LIST OF WORKSHOPS

General objectives and Research questions

This workshop aims to advance the theoretical and empirical understanding of policy advisory systems (PAS), by taking on the agenda of so-called ‘third wave’ PAS studies and expanding it to focus on the role of PAS in explaining policymaking processes and the impact of current epistemic transformations on advisory structures and dynamics. Some question of interest for the workshop are: 

-How PAS governance arrangements affect the quality and content of advice?

-How can the PAS framework contribute to better understand policy processes and outcomes? Can the PAS theory be advanced through hybridization with existing policy process theories? 

-How have changes in the epistemic context of PAS brought by the AI revolution and the crisis of expertise have affected their configuration and workings?

Context and state of the art

From the seminal work of Halligan (1995), many policy scholars have paid attention in the subsequent decades to how the interactions of actors involved in the production, translation and consumption of policy and politically relevant knowledge flows into policymaking activities and shapes contemporary governance (Hussain et al., 2024) (Capano et al., 2025; OECD, 2017). 

PAS scholarship has also been self-reflective about its own development, distinguishing between several ‘waves’ of studies (Craft & Howlett, 2012; Craft & Wilder, 2017; Migone & Howlett, 2025). The first wave focused on the configuration of PAS and the dynamics therein, where policy influence was considered a function of the closeness between knowledge producers and consumers and the ability of producers to adapt their advice to the policy preferences of decision makers. In this respect, these studies were interested in the role of specific actors, particularly the public bureaucracy, and how its traditional advisory role and centrality in PAS was undermined by the externalisation of advice following public management reforms and politicisation trends (Craft & Wilder, 2017).

Later, a second ‘second wave’ of PAS studies (Craft & Wilder, 2017) advocated for a holistic analysis of PAS, focusing on the variation between policy subsystems and on the impact of contextual and internal factors on the nature and quality of advice (Migone and Howlett, 2025). This second generation was also interested in externalisation and politicisation processes, with studies in non-Westminster countries providing a more nuanced view of these phenomena (Bakir, 2023; Fobé et al., 2018; Howlett, 2019; Hustedt, 2019; Marchevska, 2025; Pattyn et al., 2022).

More recently, a ‘third wave’ of PAS studies has emerged (Howlett et al., 2025; Migone & Howlett, 2025). In addition to the previous interests, this new set of studies would emphasise PAS management processes and how they impact the quality of advice.

This workshop aims to stimulate scholars interested in the consolidation and advancement of PAS theory in two main ways. First, by reflecting on the topics on which the subsequent waves have focused (the evolution in the composition of PAS and their dynamics, the conditions affecting the production of advice, its content and utilisation, the influence on these aspects of sectoral or macropolitical contexts) or expanding the knowledge on PAS towards new geographic areas or levels of government (mainly regional or local).

In addition, this workshop would like to serve as a platform to advance PAS theory along two avenues less explored in the previous literature. One is the impact of contemporary transformations in the epistemic context of policy and political advice. First, we are still uncertain about the impact on political and policy advice of the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) in the daily work of public and private organisations (Criado et al., 2025): Will AI-based advice bring a more rational policymaking process? And how will it affect the configurations of PAS (for instance, will the development of AI capacities within the public administration reinforce its advisory position vis à vis external actors? Or, in contrast, will AI-powered knowledge increase the advisory influence of external actors and, in particular, those technological companies which control the development of these tools? 

Another contemporary transformation in the epistemic context that affects PAS concerns the erosion of the legitimacy of traditional expertise (Reed & Reed, 2023). The basic issue here is how the questioning of expert knowledge and the advocacy for ‘alternative’ forms of knowledge resting on legitimacy sources other than traditional scientific-technical legitimacy (local knowledge, citizen knowledge) or even evidence-free knowledge (Brans & Blum, 2024) will affect the workings and configuration of PAS.

A second avenue of development refers to the connection between PAS and the policy process and its outcomes. We contend that this connection is still underexplored and undertheorized, since, as our review has demonstrated, the literature has been much more interested in the ‘dependent variable’ character of PAS. How PAS dynamics and configuration influence policy change and innovation, agenda setting, policy formulation, or implementation? These questions open the possibility of new theoretical developments in PAS that exploit the evident synergies with existing theories of the policy process. For instance, the focus on the subsystem dimension of PAS advocated by some authors (Craft & Wilder, 2017) immediately brings to the forefront the role that PAS could play in maintaining or subverting policy monopolies or directing policy attention (Jones & Baumgartner, 2005), making possible or hindering policy learning or more substantive change (Sabatier & Weible, 2007) or affecting the content of the problem or policy streams in agenda setting processes (Kingdon, 1995). These synergies can go in both directions, with PAS theory being complemented by elements from other policy process theories or, alternatively, theories being enriched by incorporating the PAS conceptual apparatus. 

Papers
The workshop will welcome theoretical and empirical contributions (comparative or case studies) aiming to consolidate the existing knowledge or to push forward the frontiers of the PAS literature, particularly papers analysing: 

a) The evolution of PAS in geographical or sectoral areas where such a characterisation is still missing.

b) How PAS management or governance structures influence the quality and content of policy advice.

c) The impact of AI on policy advice and the work of PAS.

d) How the crisis of (traditional) expertise has affected the dynamics of policy advisory and the configuration of PAS.

e) Empirical analysis of the impact of PAS on the policy process (policy change, agenda setting, policy formulation, or implementation).

f) Theoretical papers exploring the synergies between PAS and policy process theories.

Agenda
The workshop will adopt a hybrid format to maximise the opportunities for participation and, at the same time, to allow onsite participants to benefit from the networking opportunities of the workshop social agenda and, in general, of the conference. The workshop sessions will be organised around the main topics mentioned above. At the end of the workshop, the coordinators and the participants will evaluate the possibility of producing a collective publication (edited volume or special issue).

References

Bakir, C. (2023). The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes. Policy and Society, 42(3), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad013

Capano, G., Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (Eds.). (2025). The Routledge Handbook of Policy Advisory Systems. Routledge.

Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X12000049

Craft, J., & Wilder, M. (2017). Catching a Second Wave: Context and Compatibility in Advisory System Dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12133

Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazán, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and public administration: Understanding actors, governance, and policy from micro, meso, and macro perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 40(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241272921

Fobé, E., Pattyn, V., Brans, M., & Aubin, D. (2018). Policy Analytical Practice Investigated: Exploring Sectoral Patterns in Use of Policy Analytical Techniques. In X. Wu, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Policy Capacity and Governance: Assessing Governmental Competences and Capabilities in Theory and Practice (pp. 179–202). Palgrave Macmillan.

Halligan, J. (1995). Policy Advice and the Public Service. In B. G. Peters & D. J. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a Changing Environment (pp. 138–172). Canadian Centre for Management Development/McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Howlett, M. (2019). Comparing policy advisory systems beyond the OECD: models, dynamics and the second-generation research agenda. Policy Studies, 40(3–4), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1557626

Howlett, M., Galanti, M. T., Migone, A., & Vicentini, G. (2025). Management and quality : third-generation research into policy advisory systems. 00(00).

Hussain, F., Tsang, D., & Rafique, Z. (2024). Policy advisory systems and public policy making : Bibliometric analysis , knowledge mapping , operationalization , and future research agenda. Review of Policy Research, 41, 713–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12564

Hustedt, T. (2019). Studying policy advisory systems: beyond the Westminster. Policy Studies, 40(3–4), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1557627

Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The Politics of Attention. The University of Chicago Press.

Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (2nd ed.). Longman.

Marchevska, D. (2025). Comparing Beyond ( Just ) the State ? Examining Patterns of Policy Advice Externalization Across Policy Domains. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70082

Migone, A., & Howlett, M. (2025). Kicked cans and poison pills: third generation policy advisory system studies and the management of quality political advice. Policy and Society, 00(00), 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf002

OECD. (2017). Policy Advisory Systems: Supporting Good Governance and Sound Public Decision Making. OECD.

Pattyn, V., Blum, S., Fobé, E., Pekar-Milicevic, M., & Brans, M. (2022). Academic policy advice in consensus-seeking countries: the cases of Belgium and Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319878780

Reed, C., & Reed, M. (2023). Enough of Experts: Expert Authority in Crisis. De Gruyter.

Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed., pp. 189–220). Westview Press.

Since Halligan’s foundational work (1995), research on Policy Advisory Systems (PAS) has examined how interactions between actors involved in producing, translating, and consuming policy-relevant knowledge influence policymaking and governance. This workshop aims to stimulate scholars interested in the consolidation and advancement of PAS theory in two main ways. First, by reflecting and providing new theoretical or empirical insights on the topics on which the subsequent waves of PAS studies have focused. Therefore, the workshop will welcome papers expanding the knowledge of PAS in ‘classic’ topics, such as the evolution in the composition of PAS and their dynamics, the conditions affecting the production of advice, its content, quality, and utilization, or the influence on these aspects of sectoral or macropolitical contexts, particularly in geographic areas or levels of government (local, regional) less explored in previous studies.

In addition, this workshop would like to serve as a platform to advance PAS theory along two avenues less explored in the previous literature. One is the impact on the workings and configuration of PAS of contemporary transformations in the epistemic context of policy and political advice. Therefore, the workshop welcomes papers focusing on the impact on political and policy advice of the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI); or papers dealing with how PAS have adapted to the erosion of the legitimacy of traditional expertise and the advocacy for ‘alternative’ forms of knowledge resting on legitimacy sources other than the traditional scientific-technical legitimation. 

A second avenue of development refers to the connection between PAS and the policy process and its outcomes. We contend that this connection is still underexplored and undertheorised, since, as our review has demonstrated, the literature has been much more interested in the ‘dependent variable’ character of PAS. Thus, the workshop welcomes papers focusing on how PAS dynamics and configuration influence policy change and innovation, agenda setting, policy formulation or implementation. In particular, we welcome papers exploring the synergies between PAS theory and established policy process theories and frameworks (advocacy coalitions, punctuated equilibrium, multiple streams, etc.).

This workshop aims to stimulate scholars interested in the consolidation and advancement of PAS theory in two main ways. First, by reflecting and providing new theoretical or empirical insights on the topics on which the subsequent waves of PAS studies have focused,  such as the evolution in the composition of PAS and their dynamics, the conditions affecting the production of advice, its content, quality, and utilization, or the influence on these aspects of sectoral or macropolitical contexts, particularly in geographic areas or levels of government (local, regional) less explored in previous studies.

Second, the workshop want to contribute to advance PAS theory along two avenues less explored in the previous literature. One is the impact on the workings and configuration of PAS of contemporary transformations in the epistemic context of policy and political advice, such as the development of AI or the erosion of the legitimacy of traditional expertise and the advocacy for ‘alternative’ forms of knowledge resting on legitimacy sources other than the traditional scientific-technical legitimation. 

A second avenue of development refers to the connection between PAS and the policy process and its outcomes. We contend that this connection is still underexplored and undertheorized, since, as our review has demonstrated, the literature has been much more interested in the ‘dependent variable’ character of PAS. Thus, the workshop would like to serve as a platform to reflect on how PAS dynamics and configuration influence policy change and innovation, agenda setting, policy formulation or implementation, as well as exploring the synergies between PAS theory and established policy process theories and frameworks (advocacy coalitions, punctuated equilibrium, multiple streams, etc.).

José Real-Dato is an Associate professor of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of Almería. His research interests are the dynamics of policy advice and, specifically, the use of expert and policy knowledge by top-level bureaucrats and politicians in the public administration. Currently, he is Principal Investigator (with Laura Chaqués-Bonafont) of the project KNOWPOLIS (Knowledge for Policy: Evidence and Participation in Evolving Policy Advisory Systems), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities. He has also directed other two research projects on this topic: CONESPOL, on the use of knowledge by top-level officers in the Spanish national administration; and PANCRAS-MAX, focusing on the same group of actors but in regional governments. He has also been co-author in 2023 (with Carolina Cañibano) of “The Spanish scientific and technical advisory ecosystem for public policy”, a report commissioned by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, which constitutes the first attempt to map the Spanish scientific policy advisory system. His research has been published in journals such as South European Society and Politics, European Political Science, Party Politics, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, Acta Politica, East-European Politics, Historcal Social Research or Pôle Sud. He has also edited several books, including National Political Elites and the Eurozone Crisis, co-edited with Nicolò Conti and Borbála Göncz, (Routledge, 2018); and Southern Europe in The Covid-19 Pandemic: The First Phase, co-edited with Juan Rodríguez Teruel and Susannah Verney (Routledge, 2024). Finally, he is also coordinator of the degree of Public Management and Administration at the University of Almería.

Marleen Brans holds degrees from the Universities of KU Leuven, Hull and the European University Institute. She is Professor at the KU Leuven Public Governance Institute and visiting professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain. Her research interests are the production and use of evidence and advice in policy advisory systems, with a special focus on two groups of advisory actors: ministerial advisors and social scientists. Her recent publications include several co-edited books (The Advisory Roles of Political Scientists in Europe: Comparing Engagements in Policy Advisory Systems, with A. Timmermans, Palgrave 2022; Policy analysis in Belgium, with D. Aubin, Policy Press 2017; Routledge Handbook of Comparative Policy Analysis, with M. Howlett and I. Geva-May, 2017, Rewards for High Public Office, with B. Guy Peters, Routledge 2012). She has published articles in journals such as Public Administration, Governance, West-European Politics, European Journal for Political Research, Policy and Society, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, European Political Science. Marleen Brans is President of the International Public Policy Association (IPPA).

Laura Chaqués-Bonafont is a Professor of Political Science at the Universitat de Barcelona and a director of Institut Barcelona d'Estudis Internacionals (IBEI) since 2024. She holds a Ph.D. in Political Economy from the Universitat de Barcelona and a Master's degree in Political Science from the New School of Social Research in New York. With an extensive academic background, she has served as a visiting professor at esteemed institutions such as the University of Washington, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and King's College London. She leads the research group "Quality of Democracy" (www.Q-Dem.com), which focuses on analyzing the interplay between governmental, parliamentary, and media agendas over time, across various issues, countries, and government levels in Spain from a comparative standpoint. She is also principal investigator (with José Real-Dato) of the project KNOWPOLIS (Knowledge for Policy: Evidence and Participation in Evolving Policy Advisory Systems), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities. Her work bridges policy dynamics research with key areas of political science, including policy advisory systems, political representation, interest groups, and the quality of democracy in multilevel governance systems. She has written several books, numerous book chapters, and articles published in prestigious academic journals such as Comparative Political Studies, The British Journal of Political Science, West European Politics, Political Communication, the Journal of Public Policy, and the European Journal of Political Research. Her research excellence has been recognized with various awards, including the ICREA Academia award.