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.

Reconsidering advice and advisory systems

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.

Academic policy advice in consensus-seeking countries: the cases of Belgium and Germany

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.