for A plus writer only

Jnl Publ. Pol., 32, 2, 79–98 r Cambridge University Press, 2012 doi:10.1017/S0143814X12000049

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems

J O N A T H A N C R A F T Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada

M I C H A E L H O W L E T T Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada

A B S T R A C T

Most 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 govern- ance 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.

Key words: Policy advice, policy advisory systems, influence, policy formulation

Introduction

The nature and sources of policy advice received by decision-makers in the policy formulation process are subjects that have received their fair share of scholarly attention. Many journals and specialised publications exist on these topics and specialised graduate schools exist in most countries with the aim of training policy analysts to provide better advice to decision- makers based on their findings (Banfield, 1980; Geva-May and Maslove, 2007; Jann, 1991; Tribe, 1972). Studies have examined hundreds of case studies of policy-making and policy formulation in multiple countries

(Durning and Osama, 1994; Fischer, 2003) and many texts chronicle various policy analytical techniques expected to be used in the provision of policy advice (Banfield, 1980; Weimer and Vining, 2004). Yet surprisingly little systematic thinking exists about this crucial component and stage of the policy-making process and many findings remain anecdotal and their paedagogical value suspect (Howlett, Perl and Ramesh, 2009).

One problem with the early literature on the subject was that many past examinations of policy advice focused on specific sets of policy advisory actors – such as Meltsner’s (1975; 1976; 1979) work on the policy analysis function of bureaucracies – and attempted to assess their influence in isolation from that of other advisors (Dluhy, 1981). More recent empirical studies of ‘‘policy supply’’ in countries such as the UK (Page and Jenkins, 2005), Australia (Weller and Stevens, 1998); New Zealand (Boston et al., 1996); the Netherlands (Hoppe and Jeliazkova, 2006), France (Rochet, 2004), Germany (Fleischer, 2009), Canada (Howlett and Newman, 2010), and others, however, all emphasised the different sources and configurations of advisory actors and influence found in policy formulation in those countries (see also Glynn et al., 2003, and Mayer et al., 2004). This led to modifications in older modes of thinking about policy formulation and policy advice processes and, in order to better understand these cross-national and cross-sectoral variations, scholarly attention turned in the mid-1990s to the theorisation and explanation of the concept of a ‘‘policy advisory system’’; that is, an interlocking set of actors, with a unique configuration in each sector and jurisdiction, who provided information, knowledge and recommendations for action to policy-makers (Halligan, 1995).

Such policy advisory systems are now acknowledged to be key parts of the working behaviour of governments as they go about their policy formulation and governance activities (Seymour-Ure, 1987; Plowden, 1987; Weaver, 2002). And accurately describing and understanding the nature of these systems is important for comparative policy and public administration and management research as are considerations of content and meth- odologies for the classification and assessment of advisory system actors (MacRae and Whittington, 1997).

Despite several decades of examination, however, a significant research agenda still exists in this area (Howlett and Wellstead, 2009; James and Jorgensen, 2009). Little is known about the non-governmental components of policy advisory systems in most countries, for example (Hird, 2005), except to note the general weakness of prominent actors in some systems – like think tanks and research institutes in many jurisdictions (Smith, 1977; Stone and Denham, 2004; McGann and Johnson, 2005; Abelson, 2007; Stritch, 2007; Cross, 2007; Murray, 2007). And even less is known about aspects such as the growing legion of consultants who work for governments in the ‘‘invisible public service’’ (Speers, 2007; Boston, 1994; Saint-Martin, 2005).

80 Craft and Howlett

However, conceptual problems continue to persist as well, and are the subject of this article.

One especially important conceptual issue with significant methodo- logical and practical consequences has to do with considerations related to the sources and patterns of influence among advisory system actors (Fleischer, 2006; Halffman and Hoppe, 2005). This is the case whether policy advice is investigated from a broad perspective on knowledge utili- sation in government (Dunn, 2004; Peters and Barker, 1993; MacRae and Whittington, 1997; Webber, 1991) or more specifically in relation to the workings of policy formulation processes (Scott and Baehler, 2010; James and Jorgensen, 2009). That is, the personal and professional components of a policy advice supply system, along with their internal and external sourcing, can be expected to be combined in different ratios in different policy-making situations (Dluhy, 1981; Prince, 1983; Wollmann, 1989; Hawke, 1993; Rochet, 2004) with significant implications for the kinds of advice that are generated and which are listened to by governments. However, it is not clear in any given situation which actors are likely to exercise more influence and prevail over others in a formulation process. As is argued below, a required step in the development of an improved understanding of the structure and functioning of policy advice systems is the articulation of a more robust conceptual depiction of their component parts than presently exists along with the more detailed specification of the nature of their interactions in terms of the amount of influence actors exercise in providing advice to decision-makers.

Locational models of policy advice systems: the prevailing insider-outsider orthodoxy

Most existing conceptual models of policy advice systems associate different levels of influence with the location of advisors either inside or outside government (Halligan, 1995). These ‘‘location-based’’ models have served as the starting point for investigations into, for example, the roles played by think tanks (Lindquist, 1998), public managers (Howlett, 2011) and others in policy formulation (Wilson, 2006).

This line of thinking underlay early efforts to classify the various com- ponents of advice-giving as a kind of marketplace for policy ideas and information often seen, for example, as comprising three separate locational components: a supply of policy advice, its demand on the part of decision- makers and a set of brokers whose role it is to match supply and demand in any given conjuncture (Lindquist, 1998; Maloney et al., 1994; Clark and Jones, 1999; March et al., 2009). That is, advice systems were thought of as arrayed into three general ‘‘sets’’ of analytical activities with participants linked to the positions actors hold in the ‘‘market’’ for policy advice. The first set of actors was thought to comprise the ‘‘proximate decision-makers’’ who

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence 81

act as consumers of policy analysis and advice – that is, those with actual authority to make policy decisions, including cabinets and executives as well as parliaments, legislatures and congresses, and senior administrators and officials delegated decision-making powers by those other bodies. The second set was composed of those ‘‘knowledge producers’’ located in academia, statistical agencies and research institutes who provide the basic scientific, economic and social scientific data upon which analyses are often based and decisions made. And the third set was those ‘‘knowledge brokers’’ who served as intermediaries between the knowledge generators and proximate decision-makers, repackaging data and information into usable form (Lindvall, 2009; Sundquist, 1978). These included, among others, perma- nent specialised research staff inside government as well as their temporary equivalents in commissions and task forces, and a large group of non- governmental specialists associated with think tanks and interest groups. In these models, proximity to decision-makers equalled influence, with policy brokers playing a key role in formulation processes given their ability to ‘‘translate’’ distant research results into useable forms of knowledge – policy alternatives and rationales for their selection – to be consumed by proximate decision-makers (Verschuere, 2009; Lindvall, 2009).

Halligan (1995) sought to improve on this early formulation by adding in the dimension of ‘‘government control’’. Viewing policy advice less as an exercise in knowledge utilisation and more as a specific part of the larger policy process, specifically as part of the policy formulation stage of policy- making. Halligan (1998:1686) defined policy advice as ‘‘covering analysis of problems and the proposing of solutions’’ and emphasised not only location vis à vis proximate decision-makers as a key determinant of influence but also how and to what degree governments were able to control actors located internally or externally to government who provided them counsel (see Table 1). This model suggested that location was not the only factor which affected influence. That is, not only knowledge ‘‘brokers’’ but other actors located in the external environment in which governments operated could exercise continued influence upon decision-makers, with the key consideration being not just geographical or organisational location but also the extent to which decision-makers could expect proffered advice to be more or less congruent with government aims and ambitions.

Although this model hinted at the key role played by ‘‘content’’ in con- siderations of advisory influence, at the root of this model, however, was still the inside-outside dimension since governments, generally, were thought to be able to exercise more control over internal actors than external ones. Halligan noted in each case, within the public service, within government and in the external environment, however, that some actors were more susceptible to government control than others and hence more likely to articulate advice that decision-makers would find to be acceptable; that is, matching the

82 Craft and Howlett

government’s perceptions of best practices, feasibility, and appropriate goals and means for achieving them. However, as Table 1 shows, in general each control category remains ‘‘nested’’ within a locational one so that the extent of independence and autonomy enjoyed by an ‘‘inside’’ government actor is considerably less than that enjoyed by an ‘‘outside’’ actor whether or not that external actor is amenable to government direction.

These locational models and their insider-outsider logic are useful and help us to depict and understand many aspects of policy advice, the nature of advisory system members and their likely impact or influence on policy decision-making. As shall be discussed below, however, simply under- standing these locational variations either with or without Halligan’s ‘‘control’’ dimension, is not enough to provide a clear understanding of the nature of influence in contemporary policy advisory systems. This is because traditional locational models of such systems based only upon proximity measures of influence gloss over the equally important question of ‘‘influence over what?’’, that is, about the content of advice provided by different actors, which has become a much more significant element of advice in its own right in recent years as more and different actors have entered into advisory system membership.

Adding the content dimension to locational models of policy advisory systems

Recent examinations of components of policy advisory systems such as political parties (Cross, 2007), the media (Murray, 2007) and partisan

TABLE 1. Locational model of policy advice system

Government control

Location High Low

Public service Senior departmental policy advisors Central agency advisors/strategic policy unit

Statutory appointments in public service

Internal to government Political advisory systems Permanent advisory policy Temporary advisory policy units units

> Ministers offices

> First ministers offices

Statutory authorities

External Parliaments (e.g. a House of Commons) Legislatures (e.g. US Congress Private sector/non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on contract

Trade unions, interest groups Community groups

Community organisations subject to government

Confederal international communities/organisations

Federal international organisations

Source: Halligan, 1995

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence 83

appointees (OECD, 2011; Connaughton, 2010b, Eichbaum and Shaw, 2010), among others, have underlined the limitations of locational models in being able to provide an exhaustive map of policy advice system types and a clear picture of how the various sources, types and components of policy advice fit together and operate (Mayer, Bots and van Daalen, 2004; Howlett and Lindquist, 2004). What is needed is a better model that links the provision of advice to larger patterns of changes in the behaviour of political decision-makers and knowledge suppliers that condition how policy advice is generated and deployed in different governance arrange- ments (Peled, 2002; Howlett and Lindquist, 2004; Bevir and Rhodes, 2001; Bevir, Rhodes and Weller, 2003; Aberbach and Rockman, 1989; Bennett and McPhail, 1992). Such a richer understanding of the structure and functioning of policy advisory systems can be obtained through the better specification of the second, ‘‘content’’, dimension highlighted in Halligan’s work and clarification of its relationship to locational considerations of influence.

A growing body of evidence has for some time pointed to this need to incorporate a more detailed and nuanced sense of advice content to location-based models of advisory influence. The critique of locational models is both historical and definitional. On the one hand, while older models relied on a kind of ‘‘vertical’’ policy advice landscape in which inside advisors had more influence than outside ones, the emergence of a more pluralised ‘‘horizontal’’ advice-giving landscape than existed in earlier periods (Weller and Rhodes, 2001; Radin, 2000; Page, 2007 and 2010) has challenged any traditional monopoly of policy advice once held by such prominent inside actors as the public service.

Halligan’s ‘‘control’’ dimension can be seen as an attempt to get at this second dimension of influence – modelled as congruent or less congruent with government aims – but is not specific enough about the nature of the content itself. Explicitly adding the content dimension of policy advisory systems to earlier location-based models, however, adds specificity to those models by integrating a substantive component to many otherwise con- tentless early considerations of advisory influence. Taken together with locational measures it is possible to use this additional dimension to get a better sense not only of which actors are likely to influence governments but also about the likely subjects of that influence.

Governance shifts and policy advice: from ‘‘speaking truth to power’’ to ‘‘sharing

truths with multiple actors’’

But how should this content dimension be modelled? As authors such as Radin (2000), Prince (2007) and Parsons (2004) among others have argued, the well-known older ‘‘speaking truth to power’’ model of policy advice

84 Craft and Howlett

(Wildavsky, 1979) has given way in many policy-making circumstances to a more fluid, pluralised and polycentric advice-giving reality that has been characterised as ‘‘sharing truth with many actors of influence’’ or ‘‘weaving’’ policy knowledge (Maley, 2011; Prince, 2007; Parsons, 2004). This dispersed advisory capacity combines technical knowledge and poli- tical viewpoints in ways that differ from the way advice was generated, and conceived of, in early thinking on advisory systems based on producer- broker-consumer or autonomy-control considerations.

Studies in a range of countries have noted that government decision- makers now increasingly sit at the centre of a complex ‘‘horizontal’’ web of policy advisors that includes both ‘‘traditional’’ professional public service and political advisors in government as well as active and well-resourced non-governmental actors in NGOs, think tanks and other similar organi- sations, and less formal or professional forms of advice from colleagues, friends and relatives and members of the public and political parties, among others (Dobuzinskis, Howlett and Laycock, 2007; Maley, 2000; Peled, 2002; Eichbaum and Shaw, 2007). As Hajer (2003: 182) has argued:

When Wildavsky coined the phrase ‘‘speaking truth to power,’’ he knew whom to address. The power was with the state and the state therefore was the addressee of policy analysis. Yet this is now less obvious. We might want to speak truth to power but whom do we speak to if political power is dispersed? States, transnational corporations (TNCs), consumers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the people? The media? With hindsight we can see how policy making and policy analysis was always conducted with an idea of a stable polity in mind.

Following Prince (2007), the elements of the traditional and contemporary ideal-type models of advice-giving are set out in Table 2 below. These shifts in the nature of state-societal or governance relations and decision-making authority and responsiveness set out in Table 2 have important consequences for thinking about the nature of influence in policy formulation and policy advisory activities.

The practical implications of such changes, for example, are obvious. As Anderson (1996: 486) argued, for example, in the contemporary period ‘‘a healthy policy-research community outside government can (now) play a vital role in enriching public understanding and debate of policy issues’’ and can serve as a natural complement to policy capacity within government. This view can be contrasted with Halligan’s (1995) earlier admonition that:

The conventional wisdom appears to be that a good advice system should consist of at least three basic elements within government: a stable and reliable in-house advisory service provided by professional pubic servants; political advice for the minister from a specialized political unit (generally the minister’s office); and the availability of at least one third-opinion option from a specialized or central policy unit, which might be one of the main central agencies (p. 162).

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence 85

Changes in contemporary governance arrangements thus speak to shifts in the patterns of policy advisory activity and interaction found in policy advisory systems at both the political and administrative levels, both internally and externally, which thinking about the nature and activities of policy advisory systems should take into account.

Operationalising the content dimension of policy advice

As discussed above, while location-based models of policy advice provided a very useful and a clear advance on earlier approaches that focused attention only upon individual, isolated, sets of advisors or single locations of advice, they were largely silent on content dimensions. But as Peters and Barker (1993: 1) put it, if policy advice is conceived of as a means by which government ‘‘deliberately acquire, and passively receive y advice on decisions and policies which may be broadly called informative, objective or technical’’ then content becomes at least as important as location in determining the nature of the influence of both policy advice and policy advisors.

TABLE 2. Two idealised models of policy advising

Elements Speaking truth to power of ministers

Sharing truths with multiple actors of influence

Focus of policy-making Departmental hierarchy and vertical portfolios

Interdepartmental and horizontal management of issues with external networks and policy communities

Background of senior career officials

Knowledgeable executives with policy sector expertise and history

Generalist managers with expertise in decision processes and systems

Locus of policy processes Relatively self-contained within government, supplemented with advisory councils and royal commissions

Open to outside groups, research institutes, think tanks, consultants, pollsters and virtual centres

Minister/deputy minister relations

Strong partnership in preparing proposals with ministers, trusting and taking policy advice largely from officials

Shared partnership with ministers drawing ideas from officials, aides, consultants, lobbyists, think tanks, media

Nature of policy advice Candid and confident advice to ministers given in a neutral and detached manner

Relatively more guarded advice given to ministers by officials in a more compliant or pre-ordained fashion

Neutral Competence Responsive competence Public profile of officials Generally anonymous More visible to groups, parliamentarians

and media Roles of officials in policy processes

Confidential advisors inside government and neutral observers outside government

Active participants in policy discussions inside and outside government

Offering guidance to government decision-makers

Managing policy networks and perhaps building capacity of client groups

Source: adapted from Prince, 2007: 179

86 Craft and Howlett

Moving beyond the ‘‘technical’’ vs ‘‘political’’ policy advice content dichotomy

Early thinking about the content of policy advice often contrasted ‘‘political’’ or partisan-ideological, value-based advice with more ‘‘objective’’ or ‘‘technical’’ advice and usually stressed the importance of augmenting latter while ignoring or downplaying the former (Radin, 2000). Policy schools purporting to train professional policy advisors in government, for example, still typically provide instruction only on a range of qualitative and quantitative techniques that analysts are expected to use in providing technical advice to decision-makers about optimal strategies and outcomes to pursue in the resolution of public problems, downplaying or ignoring political or value-laden issues and concerns (MacRae and Wilde, 1976; Patton and Sawicki, 1993; Weimer and Vining, 2004; Irwin, 2003).

This ‘‘positivist’’ or ‘‘modern’’ approach to policy analysis dominated the field for decades (Radin, 2000) and often pre-supposed a sharp conceptual division between internal governmental advisors armed with technical knowledge and expertise and non-governmental actors with only non-technical skills and knowledge.1 Although often implicit, such a ‘‘political’’ vs ‘‘technical’’ advisory dichotomy often underlay location models, with advice assumed to become more technical as it moved closer to proximate decision-makers so that external actors provided political advice and internal ones technical ideas and alternatives.

While it is debatable the degree to which such a strict separation of political and technical advice was ever true even in ‘‘speaking truth to power’’ systems, it is definitely the case that the supply of technical advice is no longer, if it ever was, a monopoly of governments. Various external sources of policy advice have been found to be significant sources of sub- stantive policy advisory content used by policy-makers to support existing policy positions or as sources of new advice (Bertelli and Wenger, 2009; McGann and Sabatini, 2011). Professional policy analysts, for example, are now employed not only by government departments and agencies but also by advisory system members external to government; ranging from private sector consultants to experts in think tanks, universities, political parties and elsewhere who are quite capable of providing specific suggestions about factors such as the costs and administrative modalities of specific policy alternatives (Boston, 1994; Boston et al., 1996; Rhodes et al., 2010).

It is also the case that many advisors both internal and external to governments, today and in past years, provide political advice to decision- makers ranging from personal opinion and experience about public opi- nion and key stakeholder group attitudes and beliefs to explicit partisan electoral advice. Although often ignored in early accounts, this kind of advice has always been provided by prominent traditional inside actors such as political advisors attached to elected officials and political parties

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence 87

(Connaughton, 2010a; Eichbaum and Shaw, 2007 and 2008; Leal and Hess, 2004) as well as from public consultation and stakeholder interven- tions (Edelenbos and Klijn, 2005; Bingham et al., 2005, Pierre, 1998). While Westminster systems pride themselves on retaining at least part of this political-administrative dichotomy in the form of conventions about civil service neutrality in their specific ‘‘civil service bargain’’ (Hood, 2002; Hondeghem, 2011; Salomonsen and Knudsen, 2011; Uhr and Mackay, 1996), even in this strong case, this convention has been eroded. In their study of New Zealand policy advice, for example, Eichbaum and Shaw (2008: 343) noted many instances of ‘‘procedural politicisation’’ that was ‘‘intended to or has the effect of constraining the capacity of public servants to furnish ministers with (technical) advice in a free, frank, and fearless manner’’. It was manifested when a ‘‘political’’ advisor ‘‘intervenes in the relationship between a minister and his or her officials. Alternatively it is argued to occur (due to) conduct by ministerial advisers which is intended to or which has the effect of constraining the capacity of officials to tender frank, and fearless advice by intervening in the internal workings of a department’’ (ibid). They also found many instances of ‘‘substantive politicisation’’, which dealt specifically with ‘‘an action intended to, or having the effect of coloring the substance of officials advice with partisan considerations’’ (ibid, 343–44).

The increasingly pluralised and political nature of policy advice inputs underscores that while under the old ‘‘speaking-truth-to-power’’ model policy advice might not always have been largely a bipartite relationship involving public servants and executive politicians, with career officials offering technical advice to cabinet ministers, this is no longer the case (Jenkins- Smith, 1982; Kirp, 1992). Maley (2000: 453) for example, elaborated on the various policy roles for political advisors that may exist in addition to their ‘‘in-house’’ policy work: ‘‘Dunn suggests an important brokering role within the executive; Ryan detects a significant role in setting policy agendas; Halligan and Power [Halligan and Power, 1992] refer to advisers ‘‘managing networks of political interaction’’. Additional studies have also pointed to the role ‘‘political’’ advisers can play in the brokerage, coordination and integration of various endogenous and exogenous sources of policy advice to decision-makers (Dunn, 1997: 93–97; Maley, 2011; Gains and Stoker, 2011; OECD, 2011).

Here, however, in the consideration of the theorisation of policy advisory systems, it is important to note that these changes in governance practices do not just lead to a shift in the location of advice, but rather also of its content. Even in Anglo-American ‘‘Westminster’’-style political systems, the shift from the largely internal, technical, ‘‘speaking truth’’ type of policy advising towards the diffuse and fragmented ‘‘sharing of influence’’ approach paints a picture of contemporary policy advising that not only features the pronounced influence of external or exogenous sources of technical and political advice, but also the loss of whatever policy advisory monopoly or

88 Craft and Howlett

hegemony was once held or exercised by professional public service and advisors within government. The reduced utility of such distinctions when applied to other systems (i.e. Napoleonic, Scandinavian) with alternative administrative traditions where politico-administrative divisions may not be as pronounced, overlap or be configured differently (Peters and Pierre, 2004; Painter and Peters, 2010) is even clearer. Moving beyond simple political- technical distinctions to a more robust content-based model of policy advice is thus essential in order to improve the generalisability of models of policy advisory systems.

Modelling the content of policy advice in contemporary governance arrangements

In the context of a more porous, fluid and diversified advisory land- scape, the inside vs outside distinction lying at the base of traditional conceptions of advice systems has been thoroughly weakened. But what is the alternative?

Explicitly dealing with the content dimensions of policy advice, Connaughton (2010a, 2010b), working from within the empirics of the Irish context, developed a set of what she terms ‘‘role perceptions’’ – Expert, Partisan, Coordinator and Minder – for classification of general advisory roles (see Figure 1). While these distinctions re-invent some aspects of discredited politics vs administration dichotomies, her analysis of the activities of these different actors is based, significantly, not upon whether advice was partisan or administrative, but rather whether it involved substantive on-the-ground policy formulation/implementation activities – ranging from ‘‘policy advice’’ to ‘‘policy steering’’ – or more procedural ‘‘communications’’ functions, which could be ‘‘technical/managerial’’ or ‘‘political’’ in nature.

FIGURE 1 Connaughton’s configuration of advisor roles. Source: Connaughton, 2010b: 351

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence 89

This notion of distinguishing between content in terms of substance and process fits well the findings of other studies assessing the ‘‘politicisation of policy-making’’ such as Eichbaum and Shaw (2008). The Connaughton model has limitations however, principally by failing to provide mutually exclusive differentiation of the two concepts. Substantive advisory activity falling in the ‘‘expert’’ category could simultaneously be ‘‘partisan’’ or procedural types of policy advisory ‘‘roles’’ such as ‘‘coordinator’’ could arguably be both expert and partisan in nature, for example.

Prasser, in his studies of Royal Commissions in Australia (2006a), and more generally (2006b) suggested that distinguishing between ‘‘political’’ and ‘‘non-political’’ content of policy advice is less insightful than distin- guishing between the content of the advice provided. Here he distinguished between what he termed ‘‘cold’’ – typically long-term and proactive – vs ‘‘hot’’ – short-term and crisis driven – types of advice (see Table 3). Although he noted some overlaps between these categories along the old ‘‘politics’’ vs ‘‘administration’’ divides, the general situation he describes is one in which neither partisan nor civil service actors have an exclusive monopoly on one type of advice.

Such ‘‘hot’’ vs ‘‘cold’’ content dimensions can be usefully applied to various non-governmental sources of policy advice that may be seeking to influence policy-makers on a short- or long-term basis. Moreover, they further align considerations of policy advisory activity with specific content considerations rather than role-based classifications that continue to be tied to locational factors and/or traditional dichotomies such as technical vs political distinctions.

Although they interpret content slightly differently, Prasser’s distinction between short-term ‘‘hot’’ and longer-term ‘‘cold’’ advice can be combined

TABLE 3. Comparing ‘‘cold’’ and ‘‘hot’’ advice

Long-term/anticipatory Short-term/reactive Or ‘‘cold’’ advice Or ‘‘hot’’ advice

Information-based Relies on fragmented information, gossip Research used Opinion/ideologically-based Independent/neutral and problem solving Partisan/biased and about winning Long-term Short-term Proactive and anticipatory Reactive/crisis driven Strategic and wide range/systematic Single issue Idealistic Pragmatic Public interest focus Electoral gain oriented Open processes Secret/deal making Objective clarity Ambiguity/overlapping Seek/propose best solution Consensus solution

Source: adapted from Prasser, 2006b

90 Craft and Howlett

with Connaughton and Eichbaum and Shaw’s distinction between substantive and procedural advice to generate an improved model of policy advisory system structure and behaviour. Together, they can be used to differentiate between types of policy advice content in a way that is more useful for the conceptualisation of the activities of policy advice system actors than older locational models (see Table 4).

Such a model as that set out in Table 4 provides a more robust understanding of the influence dimension of policy advice-giving as content distinctions replace purely locational considerations in new governance arrangements. While location may be closely aligned with content in some such arrangements – as was the case historically in Westminster-style systems based on sharp political-administrative distinctions – this is not always the case. While purely locational models may help to capture some significant developments such as the growth in the exogenous sources of advice to gov- ernment proper in contemporary governance situations, they do not help, as do content-based models, to capture the idea that the kinds of advice provided by both civil servants and non-governmental actors have also changed and, more to the point, that these changes represent changes in influence.

TABLE 4. Policy advisory system members organised by policy content

Short-term/reactive Long-term/anticipatory

Procedural ‘‘Pure’’ political and policy process advice Medium to long-term policy steering advice Traditional Traditional Political parties, parliaments and legislative committees (House of Commons, Congress); regulatory agencies

Deputy ministers, central agencies/ executives; royal commissions; judicial bodies

As well as As well as Internal as well as external political advisers, interest groups; lobbyists; mid-level public service policy analysts and policy managers; pollsters

Agencies, boards and commissions; crown corporations; international organisations (e.g. OECD, ILO, UN)

Substantive Short-term crisis and fire-fighting advice Evidence-based policy-making Traditional Traditional Political peers (e.g. cabinet); executive office political staffs

Statistical agencies/department; senior departmental policy advisors; strategic policy unit; royal commissions

As well as As well as Expanded ministerial/congressional political staffs; cabinet 1 cabinet committees; external crisis managers/consultants; political strategists; pollsters; community organisations/NGOs; lobbyists, media

Think tanks; scientific and academic advisors; open data citizen engagement- driven policy initiatives/web 2.0; blue ribbon panels

Source: Craft and Howlett

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence 91

Conclusion

Policy advisory systems exist in all jurisdictions and are an important part of the working behaviour of governments as they go about their policy and governance activities (Plowden, 1987). Understanding the nature of these systems is important for comparative policy and public administration and management research.

Replacing existing location models with content-based ones generates a significant improvement in the ability of models of policy advisory systems to more accurately depict and categorise policy advice system structure and behaviour, and to understand the role played by different policy actors and the kinds of advice provided to governments by different advisory systems in contemporary circumstances.

While locational models have been useful in the past in some jurisdic- tions where the location and content of policy advice have overlapped – as was the case historically in many countries featuring strong political- administrative organisational dichotomies, their usefulness has waned along with the strength of those divisions, as discussed above. Although they have helped us to depict and understand aspects of the shift in location of advice from policy professionals to outside actors occasioned by changes in governance practices, many of locational models of influence in themselves provide few insights into the effects changes in governance modes have occasioned in many jurisdictions in the contemporary era.

This is because most locational models of policy advisory systems do not deal explicitly with the contents of policy advice but rather implicitly endorse a ‘‘political vs administrative’’ or ‘‘technical vs partisan’’ dichot- omous logic of the content and influence of policy advice. Locational models present these two types of advice as discreet and separate within specific kinds of organisational actors.

As Weller (1987: 149) noted long ago, such divisions along administrative and political lines are typical in early thinking related to advice-giving, since, as noted above, political advice is often not considered ‘‘policy’’ advice at all:

by ‘‘policy’’ is usually meant technical and professional alternatives or the outcomes of ‘‘objective’’ or ‘‘rational analysis. ‘‘Political’’ is (then) taken to refer to consideration of the likely electoral or media consequences of a course of action. The former is seen as substantive while the other is often regarded as more self-interested’’.

In the contemporary era, however, the juxtaposition of content and location is no longer justified, if it ever was. Not only governance studies but also studies of the behaviour of specific advisory system actors such as appointed partisan political advisers, for example, have highlighted the irrelevance of these older political vs administrative distinctions. Even in the ‘‘speaking truth to power’’ era Walter (1986) confirmed that policy advisors

92 Craft and Howlett

often extended advice on political options and ‘‘paid attention’’ to the policy agenda, often acting as policy ‘‘mobilisers’’ in the face of policy vacuum or playing a ‘‘catalyst’’ role in activating a policy process (Walter, 1986: 152–154) and later scholars such as Dunn (1997: 78–93) found that ‘‘political’’ advisors played a role in shaping policy through overseeing the policy development process, providing direction, evaluating of policy proposals and monitoring implementation.

Examining policy advice systems in terms of the content of advice provides a more useful conceptual frame in which to understand these effects and the nature of advisory systems in general. That is, the shift of content of inside and outside actors away from the ‘‘speaking truth to power’’ perspective of the provision of ‘‘objective’’ policy advice by insiders set out by Prince (2007) is revealing. Adding the content dimension to policy advisory systems in the form of a focus upon their substantive vs procedural and ‘‘hot’’ vs ‘‘cold’’ dimensions adds the specificity missing in locational model considerations of influence. And it improves on earlier models imbued with an implicit dichotomous ‘‘politics vs administration’’ different- iation by categorising policy advice more precisely as it relates to either substance, or processes of policy-making and to its short-term vs long-term nature (Svara, 2006).2

Of course this raises the question of how, exactly, content, influence and location have been linked in specific national and sectoral advisory systems and historical time periods above and beyond the general transition from old to new governance arrangements cited here. While this is a subject for future research, several interesting hypotheses relating to the locational and content dimensions of policy advice in different governance systems that future comparative formulation studies can test. These include such possibilities as that in bilateral ‘‘speaking truth to power’’ systems in which internal public service advice sources dominate, policy advice becomes increasingly evidence-based as one moves closer to policy decision-makers and less evidence-based as one moves further away. Or, conversely, that in more contested, pluralised and differentiated policy advice landscapes with various endogenous and exogenous advice sources, advice becomes less technical the closer it moves to government and more technical the further it moves away.

Such patterns would remain invisible when only locational criteria are taken into account in modelling policy advisory system structure and beha- viour. When content if added in, however, it greatly enriches the concept and the models used to describe it. Among other things, it brings studies of policy advice and policy formulation into closer proximity to studies of governance shifts.3 Adding a content dimension to older locational models helps show that as governments have moved away from command and control modes of governing towards the embrace of collaborative, interactive and

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence 93

networked models of governance and policy-making, the nature of policy advice and policy formulation also changes (Scott, 2005). In such contexts, locational models of policy advisory systems predicated on government control as a key dimension of the analysis of policy formulation requires reconsideration.

NOTES

1. The extent to which this information is used and to what extent it can be considered ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘expert’’ is, of course, a continuing controversy in the policy sciences. See for example Rein and White, 1977, and Lindblom and Cohen, 1979, and the very similar arguments made 20 to 25 years later in Shulock, 1999, and Adams, 2004.

2. Various studies employing knowledge utilisation and rational choice-based approaches have for some time noted the structural, organisational and utility implications of information related to asymmetries, efficiencies and overall levels of influence (Krishna and Morgan, 2001; Calvert, 1985; Esterling, 2004). Greater emphasis on content considerations may serve to further studies using such approaches as well.

3. Various authors have explored potential definitions and key debates related to the use of the term ‘‘governance’’ (for example see Rhodes, 2007; Pierre, 2000; Kjaer, 2004).

REFERENCES

Abelson D. E. (2007) Any Ideas? Think Tanks and Policy Analysis in Canada. In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, Dobuzinskis L., Howlett M. and Laycock D. (Eds), 298–310. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Aberbach J. D. and Rockman B. A. (1989) On the Rise, Transformation, and Decline of Analysis in the US Government. Governance 2(3): 293–314.

Adams D. (2004) Usable Knowledge in Public Policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration 63(1): 29–42. Anderson G. (1996) The New Focus on the Policy Capacity of the Federal Government. Canadian Public

Administration 39(4): 469–488. Banfield E. (1980) Policy Science as Metaphysical Madness. In Bureaucrats, Policy Analysts, Statesmen:

Who Leads?, Goldwin R. A. (Ed). Washington DC: American enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Bennett S. and McPhail M. (1992) Policy Process Perceptions of Senior Canadian Federal Civil Servants: A View of the State and Its Environment. Canadian Public Administration 35(30): 299–316.

Bertelli A. M. and Wenger J. B. (2009) Demanding Information: Think Tanks and the US Congress. British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 225–242.

Bevir M. and Rhodes R. A. W. (2001) Decentering Tradition: Interpreting British Government. Administration & Society 33(2): 107–132.

Bevir M., Rhodes R. A. W. and Weller P. (2003) Traditions of Governance: Interpreting the Changing Role of the Public Sector. Public Administration 81(1): 1–17.

Bingham L. B., Nabatchi T. and O’Leary R. (2005) The New Governance: Practices and processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government. Public Administration Review 65(5): 547–558.

Boston J. (1994) Purchasing Policy Advice: The Limits of Contracting Out. Governance 7(1): 1–30. Boston J., Martin J., Pallot J. and Walsh P. (1996) Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Auckland:

Oxford University Press. Calvert R. L. (1985) The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice.

The Journal of Politics 47(2): 530. Clark J. R. A. and Jones A. (1999) From Policy Insider to Policy Outcast? Comite des Organisations

Professionalles Agricoles, EU Policymaking, and the EU’s ‘agri-environmental’ regulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 17: 637–653.

Connaughton B. (2010a) Ireland. In Partisan Appointees and Public Servants: An International Analysis of the Role of the Political Adviser, Eichabaum C. and Shaw R. (Eds), 151–179. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Connaughton B. (2010b) ‘Glorified Gofers, Policy Experts or Good Generalists’: A Classification of the Roles of the Irish Ministerial Adviser. Irish Political Studies 25(3): 347–369.

94 Craft and Howlett

Cross W. (2007) Policy Study and Development in Canada’s Political Parties. In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, Dobuzinskis L., Howlett M. and Laycock D. (Eds), 233–242. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Dluhy M. (1981) Policy Advice-Givers: Advocates? Technicians? or Pragmatists?. In New Strategic Perspectives on Social Policy, Milan (Ed), 202–216. New York: Pergamon Press.

Dobuzinskis L., Howlett M. and Laycock D. (Eds) (2007) Policy Analysis in Canada: the State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Dunn D. (1997) Politics and Administration at the Top: Lessons from Down Under. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Dunn W. (2004) Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Durning D. and Osama W. (1994) Policy Analysts’ Roles and Value Orientations: An Empirical Investigation Using Q Methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(4): 629–657.

Edelenbos J. and Klijn E. H. (2005) Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Decisionmaking: A Com- parative Analysis of Six Interactive Processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(3): 417–446.

Eichbaum C. and Shaw R. (2007) Ministerial Advisers and the Politics of Policy-Making: Bureaucratic Permanence and Popular Control. The Australian Journal of Public Administration 66(4): 453–467.

Eichbaum C. and Shaw R. (2008) Revisiting Politicization: Political Advisers and Public Servants in Westminster Systems. Governance 21(3): 337–363.

Esterling K. M. (2004) The Political Economy of Expertise: Information and Efficiency in American National PoliticsUniversity of Michigan Press.

Fischer F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fleischer J. (2006) Policy Units as Policy Pilots? On Blue Skies Thinking and Preventing Crashes. In 1st ECPR Graduate Conference, 07–09.

Fleischer J. (2009) Power Resources of Parliamentary Executives: Policy Advice in the UK and Germany. West European Politics 32(1): 196–214.

Gains F. and Stoker G. (2011) Special advisers and the transmission of ideas from the policy primeval soup. Policy & Politics 39(4): 485–498.

Geva-May I. and Maslove A. M. (2007) In Between Trends: Developments of Public Policy Analysis and Policy Analysis Instruction in Canada, the United States and the European Union. In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, Dobuzinskis L., Howlett M. and Laycock D. (Eds), 186–216. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Glynn S., Cunningham P. and Flanagan K. (2003) Typifying Scientific Advisory Structures and Scientific Advice Production Methodologies. Brussels: Directorate-General Research, European Commission.

Hajer M. (2003) Policy Without Polity? Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void. Policy Sci 36: 175–195. Halffman W. and Hoppe R. (2005) Science/Policy Boundaries: A Changing Division of Labour in Dutch

Expert Policy Advice. In Democratization of Expertise? 135–151. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1007/ 1-4020-3754-6_8.

Halligan J. and Power J. (1992) Political Management in the 1990s. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Halligan J. (1995) Policy Advice and the Public Sector. In Governance in a Changing Environment, Guy Peters B.

and Savoie D. T. (Eds), 138–172. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Halligan J. (1998) Policy Advice. In International Encyclopedia of Public Policy And Administration3(1): 686–688.

Boulder: Westview. Hawke G. R. (1993) Improving Policy Advice. Wellington: Victoria University Institute of Policy Studies. Hird J. A. (2005) Policy Analysis for What? The Effectiveness of Nonpartisan Policy Research Organi-

zations. Policy Studies Journal 33(1): 83–105. Hird J. A. (2005) Power, Knowledge and Politics: Policy Analysis in the States. Washington DC: Georgetown

University Press. Hondeghem A. (April 5, 2011) Changing Public Service Bargains for Top Officials. Public Policy and

Administration 26(2): 159–165. Hood C. (2002) Control Bargains and Cheating: The Politics of Public Service Reform. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory 12(3): 309–332. Hoppe R. and Jeliazkova M. (2006) How Policy Workers Define Their Job: A Netherlands Case Study.

In The Work of Policy: An International Survey, H. K. Colebatch (Ed), 35–60. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Howlett M. (May 1, 2011) Public Managers as the Missing Variable in Policy Studies: An Empirical Investigation Using Canadian Data. Review of Policy Research 28(3): 247–263.

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence 95

Howlett M. and Lindquist E. (2004) Policy Analysis and Governance: Analytical and Policy Styles in Canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 6(3): 225–249.

Howlett M. and Newman J. (2010) Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-making in multi-level governance systems. Policy and Society 29(1): 123–136.

Howlett M., Ramesh M. and Perl A. (2009) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, 3rd ed. OUP Canada.

Howlett M. P., and Wellstead A. M. (December 30, 2009) Re-Visiting Meltsner: Policy Advice Systems and the Multi-Dimensional Nature of Professional Policy Analysis. SSRN eLibrary. http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id51546251.

Irwin L. G. (2003) The Policy Analysts Handbook: Rational Problem Solving in a Political World. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

James T. E. and Jorgensen P. D. (2009) Policy Knowledge, Policy Formulation, and Change: Revisiting a Foundational Question. The Policy Studies Journal 37(1).

Jann W. (1991) From Policy Analysis to Political Management? An Outside Look at Public Policy Training in the United States. In Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads, C. H. W. Peter Wagner (Ed), 110–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jenkins-Smith H. C. (1982) Professional Roles for Policy Analysts: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2(1): 88–100.

Kirp D. L. (1992) The End of Policy Analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11: 693–696. Kjaer A. (2004) Governance. Key Concepts. Cambridge: Policy Press. Krishna V. and Morgan J. (June 1, 2001) Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules: Some

Amendments. The American Political Science Review 95(2): 435–452. Leal D. L. and Hess F. M. (July, 2004) Who Chooses Experience? Examining the Use of Veteran Staff by

House Freshmen. Polity 36(4): 651–664. Lindblom C. E. and Cohen D. K. (1979) Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving.

New Haven: Yale University Press. Lindquist E. (1998) A Quarter Century of Canadian Think Tanks: Evolving Institutions, Conditions and

Strategies. In Think Tanks Across Nations: A Comparative Approach, D. Stone, A. Denham and M. Garnett (Eds), 127–144. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lindvall J. (2009) The Real but Limited Influence of Expert Ideas. World Politics 61(4): 703–730. MacRae D. and Whittington D. (1997) Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis and Discourse. Washington DC:

Georgetown University Press. MacRae Jr. D. and Wilde J. A. (1976) Policy Analysis for Public Decisions. North Scituate, Massachusetts:

Duxbury Press. Maley M. (2000) Conceptualising Advisers’ Policy Work: The Distinctive Policy Roles of Ministerial

Advisers in the Keating Government, 1991–96. Australian Journal of Political Science 35(3): 449–449. Maley M. (2011, forthcoming) Strategic Links in a Cut-Throat World: rethinking the role and relationships

of Australian Ministerial Staff. Public Administration. Maloney W. A., Jordan G. and McLaughlin A. M. (1994) Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/

Outsider Model Revisited. Journal of Public Policy 14(1): 17–38. March D., Toke D., Befrage C., Tepe D. and McGough S. (2009) Policy Networks and the Distinction

between Insider and Outsider Groups: The Case of the Countryside Alliance. Public Administration 87(3): 621–638.

Mayer I., Bots P. and v Daalen E. (2004) Perspectives on Policy Analysis: A Framework for Understanding and Design. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 4(1): 169–191.

McGann J. G. and Johnson E. C. (2005) Comparative Think Tanks, Politics and Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

McGann J. G. and Sabatini R. (2011) Global Think Tanks: Policy Networks and Governance. New York: Routledge.

Meltsner A. J. (1975) Bureaucratic Policy Analysts. Policy Analysis 1(1): 115–131. Meltsner A. J. (1976) Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Meltsner A. J. (1979) Creating a Policy Analysis Profession. Society 16(6): 45–51. Murray C. (2007) The Media. In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, Dobuzinskis L., Howlett M.

and Laycock D. (Eds), 286–297. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. OECD (2011) Ministerial Advisors: Role, Influence and Management. OECD Publishing. DOI:10.1787/

9789264124936-en Page E. C. (2010) Bureaucrats and expertise: Elucidating a problematic relationship in three tableaux and

six jurisdictions. Sociologie du Travail 52(2): 255–273.

96 Craft and Howlett

Page E. C. and Jenkins B. (2005) Policy Bureaucracy: Governing with a Cast of Thousands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page E. and Wright V. (Eds) (2007) From the Active to the Enabling State: The Changing Role of Top Officials in European NationsPalgrave Macmillan.

Painter M. and Peters G. B. (Eds) (2010) Traditions and public administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave/ Macmillan.

Parsons W. (2004) Not Just Steering But Weaving: Relevant Knowledge and the Craft of Building Policy Capacity and Coherence. Australian Journal of Public Administration 63(1): 43–57.

Patton C. V. and Sawicki D. S. (1993) Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Peled A. (2002) Why Style Matters: A Comparison of Two Administrative Reform Initiatives in the Israeli Public Sector, 1989–1998. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12(2): 217–240.

Peters B. G. and Barker A. (1993) Advising West European Governments: Inquiries, Expertise and Public Policy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Peters B. G. and Pierre J. (2004) Politicization of the Civil Service: concepts, causes, and consequences. In Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective: the quest for control, Peters B. G. and Pierre J. (Eds), 1–13. New York: Routledge.

Pierre J. (1998) Public Consultation and citizen engagement: Dilemmas of Policy Advice. In Taking stock: assessing public sector reforms, pp. 137–163, Peters B. G. and Savoie D. J. (Eds), Canadian Centre for Management Development.

Pierre J. (Ed) (2000) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Plowden W. (Ed) (1987) Advising the Rulers. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Prasser S. (2006b) Providing Advice to Government. Papers on Parliament. Canberra: Senate of Australia.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/pops/pop46/providing_advice.htm. Prince M. J. (1983) Policy Advice and Organizational Survival. Aldershot: Gower. Prince M. J. (2007) Soft Craft, Hard Choices, Altered Context: Reflections on 25 Years of Policy Advice in

Canada. In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, Dobuzinskis L., Howlett M. and Laycock D. (Eds), 95–106. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Radin B. A. (2000) Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Rein M. and White S. H. (1977) Can Policy Research Help Policy? The Public Interest 49: 119–136. Rhodes R. A. W. (2007) Understanding Governance: Ten Years On. Organization Studies 28(8): 1243–1264. Rhodes R. A. W., Wanna J. and Weller P. (Eds) (2010) Comparing Westminster. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press. Rochet C. (2004) Rethinking the Management of Information in the Strategic Monitoring of Public

Policies by Agencies. Industrial Management & Data Systems 104(3): 201–208. Saint- Martin D. (2005) Management Consultancy. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie,

L. E. Lynn Jr., C. Pollitt (Eds), 671–694. New York: Oxford University Press. Salomonsen H. H. and Knudsen T. (September 1, 2011) Changes in Public Service Bargains: Ministers

and Civil Servants in Denmark. Public Administration 89(3): 1015–1035. Scott C. (2005) Value-Adding Policy Analysis and Advice: New Roles and Skills for the Public Sector.

The Policy Quarterly 1(3): 11–16. Scott C. and Baehler K. (2010) Adding Value to Policy Analysis and Advice. University of New South Wales

Press. Seymour-Ure C. (1987) Institutionalization and Informality in Advisory Systems. In Advising the Rulers,

Plowden W. (Ed), 175–184. Blackwell. Shulock N. (1999) The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much Of It?

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(2): 226–244. Smith B. L. R. (1977) The Non-Governmental Policy Analysis Organization. Public Administration Review

37(3): 253–258. Speers K. (2007) The Invisible Public Service: Consultants and Public Policy in Canada. In Policy analysis

in Canada: The state of the Art, Dobuzinskis L., Howlett M. and Laycock D. (Eds), 220–231. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Stone D. and Denham A. (Eds) (2004) Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Stritch A. (2007) Business Associations and Policy Analysis in Canada. In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, Dobuzinskis L., Howlett M. and Laycock D. (Eds), 242–259. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence 97

Sundquist J. L. (1978) Research Brokerage: The Weak Link. In Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, 126–145. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Svara J. H. (2006) Complexity in Political-Administrative Relations and the Limits of the Dichotomy Concept. Administrative Theory & Praxis 28(1): 121–139.

Tribe L. H. (1972) Policy Science: Analysis or Ideology? Philosophy and Public Affairs 2(1): 66–110. Uhr J. and Mackay K. (1996) Evaluating Policy Advice: Learning from Commonwealth Experience. Canberra:

Federalism Research Centre – ANU. Verschuere B. (2009) The Role of Public Agencies in the Policy Making Process. Public Policy and

Administration 24(1): 23–46. Walter J. (1986) The Ministers Minders: Personal Advisers in National Government. Melbourne: Oxford University

Press. Weaver K. (2002) Guidance for Governance: An Overview. In Guidance for Governance: Comparing Alternative

Sources of Public Policy Advice, Weaver R. K. (Ed), 1–30. Nihon Kokusai Koryu Center. Webber, David J. (1991) The Distribution and Use of Policy Knowledge in the Policy Process. Knowledge and

Policy 4(December): 6–35. Weimer D. L. and Vining A. R. (2004) Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 4th edition. New Jersey: Prentice

Hall. Weller P. (1987) Types of Advice. In Advising the Rulers, Plowden W. (Ed). Basil Blackwell: Oxford. Weller P. and Stevens B. (1998) Evaluating Policy Advice: The Australian Experience. Public Administration

76(Autumn): 579–589. Weller P. and Rhodes R. A. W. (Eds) (2001) The Changing World of Top Officials, Mandarins or Valets?

Open University Press. Wildavsky A. B. (1979) Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little-Brown. Wilson R. (2006) Policy Analysis as Policy Advice. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Moran M.,

Rein M. and Goodin R. E. (Eds), 152–168. New York: Oxford University Press. Wollmann H. (1989) Policy Analysis in West Germany’s Federal Government: A Case of Unfinished

Governmental and Administrative Modernization? Governance 2(3): 233–266.

J O N A T H A N C R A F T

Department of Political Science

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby BC

Canada V5A 1S6 Tel.: 778 782 4293 Fax: 778 782 4786 Email: [email protected]

M I C H A E L H O W L E T T

Department of Political Science

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby BC

Canada V5A 1S6 Tel.: 778 782 3082 Fax: 778 782 4786 Email: [email protected]

98 Craft and Howlett

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.