LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Policy advice is a critical function in current polities. Over the past four decades, the study of its creation, diffusion and use has evolved dramatically from the original idea that policy advice existed in a relatively straightforward space where three communities of suppliers, brokers and consumers of policy advice existed in a more or less linear relationship (Manwaring 2019).

As more actors were progressively incorporated into notions of advice systems, the interactions among the actors (Maloney, Jordan, and McLaughlin 1994), the potential complexity of the dynamics among actors increased. This led to efforts to better describe and categorize actually existing advisory systems and to a new literature grappling with these issues. As the literature tried to make sense of differences among advisors it famously looked at dimensions such as where they ‘resided’ (inside or outside of government) and how much control governments had on the activities would allow us to rank their impact on policy advice (Halligan 1995).

The notion of Policy Advisory Systems (PAS) grew around this work and developed a significant comparative aspect. While, evidently, in terms of impact it matters where advisors are located and if they are proximate or peripheral actors and it is clear that these relationships vary by jurisdiction and sector (Howlett 2014), this research has grappled with but not yet succeeded in addressing several other important questions. These include, for example, the impact of changes in government and governance styles on advisory systems, the specific links which exist in such systems between different actors and how these are important, the links, if any, between types of ideas and types of actors, and the general question of how advisory systems change and develop over time.

Some work suggests, for example, that advisory systems have changed over the last several decades in terms of their increased politicization and the general growth of external sources of advice and suggests these two dimensions are interconnected and interrelated and that they overlap, influence, multiple other characteristics of the PAS, such as but not limited to policy capacity, the role of elected policy-makers as well as of administrators, the nature of policy issue faced, and others. Much of this work has been conducted on only a few countries, however, mainly in the OECD and especially in Anglo-American or Westminister systems and some evidence of contrary movements in other jurisdictions exists (CITE Belyaeva 2019, Howlett 2019. Notions that, for example, abstract advice about policy goals and preferences is generally the precinct of non-governmental outsiders and insiders while suggestions about instrument selection and operational matters are usually in the realm of  insiders and core actors, remain alluring but unproven (Page 2010).

Recently, a ‘third wave’ of PAS studies has emerged, growing upon this base of first generation description and 2nd generation comparative work (Craft and Wilder 2017). Building on the advances made in PAS studies to date, two areas have increasingly appeared in recent studies of Policy Advisory Systems relate to the dynamics of PAS and the quality of the advice provided. New 3rd generation work examines a wide range of questions, including for example, how PAS dynamics are affected by their management (Marciano and Craft 2023) and how their quality can be measured and enhanced (Migone and Howlett 2023).

            The workshop is particularly interested in papers which address multiple questions related to how the policy sciences literature can advance its capacity to understand both policy advice dynamics, the quality of policy advice and other ‘third wave’ issues.

Bibliography:

Craft, Jonathan, and Matt Wilder. 2017. “Catching a Second Wave: Context and Compatibility in Advisory System Dynamics: Policy Advisory System Dynamics.” Policy Studies Journal 45(1): 215–39.

Halligan, John. 1995. “Policy Advice and the Public Sector.” In Governance in a Changing Environment, eds. B Guy Peters and Donald J. Savoie. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 138–72.

Howlett, Michael. 2014. “Policy Design: What, Who, How and Why?” In L’instrumentation de l’action Publique: Controverses, Résistances, Effets, eds. Charlotte Halpern, Pierre Lascoumes, and Patrick Le Galès. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 281–316.

Maloney, William A., Grant Jordan, and Andrew M. McLaughlin. 1994. “Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited.” Journal of Public Policy 14(1): 17–38.

Manwaring, Rob. 2019. “Political Demand and Policy Advice: A Framework for Analysis.” Policy Studies 40(3–4): 270–86.

Marciano, Reut, and Jonathan Craft. 2023. “Theorising Policy Advisory System Management: Approaches and Practice.” Journal of Public Policy 43(3): 490–511.

Migone, Andrea, and Michael Howlett. 2023. “Hirschman 2.0 or What Makes a Good Policy Advice System? A Theory of Policy Advice System Quality & Capacity.” https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4554870 (August 29, 2023).

Page, Edward C. 2010. “Bureaucrats and Expertise: Elucidating a Problematic Relationship in Three Tableaux and Six Jurisdictions.” Sociologie du travail 52(2): 255–73.

The workshop is interested in interrogating multiple questions related to how the policy sciences literature can aid the 3rd generation of Policy Advisory System research and advance its capacity to understand and manage policy advice dynamics and the quality of policy advice.

            Mindful of the fact that these dimensions are interconnected and interrelated and that they overlap, influence, multiple other characteristics of policy advice content and structure, the Chairs are interested in papers which address any of a broad range of questions related to 3rd generation PAS research, including topics such as:

-       What theories and/or frameworks can be utilized to better address the study of PAS dynamics and policy advice quality?

-       What parameters can be applied to defining the nature of ‘high quality’ versus ‘low quality’ policy advice?

-       Do PAS operate in different ways under conditions of emergency policy-making and what are the effects of these decision environments on both the dynamics of the PAS and the quality of the advice?

-       What are the roles of the actors involved in the PAS in the production of low- and high-quality advice, in particular within PAS that exhibit less than desirable dynamics: i.e., corruption, toadyism or high levels of disengagement?

-       How can we best measure the differences in policy dynamics and quality between different types of political systems (i.e., authoritarian regimes vs. democracies) and between different jurisdictional levels (i.e., local vs. national)?

Over the past decades, policy advice has been at the core of a growing literature that has both increased it reach in terms of policy areas and jurisdictions being analyzed, and has expanded its analytical capacity by progressively adding to its original framework based on 1st generation simple models of the communities of policy advice suppliers, brokers and consumers.  2nd generation research has added more layers of complexity, is more aware of the role of interactions between actors and ideas in the PAS and of the nature of the institutional and locational dimensions of advice systems.

            To advance the progression of the policy sciences literature on the topic of the Policy Advisory System, this IWPP4 workshop is interested in exploring further the complexity and multi-layered nature of the PAS by exploring the two 3rd generation dimensions that are increasingly becoming relevant to this subfield: the dynamics of Policy Advisory Systems and policy advice quality.

            These two dimensions are critical in helping scholars to further refine the empirical analytical and predictive capabilities of the PAS literature, at the same time they present interesting theoretical challenges such as how to categorize some of their elements (what represents ‘good’ policy advice?), how to choose appropriate and effective theoretical or analytical frameworks within which to ground 3rd Generation research, what methods to use to study the relationship between PAS actors and its dynamics, and others.

            The workshop is interested in a wide range of papers including, but not limited, to theoretical contributions, comparative analyses exploring how PAS dynamics and policy advice quality are impacted/affect different regimes and jurisdictional levels, the role policy actors play in the quality of policy advice and case studies exploring these areas.

Andrea Migone

Andrea Migone is Assistant Professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, his research and publication focus is centered on Policy Advisory Systems, public policy and public procurement. In particular he is interested in how policy-relevant knowledge is constructed, diffused and used within the scope of complex decision-making environments. Among his recent publications are:

Migone, Andrea. 2022. “Developing the Canadian Wine Industry: A Contested Success.” In Policy Success in Canada: Cases, Lessons, Challenges, eds. Evert Lindquist et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 303–23.

Migone, Andrea, Alexander Howlett, and Michael Howlett. 2023. Procurement and Politics: Strategies of Defence Acquisition in Canada and Australia. London: Palgrave.

Migone, Andrea, and Michael Howlett. 2023a. “Assessing Policy Analytical Capacity in Contemporary Governments: New Measures and Metrics.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 82(1): 3–25.

———. Forthcoming 2023b. “Assessing the ‘Forgotten Fundamental’ in Policy Advisory Systems Research: The Role(s) of Core Professionals.” Australian Journal of Public Administration.

Migone, Andrea, and Michael Howlett. 2023c. “Hirschman 2.0 or What Makes a Good Policy Advice System? A Theory of Policy Advice System Quality & Capacity.” https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4554870 (August 29, 2023).

Migone, Andrea, Michael R. McGregor, Kathy Brock, and Michael Howlett. 2022. “Super-Users and Hyper-Experts in the Provision of Policy Advice: Evidence from a Survey of Canadian Academics.” European Policy Analysis 8(4): 370–93.

Michael Howlett

Michael Howlett is Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) and Burnaby Mountain Professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. He has published widely in the 2nd generation of Policy Advisory System studies including:

Craft, Jonathan, and Michael Howlett. “Policy Advisory Systems and Evidence-Based Policy: The Location and Content of Evidentiary Policy Advice.” In Evidence-Based Policy-Making in Canada, edited by Shaun Young, 27–44. Toronto: University Of Toronto Press, 2013.

———. “Policy Formulation, Governance Shifts and Policy Influence: Location and Content in Policy Advisory Systems.” Journal of Public Policy 32, no. 02 (2012): 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X12000049.

———. “The Dual Dynamics of Policy Advisory Systems: The Impact of Externalization and Politicization on Policy Advice.” Policy and Society 32, no. 3 (2013): 187–97.

Howlett, Michael. “Comparing Policy Advisory Systems beyond the OECD: Models, Dynamics and the Second Generation Research Agenda.” Policy Studies, 2019.

Howlett, MIchael. “Policy Work, Policy Advisory Systems and Politicization.” Central European Journal of Public Policy 7, no. 1 (June 2013): 4–7.

Howlett, Michael, and Andrea Migone. “Policy Advice through the Market: The Role of External Consultants in Contemporary Policy Advisory Systems.” Policy & Society 32, no. 3 (2013): 241–54.

———. “Searching for Substance: Externalization, Politicization and the Work of Canadian Policy Consultants 2006-2013.” Central European Journal of Public Policy 7, no. 1 (June 30, 2013): 112–33.

Howlett, Michael, Seck L. Tan, Andrea Migone, Adam Wellstead, and Bryan Evans. “The Distribution of Analytical Techniques in Policy Advisory Systems: Policy Formulation and the Tools of Policy Appraisal.” Public Policy and Administration 29, no. 4 (2014): 271–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076714524810.

Migone, Andrea, and Michael Howlett. “Assessing the ‘Forgotten Fundamental’ in Policy Advisory Systems Research: Policy Shops and the Role(s) of Core Policy Professionals.” Australian Journal of Public Administration (2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12595.

Migone, Andrea, and Michael P. Howlett. “Hirschman 2.0 or What Makes a Good Policy Advice System? A Theory of Policy Advice System Quality & Capacity.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY, August 29, 2023. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4554870.

Migone, Andrea, Michael R. McGregor, Kathy Brock, and Michael Howlett. “Super-Users and Hyper-Experts in the Provision of Policy Advice: Evidence from a Survey of Canadian Academics.” European Policy Analysis n/a, no. n/a (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1139.