The control of the policy advice industry: how patrons defer their decision-rights to think tank boards

IF 2.7 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION International Review of Administrative Sciences Pub Date : 2022-11-07 DOI:10.1177/00208523221133065
Marybel Perez, Alejandro Agafonow
{"title":"The control of the policy advice industry: how patrons defer their decision-rights to think tank boards","authors":"Marybel Perez, Alejandro Agafonow","doi":"10.1177/00208523221133065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Patrons of think tanks—for example, governments, corporations, philanthropists, NGOs, and so forth—may control think tanks’ boards, that is, their highest decision-making body. Whether patrons are likely to control boards is a question that remains under-explored and under-theorised in public administration and governance scholarship. It is posited that patrons are likely to control boards when the marginal benefit of partaking in decision-making does not exceed the cost of information transfer. The comparative examination of International Relations think tanks’ statutes shows that patron control is substantial. However, patronage does not always guarantee board control. Patron control is moderated by the nature of the transaction. The conclusion assesses patron control concerning decision-making processes in the think tank and the idiosyncratic character of policy advice. Points for practitioners Practitioners can assess events of goal displacement in think tanks by learning about mechanisms that facilitate or hinder patron control over think tanks. Laying out the conditions under which patrons exercise control, the latter turns out to be substantial despite not all patrons having control over think tank boards. Patron control is shown to depend on the position of stakeholders in the decision-making chain and the nonlinear relation between effort and influence in policy advice.","PeriodicalId":47811,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","volume":"89 1","pages":"808 - 824"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221133065","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patrons of think tanks—for example, governments, corporations, philanthropists, NGOs, and so forth—may control think tanks’ boards, that is, their highest decision-making body. Whether patrons are likely to control boards is a question that remains under-explored and under-theorised in public administration and governance scholarship. It is posited that patrons are likely to control boards when the marginal benefit of partaking in decision-making does not exceed the cost of information transfer. The comparative examination of International Relations think tanks’ statutes shows that patron control is substantial. However, patronage does not always guarantee board control. Patron control is moderated by the nature of the transaction. The conclusion assesses patron control concerning decision-making processes in the think tank and the idiosyncratic character of policy advice. Points for practitioners Practitioners can assess events of goal displacement in think tanks by learning about mechanisms that facilitate or hinder patron control over think tanks. Laying out the conditions under which patrons exercise control, the latter turns out to be substantial despite not all patrons having control over think tank boards. Patron control is shown to depend on the position of stakeholders in the decision-making chain and the nonlinear relation between effort and influence in policy advice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政策咨询行业的控制:赞助人如何将决策权推迟到智库委员会
智库的赞助人——比如政府、公司、慈善家、非政府组织等等——可以控制智库的董事会,也就是他们的最高决策机构。赞助人是否有可能控制董事会,这是一个在公共行政和治理学术领域仍未得到充分探讨和理论化的问题。假设当参与决策的边际收益不超过信息传递的成本时,赞助人有可能控制董事会。对国际关系智库章程的比较研究表明,赞助人的控制是实质性的。然而,任命权并不总是保证董事会的控制权。交易的性质缓和了赞助人的控制。结论评估了智囊团决策过程中的赞助人控制和政策建议的特质。从业者可以通过了解促进或阻碍赞助人控制智库的机制来评估智库中的目标位移事件。列出了赞助人行使控制权的条件,尽管并非所有赞助人都能控制智库董事会,但后者却是实质性的。研究表明,赞助人控制取决于利益相关者在决策链中的位置,以及政策建议中努力与影响之间的非线性关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: IRAS is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to academic and professional public administration. Founded in 1927 it is the oldest scholarly public administration journal specifically focused on comparative and international topics. IRAS seeks to shape the future agenda of public administration around the world by encouraging reflection on international comparisons, new techniques and approaches, the dialogue between academics and practitioners, and debates about the future of the field itself.
期刊最新文献
Is bureaucracy ironclad after all? Prevalence and variances of performance- and strategy-oriented management in German local governments A three-model approach to understand social media-mediated transparency in public administrations Board gender diversity in municipally owned corporations: A resource dependence perspective The autonomy and governance of mutual aid organizations for civil servants’ welfare Administrative reforms in Portugal and Spain: From bureaucracy to digital transition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1