Policy Advisory Systems Research Articles

Policy advice through the market: The role of external consultants in contemporary policy advisory systems

The use of external policy consultants in government has been an increasing focus of concern among governments in the U.S., the UK, Canada and Australia, among others. Concern has arisen over the costs incurred by governments in this area and over the possible rise of a ‘consultocracy’ with the corresponding diminishment of democratic practices and public direction of policy and administrative development that could entail. However, current understanding of the origins and significance of the use of policy consultants in modern government is; poor with some seeing this development as part of a shift in the overall nature of state-societal relations to the ‘service’ or ‘franchise’ state and away from the ‘positive’ or ‘regulatory’ state, while others see it as a less significant activity linked to the normal development of policy advice systems in modern government. This article surveys the existing literature on the phenomena, in general, and identifies several methodological and data-ralated issues germane to the study and understanding of the activities of this set of external policy advisory system actors.

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems

AbstractMost studies of policy formulation focus on the nature and kind of advice provided to decision-makers and think of this as originating from a system of interacting elements: a “policy advisory system”. Policy influence in such models has historically been viewed as based on considerations of the proximate location of policy advisors vis à vis the government, linked to related factors such as the extent to which governments are able to control sources of advice. While not explicitly stated, this approach typically presents the content of policy advice as either partisan “political” or administratively “technical” in nature. This article assesses the merits of these locational models against evidence of shifts in governance arrangements that have blurred both the inside vs outside and technical vs political dimensions of policy formulation environments. It argues that the growing plurality of advisory sources and the polycentrism associated with these governance shifts challenge the utility of both the implied content and locational dimensions of traditional models of policy advice systems. A revised approach is advanced that sees influence more as a product of content than location. The article concludes by raising several hypotheses for future research linking advisory system behaviour to governance arrangements.

DOD's Office of International Security Affairs: The Brief Ascendancy of an Advisory System

Foreign policy and national security advisory systems for the president and secretary of state have been given careful treatment in a number of studies. ' Foreign policy advisory staffs for the secretary of defense, however, have received scant attention. Until changes made in 1979 by the Carter administration, the defense secretary's foreign policy advisory and general policy development staff was the Office of International Security Affairs (ISA), part of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). One of the reasons for its relative obscurity in the literature is that after the Johnson administration, ISA's influence declined dramatically. This article examines the factors that enhanced or diminished the influence of ISA. As the current administration struggles with the problems of foreign policy management, the experience of one cabinet-level advisory agency offers a better understanding of what has been effective. From the Truman through the Carter administrations, ISA filled two very different functions. It was a line agency,2 administering the Defense Depart-

Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving.Charles E. Lindblom , David K. Cohen

<i>Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving.</i>Charles E. Lindblom , David K. Cohen

National Security Advice to U.S. Presidents: Some Lessons from Thirty Years

Since 1947 the major formal institution for channeling national security advice to Presidents has been the National Security Council. The Council has operated (1) as a forum where senior officials meet with the President; (2) as a focal point for formal policy planning and decision processes; and (3) as an umbrella for establishment of a Presidential foreign policy staff. The first was the goal of its proponents; the last is what it has most importantly become. But the N.S.C. has reflected the relationships among each administration's top officials more than it has shaped them; hence the need to think of broader advisory “systems” combining the formal and the informal. Among the variables shaping such systems are; a President's particular organizational sense; his attitude toward formality and regularity; whether he has (and wants) strong Cabinet officials; how his key advisers work out their role relationships and jurisdictional boundaries; how widely he casts his net for advce; how broad a range of substantive issue involvement he seeks; how much he seeks operational involvement; and his attitude toward divided counsel and interpersonal conflict.Prescriptions about foreign policy advisory systems tend to stress the President's role as decision maker; they should focus also on the oft-competing role of effective Presidential leadership in getting policies and decisions executed. The importance of execution argues for giving the Secretary of State primacy over other advisers; the need to protect the President's decision authority argues for a White House assistant independent of the Secretary, though perhaps with reduced rank. Presidents also need better advice on the domestic politics of U.S. foreign policy, and each could profit from a “mid-term system review” after his institutions and advisory relationships have taken shape.