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

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-581
Author(s):  
Patrick Diamond

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.

2019 ◽  
pp. 002085231987878 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valérie Pattyn ◽  
Sonja Blum ◽  
Ellen Fobé ◽  
Mirjam Pekar-Milicevic ◽  
Marleen Brans

Research on policy-advisory systems worldwide has shown that historically dominant sources of advice traditionally located in-house to the government have been increasingly supplemented by other actors and outside knowledge. However, the vast majority of research has concentrated on the anglophone context. Yet, countries with a consensus-seeking, neo-corporatist tradition provide a special case in terms of policy advice and merit more scholarly attention. What counts as evidence in these countries is the expert rationality of institutional representatives. The position and role of academic research in consensus-based systems is unclear, and is the focus of this article. Can we observe commonalities across consensus-style countries, or do differences prevail? We investigate two typical consensus-seeking countries: Belgium and Germany. To examine the supply side of policy advice, the article reviews current evidence regarding their policy-advisory systems. For the demand side, we present insights from a survey among federal ministerial officials. We find common trends between the two cases but their nature and extent are idiosyncratic. In Belgium, the supply of and demand for academic policy advice is comparatively lower, while the German case exhibits more change in the advisory landscape and institutionalisation of the supply of and demand for academic research. Points for practitioners   • Countries with a consensus-seeking, neo-corporatist tradition provide a special case in terms of policy advice.   • The findings suggest that there are common trends but their nature and extent are idiosyncratic.   • In Belgium, the supply of and demand for academic advice is comparatively lower.   • Germany’s policy-advisory landscape exhibits more change and institutionalisation of the supply of and demand for academic research.


Policy Papers ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  

The Fund has made good progress over the past two years in integrating macrofinancial analysis into Article IV surveillance for a wide range of members. Building on past work to enhance financial sector analysis, Fund staff has sought to develop a consistent and forward-looking view on how the financial sector affects each member’s economic outlook with the aim of strengthening staff’s capacity to provide advice on macro-critical questions. The focus has been on developing a fuller understanding of macrofinancial linkages, and applying this analysis to inform policy advice. Staff has sought to articulate the role of the financial sector in the macroeconomic baseline, and to integrate the financial sector into the risk assessment, taking into account both the impact of macro shocks on the financial sector as well as the effect of financial shocks on macroeconomic stability. Strengthening the analytical foundations of this work has helped staff provide advice in all policy areas, including financial sector policies. Staff has tailored macrofinancial analysis to the circumstances of a diverse set of economies. Area departments have taken the lead in selecting 66 economies for enhanced macrofinancial coverage and in identifying topics, drawing on targeted support from functional departments. The choice of coverage has included legacies from the global financial crisis—such as deleveraging and stretched balance sheets in advanced economies and some emerging markets—and more recent challenges such as commodity price shocks, especially in low income countries, and the risks of housing booms. The financial sector’s contribution to growth and inclusion has become an important question in countries across all income groups. Staff sees benefits in mainstreaming this approach across the membership, while continuing to address analytical gaps and adapting to new challenges. The work of the past two years has underscored the criticality of macrofinancial analysis for a diverse range of members, and laid the basis for progressively mainstreaming macrofinancial surveillance across the membership. Building on this progress, staff sees scope for the Fund to deepen its understanding of the macroeconomic effects of financial shocks, to better adapt microprudential and macroprudential policy advice with an assessment of macro-critical risks including systemic risk, and to deepen the analysis of outward spillovers. Staff will also need to continue to adapt the focus of analysis and tools, and seek relevant data, as economic challenges evolve.


Author(s):  
Andrew Stritch

Since the 1980s, policy advisory systems in Canada have become more open and accessible to inputs from civil society groups. However, the capacity to exploit this new openness is not evenly distributed within civil society. Based on survey data from Canadian business associations, this chapter argues that business groups have generally endowed themselves with impressive capacities for policy analysis and advice, and that these capacities have increased over the last decade or so. Business associations have commonly made a significant and sustained commitment to this endeavour, whether using in-house personnel or external resources, and have developed strong analytical means for providing governments with policy advice. To the extent that this capacity is unmatched by other sections of civil society, the greater openness of policy advisory systems may not reflect a new era of genuine pluralism, but reinforce existing biases in civil society.


2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (10) ◽  
pp. 1538-1561
Author(s):  
Ishani Mukherjee ◽  
Sarah Giest

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.


Author(s):  
Kate Crowley ◽  
Jenny Stewart ◽  
Adrian Kay ◽  
Brian W. Head

Policy advice and policy advisory systems tend to be underplayed or neglected in policymaking literature despite robust policy advisory research efforts, and concerns with the character and dynamics of domain specific advisory systems within and beyond the state. In this chapter we reconsider policy advice in several key senses. We revisit the significance of the role of policy advising, and depictions of the transformation of the practice of policy advising; we draw upon governance and policy systems frames in our reconsideration of advisory systems; and we reflect upon the place of expert advice in PASs in problem solving today. We explore the role of advice and advisory systems in addressing complex problems in the governance era, and ask whether a more diverse advisory landscape helps or hinders the generation and transmission of policy relevant knowledge.


Author(s):  
Michael J. Prince

As public sector work, policy analysis and policy advising is the soft craft of hard choices. Changes in the context and content of Canadian politics and government in recent decades have shifted the nature of public service policy advice giving. This chapter presents these changes and their implications in relation to two approaches to policy advising. One model, the traditional approach in Canadian parliamentary governments, involves public servants speaking truth to those in power, namely cabinet ministers. The second model, reflecting contemporary trends in governance, can be described as many actors sharing many truths to decision makers. In short, there has been a shift in policy advisory systems engaged in policy analysis and matters of giving policy advice. The chapter examines each of these models, describing them and offering some criticisms, as well as noting trends in Canada that relate to this altered context of advising and policy development.


2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Craft ◽  
Michael Howlett

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document