LIST OF WORKSHOPS

What is the unique role of government ministries in the policy process, and how is this role shaped? Much of public policy is designed, implemented, and evaluated within government ministries. As organizations, they play an important role in all aspects of the policy process: in developing policy proposals and programs, forwarding their adoption, implementing and evaluating their effectiveness and impact. They are also in constant interaction with other actors in the policy subsystem, including non-state actors, policy recipients and interest groups. Yet, our understanding of government ministries, as distinct units of analysis and objects of study, and as policy actors, remains limited: they are often studied as venues for policymaking, development and research (Herold et al, 2021; Neto et al, 2019); as trophies awarded to politicians and parties during government formation (Debus, 2008), or part of the broader “bureaucracy”  - as platforms for a struggle between politicians and bureaucrats (Hustedt & Salomonsen, 2014). While some specific ministries gain more extensive attention in research because of their institutional power resources, such as Ministries of Finance or Ministries of Justice (Craig, 2020; Raudla et al 2021), the unique politics and logics of operation of other ministries, as related to their designated policy fields, is traditionally overlooked in policy research.

Very recently, however, policy and bureaucratic politics research has begun to focus on ministries and their distinct policy, politics, and logics. This type of work  draws on the assumption that different types of ministries (e.g., finance, welfare, foreign affairs) operate according to distinct sets of logics and politics which conditions how they approach policymaking (Garritzmann & Siderius, 2024, Jørgensen, 2025). What shapes these logics and politics are elements related to the specific policy field in the ministry’s responsibility; as well as the specific policy subsystem(s) with which it interacts. This includes the specific types of education and professional training of ministries’ public servants, as well as their associated professional networks. For example, training in social work or education is likely to instil in public servants a distinctly different normative orientation than that of those trained in law or economics, and still different from those with strong military or security training (see in this context: Abramovitz & Zelnick, 2018; Christensen & Mandelkern, 2022). It also includes the distinct sets of stakeholders with which ministries interact, including advocacy groups, target populations, regulated agencies, academics and media (Garritzmann & Siderius, 2024). These attributes are different from ministry to ministry (with some ministries sharing similar types of politics), creating variation relevant to the public policy process.

Importantly, these logics and politics systematically shape not only the ministry’s tasks and mandates but also how and which type of policies are developed and implemented by the ministries: what is their distributive profile and the sets of values they express. Because different ministries operate according to different logics, politics, and sets of values, they are likely to demonstrate different policy preferences and apply different logics of policy goals, objectives and instruments (Garritzmann & Siderius, 2024). They are also likely to have a different perception of their roles in the policy process (Maron & Williams, 2023) , and consider and apply different approaches to outcomes measurement, network governance and information flows, and how they consider and use evidence and advice in policy making (Andersen & Pattyn, 2025; Maron & Benish, 2021, Jørgensen, 2025). Their ministerial logic, politics and perceived role might also shape how they respond to policy decisions made by elected officials or other policy actors, and whether and how they resist or mitigate their implementation (Mandelkren and Koreh, 2018; Maron & Williams, 2023).

This accumulating evidence suggests that the specific attributes of government ministries are important to understand their role in all stages of the public policy process, and its influence and impact on policy outcomes. We need however to expand our knowledge of those relations. Several questions, further developed in the call for proposals, are important: how do distinct ministerial politics and logics emerge, how do they change over time, and how do they vary across context? What is the impact that they have on policy: policy process, choices, and outcomes? And how do they interact with one another?

Abramovitz, M., & Zelnick, J. (2018). The logic of the market versus the logic of social work: Whither the welfare state? Social Work & Society, 16(2). https://ejournals.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/index.php/sws/article/view/562

Andersen, N. A., & Pattyn, V. (2025). The organisation of evaluations: the influence of the ministry of finance on evaluation systems. Evidence and Policy, 21(2), 206–228. https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000045

Christensen, J., & Mandelkern, R. (2022). The technocratic tendencies of economists in government bureaucracy. Governance, 35(1), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/GOVE.12578

Craig, M. P. (2020). ‘Treasury Control’and the British environmental state: The political economy of green development strategy in UK central government. New political economy, 25(1), 30-45.

Debus, M. (2008). Office and Policy Payoffs in Coalition Governments. Party Politics, 14(5), 515–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068807088121

Herold, J., Liese, A., Busch, P. O., & Feil, H. (2021). Why national ministries consider the policy advice of international bureaucracies: Survey evidence from 106 countries. International Studies Quarterly, 65(3), 669-682.

Hustedt, T., Kolltveit, K., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2017). Ministerial advisers in executive government: Out from the dark and into the limelight. Public Administration, 95(2), 299-311.

Jørgensen, J. V. (2025). The differential impact of evidence types in policy decisions: comparing evidence priorities in employment and education ministries. Policy Studies, 46(5), 779-806.

Mandelkern, R., & Koreh, M. (2018). Interrupting gradual institutional change: how ‘continuity agents’ have stalled and even reversed gradual welfare-state reforms in Israel. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(11), 1706–1725. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1336184

Maron, A., & Benish, A. (2021). Power and conflict in network governance: exclusive and inclusive forms of network administrative organizations. Public Management Review, 24(11), 1758–1778. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1930121

Maron, A., & Williams, J. W. (2023). Limits to the financialisation of the state: exploring obstructions to social impact bonds as a form of financialised statecraft in the UK, Israel, and Canada. New Political Economy, 28(6), 865–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2023.2196063

Neto, O. A., & Malamud, A. (2019). The policy-making capacity of foreign ministries in presidential regimes: a study of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, 1946–2015. Latin American Research Review, 54(4), 812-834.

The proposed workshop aims to expand our understanding of the politics and logics of ministries, their origins and their effect on the policy process. Several types of contributions are relevant to advance this field. First, it is important to understand how ministerial logics and politics are formed, develop and change. Research so far points to their sources in the professional and educational background of its civil servants. These findings can be further substantiated, expanded and detailed in additional studies. More research can suggest and test other sources for unique ministerial politics, including forming events and political crises, ideational contexts and paradigmatical and operational changes. Second, we need to know more about how ministries operate in the policy process. How does their politics and logics affect their role in policy making? For example, how do they shape their interaction with other powerful or veto actors and elected officials? How do they affect their approach to media and communication? How dot they shape their perception of their role in the policy process? Third, it also important to understand whether and how these attributes vary across contexts – institutional, ideational, historical cultural, etc. For example, are administrative traditions likely to shape finance or social services ministries, differently?  Do similar type of ministries operate differently as systematically related to varieties of capitalism, or the polity approach to the welfare state?

              We expect work in the field to draw on various types of methods and research approaches. Because basic questions are still being answered, there is especially room for case studies and small-N comparative work, as well as to papers working on developing conceptual and theoretical framework. Additionally, while the unit of analysis is likely to be ministries, studies focusing on public servants and their ministry-related background as units of observations, are also likely to contribute to the field. We also expect work that considers these questions in a broad temporal context, as question of stability and change in in ministerial politics are also of interest.

We look for papers that address these and similar questions:

Stability vs. change in a ministerial logic and politics

The factors determining ministerial logic politics, including (but not limited to) the role of ideas and values, professions

The unique politics and logics of specific ministries, especially those often overlooked so far in research

How ministerial logic and politics effect the selection of policy instruments

The relations between ministerial logic and policy change

Bureaucrats and politicians roles in determining and affecting the ministerial logic

The effect of ministerial logic on information processing and gathering

Similarities and differences in ministerial logics across countries and political regimes

The effect of ministerial logic on policy capacity

How ministerial politics and logic interact with and function as power resources

Ways to study ministerial politics and logics, including approaches and methods.

Government ministries are important to policymaking—they are active in designing, implementing, and evaluating public policies. Yet their unique role remains underexplored. Ministries are often treated as venues for policy making (Herold et al., 2021; Neto et al., 2019), as political assets allocated in coalition bargaining (Debus, 2008), or as parts of the wider bureaucracy in politician–bureaucrat relations (Hustedt & Salomonsen, 2014). Very recently, however, policy and bureaucratic politics research has begun to focus on ministries and their distinct policy, politics, and logics. This type of work  draws on the assumption that different types of ministries (e.g., finance, welfare, foreign affairs) operate according to distinct sets of logics and politics which conditions how they approach policymaking (Garritzmann & Siderius, 2024, Jørgensen, 2025). These are related to the distinct training and professional education of civil servants in ministries; as well as to their policymaking environment and sets of stakeholders with which they interact. Importantly, these logics and politics systematically shape not only the ministry’s tasks and mandates but also how and which type of policies are developed and implemented by the ministries, how they perceive their roles in the policy process, how they approach policy evidence and advice, and how they respond to policy decisions (Andersen & Pattyn, 2025; Garritzmann & Siderius, 2024; Maron & Williams, 2023).

This accumulating evidence suggests that the specific attributes of government ministries are important to understand their role in all stages of the public policy process, and its influence and impact on policy outcomes. Several questions, on which this workshop focuses, are important: how do distinct ministerial politics and logics emerge, how do they change over time, and how do they vary across contexts? What is the impact that they have on policy: policy process, choices, and outcomes? And how do they interact with one another, and to what effect?

Reut Marciano is  a lecturer in the PPE (Political Science, Philosophy, and Economics) program and in the Federmann School for Public Policy and Governance in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research focuses on the state and policy making in neo- liberal and managerial contexts.

Ilana Shpaizman is a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Studies, Bar-Ilan University. Her research focuses on the policy process, agenda setting, and the executive.