have been calls for more diffused policy advisory systems where a plurality of actors, particularly actors from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), engage with government in deliberating policy interventions to address collective problems. Previous research has found that government-based policy workers tend to have low levels of interaction with outside actors. However, very little is understood about the nature of these interactions. To shed light on this important relationship, a multi-regression structural equation model examines the nature of government-based policy work across three Canadian provinces. From an online survey of 603 Canadian provincial government policy workers, we develop six hypotheses that focus on the drivers of policy capacity and their degree of interaction with non-governmental organizations. The results revealed that increased interaction by the respondents with stakeholders was an important determinant for inviting stakeholders to policy discussions and led to increased perceptions of policy capacity. However, the ongoing trend of politicization in policy work had a dampening impact on overall policy capacity. More importantly, it appears that undertaking more evidence-based policy work did not lead to a greater policy capacity perception or interaction with stakeholder groups. The survey design and model development have the potential to be replicated in other jurisdictions.

Externalization and politicization in policy advisory systems: a case study of contestable policy-making 2010–2015

ABSTRACTThis paper contends that since 2010 in the UK, there has been an unprecedented attempt to disrupt the traditional civil service ‘monopoly’ over policy advice, outsourcing policy-making to actors beyond the central state. The author argues that the policy-making processes of Whitehall and Westminster governance are being radically overhauled. In many Anglophone countries, ministers have sought to reduce their structural dependence on the permanent civil service. In so doing, ministers sought to gain political control over the machinery of policy-making. These efforts to restructure the permanent bureaucracy have had unintended consequences, however. The policy process in the UK state has become more fragmented, as policy-making and implementation have increasingly diverged.

Studying policy advisory systems: beyond the Westminster-bias?

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.

Comparing policy advisory systems beyond the OECD: models, dynamics and the second-generation research agenda

ABSTRACTThe concept of “policy advisory systems” was introduced by Halligan in 1995 as a way to characterize and analyze the multiple sources of policy advice utilized by governments in policy-making processes. The concept has proved useful and has influenced thinking about both the nature of policy work in different advisory venues as well as how these systems change over time. However, to date this work has examined mainly cases of developed countries and its application to developing and transitional countries is less certain. This paper sets out existing models of policy advisory systems based on Halligan’s original thinking on the subject and assesses the findings of many existing studies into OECD countries that advisory systems have been changing as a result of the dual effects of increased use of external consultants and others sources of advice – “externalization” – and the increased use of partisan advice inside government itself – “politicization”. Determining whether or not such changes have also characterized the situations found in developing and transitional countries and at the international-domestic and state-sub-state levels is the subject of the papers in this Special Issue.

How does policy advice of the international monetary fund differ along the income of advised countries?

ABSTRACTThe policy advice literature has paid little attention to the role of international organizations in policy advisory systems. This article offers a systematic analysis of policy advice provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the framework of the IMF’s regular Article IV consultations. The article argues that the content of IMF advice differs according to the income of the advised countries. Content analyses of the Article IV consultation reports of 18 countries show correlations between the gross national income (GNI) of the advised countries and the function of advice in the policy cycle, the specificity of advice, the recommended policy instruments and the targeted policy issues. Results show that the IMF rather points to policy problems, advices on policy goals and focuses on improving implementation when advising lower income countries. When advising higher income countries, the IMF’s advice focuses on means and specific policy tools.

Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice

The growing role of economic expertise in contemporary policy-making has received increasing scholarly attention. Yet, so far, this discussion has only been tenuously linked to relevant debates in public policy and administration, such as the work on policy advisory systems. The article attempts to bridge this gap by examining the changing reliance on academic economic knowledge within policy advisory bodies. It does so by analysing appointments and citation patterns in Norwegian advisory commissions in economic policy over the last 45 years. The analysis shows a marked increase in the number of academic economists appointed to commissions and in citations to economic literature. Moreover, it reveals an orientation towards the most prestigious outlets of the international economics discipline. This development can be interpreted as a scientization of policy advice in the economic field, that is, a growing reliance on academic expertise for analysis and arguments about public policy.

Digital era policy advising: Clouding ministerial perspectives?

AbstractThe growing body of literature on digital governance, and policy advisory systems, often neglects the perspective of elected decision makers. What types of policy advice do ministers need in the digital governance era? Is digitization of government and policymaking reshaping supply and demand dynamics, the content of policy advice, or how advice is used within the policy process? This article borrows existing theoretical frames on digital governance to examine these and other questions from the perspective of ministers. The digital governance era will undoubtedly introduce novel disruptions and dilemmas, but it will also intensify longstanding tensions inherent in advisory work linked to questions of influence, capacity, and how well advisory systems adapt to serve ministers. We use information processing dynamics, policy entrepreneurship, and control and coordination to ground analysis of ministers’ advisory demand in the digital governance era. We highlight unique considerations that apply to ministers as well as reflection on their place within the broader context of advisory work. We employ vignettes from the perspective of ministers throughout the article as a useful way to personalize the digital era disruptions and dilemmas particular to ministers.

Understanding Impact in Policy Advisory Systems: The Australian Case of the “Thinker in Residence”

ABSTRACTThe dynamics of policy advice giving in a policy advisory system (PAS) is complex, multifaceted, and relational. Research on policy advice has shifted from a “first wave” to a “second wave” that places a greater focus on the dynamics of PASs. This article expands our understanding of the impact of advice giving in a PAS by developing a framework that integrates supply, demand, content, and contextual factors. This article introduces a new type of policy actor (the “thinker in residence”) to better understand the relational dynamics of a PAS and compare why some actors achieve greater impact than others.

Policy advisory systems: change dynamics and sources of variation

The special issue aims to enhance our understanding of the conditions under which policy advisory systems vary. The contributions comprise both continental European countries (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands) and Anglo-Saxon countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK). The introduction to the special issue briefly outlines existing scholarship on policy advisory systems and identifies different research gaps to the filling of which the special issue seeks to contribute. The introduction highlights that the articles in the special issue point to both political system and policy process variables to better systemize, theorize and explain the origins and change dynamics of policy advisory systems.

Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany

Recent scholarship on advisory systems has focussed on the externalization of advisory capacities and sectoral dynamics of change, whereas changes of internal policy advisory systems have not yet been approached systematically. This article proposes an analytical concept for exploring change dynamics in internal policy advisory systems by means of three logics for assessing policy advice (political salience, credibility and representativeness). The approach is illustrated by analysing changes within the internal policy advisory system of the German federal government (1990–2015). The analysis relies on three original datasets on ministerial departments, research agencies and governmental advisory bodies. We find that the internal advisory system of the German federal government is characterized by a differentiated hybridization of advisory logics, which has changed the nature of policy advice.

Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization

Although the literature on policy advisory systems has experienced a revival in recent years, its empirical focus has mainly been on Anglophone countries (Craft and Halligan 2016). This paper applies the policy advisory systems approach to the Netherlands, which can serve as an example of the dynamics in the policy advisory systems of consensus-driven, neo-corporatist polities Lijphart in Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, 21, 235–266 1999). Using a historical-institutionalist perspective, the dynamics of the Dutch policy advisory system from the mid-1960s to the present day are examined. Based on original cross-time survey data and an analysis of secondary sources, the impact of depillarization (mid-1960s–mid-1990s), new public management (mid-1980s onwards) and an increased pressure on the executive have had for the Dutch policy advisory system (from the late 1990s): fragmentation, externalization and a non-partisan brand of politicization are shown. More specifically, the use of the institutionalized system of permanent advisory councils has lost part of its significance in favour of both external consultants and ad hoc advisory committees. The Dutch case, with its accumulative institutional design based on Weberianism, neo-corporatism and new public management elements, has thus experienced markedly different dynamics in its policy advice system than the Anglophone countries.

Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience

With the 30th anniversary of the policy advisory systems concept on the horizon, it is an appropriate time to reflect further on the concept’s utility, particularly in helping to understand the dynamics of system change and their implications for policy-making. This article provides diachronic analysis of the policy advisory systems in the classic Anglo-Saxon ‘Westminster’ family (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand). Analysis focuses on five advisory units: the public service and central agencies, partisan ministerial advisers, external consultants, commissions of inquiry, and select special advisory bodies. The principle research aim is to compare these cases to shed light on advisory system dynamics through identification and analysis of shared and country-specific patterns of PAS change. We argue that the leading dynamics of politicization and externalization often used to characterize how advisory systems change masks idiosyncratic country patterns. We argue that differences in the tempo, intensity, and sequencing of advisory unit (de)institutionalization are clear in these cases and that attention to these dimensions of advisory system change add precision to understanding the organization, operation, and evolution of these systems.

Quantitative differences in think tank dissemination activities in Germany, Denmark and the UK

In recent years, the study of policy advisory systems has been advanced conceptually and analytically through studies of externalisation and politicisation. Still, the understanding of institutional variation in how organisations supply policy advice remains limited. The contribution adds to recent research on think and the study of policy advice by arguing for a focus on the dissemination of policy advice by asking how the dissemination activities of think tanks vary across different policy advisory systems and what this implies for the study of policy advice. This question is explored in a quantitative design which compares publications, events and newspaper mentionings of samples of think tanks from a coordinated (Germany), liberal (UK) and mixed (Denmark) system in 2012. The analysis indicates that think tanks in the UK have the highest level of dissemination on all three activities when controlled for the number of full-time staff. The study indicates that factors beyond the policy process such as developments of funding and media environments should be analysed further as they are likely to be important for how and where think tank disseminate their policy advice.

Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems

Think tanks have proliferated in most Western democracies over the past three decades and are often considered to be increasingly important actors in public policy. Still, their precise contribution to public policy remains contested. This paper takes the existing literature in a new direction by focusing on the capacity of think tanks to contribute to strategic policy-making and assessing their particular role within policy advisory systems. We propose that strategic policy-making capacity requires three critical features: high levels of research capacity, substantial organizational autonomy and a long-term policy horizon. Subsequently, we assess the potential of think tanks to play this particular role in policy-making, using empirical evidence from structured interviews with a set of prominent Australian think tanks.

Catching a Second Wave: Context and Compatibility in Advisory System Dynamics

“Policy advisory systems” have been central to moving beyond individual actor considerations to assessments of the interactive effects of multiple interlocking sets of suppliers, in specific jurisdictions, that provide policy advice to policymakers. This article argues, while useful, the advisory system concept should be revised given that previous approaches animated by the location of supply and government control over it have been weakened. We argue for a “second wave” of advisory system studies that: (1) reorients the unit of analysis from the public service to advisory systems themselves, (2) better contextualizes advisory system operation and dynamics based on the subsystems within which they operate, and (3) focuses on questions of why advisory system components combine in particular policy instances and with what effect. Using access and compatibility, we posit a typology of policy advisory networks and develop four archetypes of policy ideational compatibility.

The distribution of analytical techniques in policy advisory systems: Policy formulation and the tools of policy appraisal

The literature on policy analysis and policy advice has not generally explored differences in the analytical tasks and techniques practiced within government or between government-based and non-government-based analysts. A more complete picture of the roles played by policy analysts in policy appraisal is needed if the nature of contemporary policy work and formulation activities is to be better understood. This article addresses both these gaps in the literature. Using data from a set of original surveys conducted in 2006–2013 into the provision of policy advice and policy work at the national and sub-national levels in Canada, it explores the use of analytical techniques across departments and functional units of government and compares and assesses these uses with the techniques practiced by analysts in the private sector as well as among professional policy analysts located in non-governmental organizations. The data show that the nature and frequency of use of the analytical techniques used in policy formulation differs between these different sets of actors and also varies within venues of government by department and agency type. Nevertheless, some general patterns in the use of policy appraisal tools can be discerned, with all groups employing process-related tools more frequently than “substantive” content-related technical tools, reinforcing the procedural orientation of much contemporary policy work identified in earlier studies.

Appointed political staffs and the diversification of policy advisory sources: Theory and evidence from Canada

Appointed political staffs were featured in the initial elaboration of the ‘policy advisory systems’ (PAS) model yet have received considerably less attention than other components. This article revisits the PAS model and argues that political staffs engage in important procedural advisory activities masked by the PAS focus on location and control. The principle contention being that political staffs influence within advisory systems may also be a product of their procedural brokerage of other sources of policy advice. The article advances a conceptual framework to understand political staffs brokerage as ‘bridging’. Setting out ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ forms that can be arrayed along ‘administrative-technical’ and ‘partisan-political’ types. A Canadian sub-national case study is examined using the framework revealing variance in the type and nature of bridging based on institutional location of political staffs and the specific brokerage tasks they undertake. First minister's office bridging is found to be considerably more limited than that undertaken by minister's office political staffs, particularly in relation to the bridging of exogenous sources of policy advice. The framework and empirical findings enrich the policy advisory systems literature by demonstrating the importance of coupling spatial considerations with attention to the actual tasks of advisory system members. Additionally, highlighting the importance of procedural policy advisory brokerage as a source of influence within advisory systems.

The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems: The impact of externalization and politicization on policy advice

The concept of “policy advisory systems” was introduced by Halligan in 1995 as a way to characterize and analyze the multiple sources of policy advice utilized by governments in policy-making processes. The concept has proved useful and has influenced thinking about both the nature of policy work in different advisory venues, as well as how these systems work and change over time. This article sets out existing models of policy advisory systems based on Halligan's original thinking on the subject which emphasize the significance of location or proximity to authoritative decision-makers as a key facet of advisory system influence. It assesses how advisory systems have changed as a result of the dual effects of the increased use of external consultants and others sources of advice – ‘externalization’ – and the increased use of partisan-political advice inside government itself – ‘politicization’. It is argued that these twin dynamics have blurred traditionally sharp distinctions between both the content of inside and outside sources of advice and between the technical and political dimensions of policy formulation, ultimately affecting where influence in advisory systems lies.