评估政策咨询系统研究中的“被遗忘的基础”:政策商店和核心政策专业人员的角色

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Australian Journal of Public Administration Pub Date : 2023-07-13 DOI:10.1111/1467-8500.12595
Andrea Migone, Michael Howlett
{"title":"评估政策咨询系统研究中的“被遗忘的基础”:政策商店和核心政策专业人员的角色","authors":"Andrea Migone,&nbsp;Michael Howlett","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>During the past 30 years, research on policy analytical capacity's multidimensional nature and the evolution of policy advisory systems (PASs) has both increased knowledge of these processes and structures and opened new avenues of inquiry. While it is clear that changes in PASs in many countries have occurred - featuring processes such as the increased externalisation and politicisation of policy advice - studies of changes among the roles played by core policy professionals in advice provision have lagged. One aspect of this question concerns the nature and extent of changes in this ‘forgotten fundamental’ of advice systems related to how these professionals are arrayed within ‘policy shops’—that is organisational units identified in the 1960s and 1970s as the main organisational home of policy professionals in government. Whether or not such shops have changed from the central-integrated model identified in early studies and, if so, how, remain outstanding and foundational questions. Recent research in Canada has mapped the distribution of policy professionals at the central and provincial level and found more types of analysts and venues than in earlier eras— which range from the ‘classical’ integrated policy shops of the 1960s and 1970s which remain in central agencies and single-purpose line departments to the much more 'distributed' patterns found in many departments dealing with multiple or complex controversial issues. Using Canadian data, this study outlines the development of these organisational types and their distribution in government and discusses the implications of these changes for better understanding the work, and needs, of core professionals in policy advice systems. .</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Points for practitioners</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>\n <p>‘Policy professionals’ or public employees specifically tasked with policy analysis in government are key players in policy advisory systems despite the addition of more external and internal actors in policy advice systems in recent years.</p>\n </li>\n \n <li>\n <p>How these advisors and analysts are organised in government, whether they work in clusters or small groups, and how they interact with other civil servants and policy-makers are a key determinant of their activities and influence in policy-making.</p>\n </li>\n \n <li>\n <p>In the policy sciences, work in the 1960s and 1970s established ‘the policy shop’, that is relatively small centrally located organisational units employing mainly policy analysts, as the main home of policy professionals in government. These units often enjoyed a monopoly in analysis and played a key role in policy-making. However, research on these organisations has not kept up with changes in advisory relations within and outside of governments and the impact such changes have had on the influence and activities of core professionals.</p>\n </li>\n \n <li>\n <p>Recent work by the authors looking at the large Canadian province of Ontario has identified more than a single type of arrangement of analysts in the current era. This paper expands this analysis to both small and large jurisdictions in Canada, including the federal government, and develops two detailed case studies of the current organisation of policy professionals in smaller central agencies like Ministries of Justice as well as in larger omnibus Ministries of the Environment.</p>\n </li>\n \n <li>\n <p>The study finds a ‘distributed’ model of policy shops—in which multiple policy units exist throughout the agency—to be dominant in both cases and in all the governments examined and suggests this is now the new normal, replacing the dominance of the older more integrated central shop model. The predominance of the distributed model contributes to the fragmentation of policy advice already underway in government due to the growth in the number of external advisors such as consultants and think tanks, and internal ones such as political staffers.</p>\n </li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12595","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the ‘forgotten fundamental’ in policy advisory systems research: Policy shops and the role(s) of core policy professionals\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Migone,&nbsp;Michael Howlett\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-8500.12595\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <p>During the past 30 years, research on policy analytical capacity's multidimensional nature and the evolution of policy advisory systems (PASs) has both increased knowledge of these processes and structures and opened new avenues of inquiry. While it is clear that changes in PASs in many countries have occurred - featuring processes such as the increased externalisation and politicisation of policy advice - studies of changes among the roles played by core policy professionals in advice provision have lagged. One aspect of this question concerns the nature and extent of changes in this ‘forgotten fundamental’ of advice systems related to how these professionals are arrayed within ‘policy shops’—that is organisational units identified in the 1960s and 1970s as the main organisational home of policy professionals in government. Whether or not such shops have changed from the central-integrated model identified in early studies and, if so, how, remain outstanding and foundational questions. Recent research in Canada has mapped the distribution of policy professionals at the central and provincial level and found more types of analysts and venues than in earlier eras— which range from the ‘classical’ integrated policy shops of the 1960s and 1970s which remain in central agencies and single-purpose line departments to the much more 'distributed' patterns found in many departments dealing with multiple or complex controversial issues. Using Canadian data, this study outlines the development of these organisational types and their distribution in government and discusses the implications of these changes for better understanding the work, and needs, of core professionals in policy advice systems. .</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Points for practitioners</h3>\\n \\n <div>\\n <ul>\\n \\n <li>\\n <p>‘Policy professionals’ or public employees specifically tasked with policy analysis in government are key players in policy advisory systems despite the addition of more external and internal actors in policy advice systems in recent years.</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li>\\n <p>How these advisors and analysts are organised in government, whether they work in clusters or small groups, and how they interact with other civil servants and policy-makers are a key determinant of their activities and influence in policy-making.</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li>\\n <p>In the policy sciences, work in the 1960s and 1970s established ‘the policy shop’, that is relatively small centrally located organisational units employing mainly policy analysts, as the main home of policy professionals in government. These units often enjoyed a monopoly in analysis and played a key role in policy-making. However, research on these organisations has not kept up with changes in advisory relations within and outside of governments and the impact such changes have had on the influence and activities of core professionals.</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li>\\n <p>Recent work by the authors looking at the large Canadian province of Ontario has identified more than a single type of arrangement of analysts in the current era. This paper expands this analysis to both small and large jurisdictions in Canada, including the federal government, and develops two detailed case studies of the current organisation of policy professionals in smaller central agencies like Ministries of Justice as well as in larger omnibus Ministries of the Environment.</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li>\\n <p>The study finds a ‘distributed’ model of policy shops—in which multiple policy units exist throughout the agency—to be dominant in both cases and in all the governments examined and suggests this is now the new normal, replacing the dominance of the older more integrated central shop model. The predominance of the distributed model contributes to the fragmentation of policy advice already underway in government due to the growth in the number of external advisors such as consultants and think tanks, and internal ones such as political staffers.</p>\\n </li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47373,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Public Administration\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12595\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12595\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12595","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

摘要

在过去的 30 年中,对政策分析能力的多面性和政策咨询系统(PASs)演变的研究既增加了对这些过程和结构的了解,也开辟了新的研究途径。虽然许多国家的政策咨询系统显然已经发生了变化--其特点是政策建议的外部化和政治化程度提高,但对核心政策专业人员在提供建议方面所扮演角色的变化的研究却相对滞后。这个问题的一个方面涉及咨询系统中这一 "被遗忘的基本要素 "的变化性质和程度,这与这些专业人员如何在 "政策商店"(即 20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代被确定为政府中政策专业人员主要组织场所的组织单位)中的排列方式有关。与早期研究中确定的中央-综合模式相比,这些机构是否发生了变化,如果发生了变化,又是如何变化的,这些都是悬而未决的基础性问题。加拿大最近的研究绘制了中央和省级政策专业人员的分布图,发现与早期相比,分析师的类型和工作场所更多了,从 20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代的 "经典 "综合政策机构(仍然存在于中央机构和单一目的职能部门中),到许多处理多重或复杂争议问题的部门中发现的更为 "分布式 "的模式,不一而足。本研究利用加拿大的数据,概述了这些组织类型的发展及其在政府中的分布,并讨论了这些变化对更好地理解政策咨询系统核心专业人员的工作和需求的影响。. 给从业人员的建议 "政策专业人员 "或政府中专门负责政策分析的公职人员是政策咨询系统中的关键角色,尽管近年来政策咨询系统中增加了更多的外部和内部参与者。 这些顾问和分析人员在政府中是如何组织起来的,他们是以集群还是小组的形式工作,以及他们如何与其他公务员和决策者互动,这些都是决定他们在决策中的活动和影响力的关键因素。 在政策科学领域,20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代的工作确立了 "政策商店 "的地位,即相对较小的中央组织单位,主要雇用政策分析师,作为政府中政策专业人员的主要归宿。这些单位往往垄断了分析工作,并在政策制定中发挥着关键作用。然而,对这些组织的研究并没有跟上政府内外咨询关系的变化以及这种变化对核心专业人员的影响和活动所产生的影响。 作者最近对加拿大大省安大略省进行的研究发现,在当今时代,分析人员的安排不只一种类型。本文将这一分析扩展到加拿大的大小辖区,包括联邦政府,并对司法部等规模较小的中央机构以及规模较大的综合环境部的政策专业人员的当前组织结构进行了两项详细的案例研究。 研究发现,"分布式 "的政策部门模式--即在整个机构中存在多个政策部门--在这两个案例中以及在所有接受研究的政府中都占主导地位,并认为这是新的常态,取代了旧的更具综合性的中央部门模式的主导地位。由于外部顾问(如顾问和智囊团)和内部顾问(如政治工作人员)数量的增加,分布式模式的主导地位助长了政府政策建议的分散化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Assessing the ‘forgotten fundamental’ in policy advisory systems research: Policy shops and the role(s) of core policy professionals

During the past 30 years, research on policy analytical capacity's multidimensional nature and the evolution of policy advisory systems (PASs) has both increased knowledge of these processes and structures and opened new avenues of inquiry. While it is clear that changes in PASs in many countries have occurred - featuring processes such as the increased externalisation and politicisation of policy advice - studies of changes among the roles played by core policy professionals in advice provision have lagged. One aspect of this question concerns the nature and extent of changes in this ‘forgotten fundamental’ of advice systems related to how these professionals are arrayed within ‘policy shops’—that is organisational units identified in the 1960s and 1970s as the main organisational home of policy professionals in government. Whether or not such shops have changed from the central-integrated model identified in early studies and, if so, how, remain outstanding and foundational questions. Recent research in Canada has mapped the distribution of policy professionals at the central and provincial level and found more types of analysts and venues than in earlier eras— which range from the ‘classical’ integrated policy shops of the 1960s and 1970s which remain in central agencies and single-purpose line departments to the much more 'distributed' patterns found in many departments dealing with multiple or complex controversial issues. Using Canadian data, this study outlines the development of these organisational types and their distribution in government and discusses the implications of these changes for better understanding the work, and needs, of core professionals in policy advice systems. .

Points for practitioners

  • ‘Policy professionals’ or public employees specifically tasked with policy analysis in government are key players in policy advisory systems despite the addition of more external and internal actors in policy advice systems in recent years.

  • How these advisors and analysts are organised in government, whether they work in clusters or small groups, and how they interact with other civil servants and policy-makers are a key determinant of their activities and influence in policy-making.

  • In the policy sciences, work in the 1960s and 1970s established ‘the policy shop’, that is relatively small centrally located organisational units employing mainly policy analysts, as the main home of policy professionals in government. These units often enjoyed a monopoly in analysis and played a key role in policy-making. However, research on these organisations has not kept up with changes in advisory relations within and outside of governments and the impact such changes have had on the influence and activities of core professionals.

  • Recent work by the authors looking at the large Canadian province of Ontario has identified more than a single type of arrangement of analysts in the current era. This paper expands this analysis to both small and large jurisdictions in Canada, including the federal government, and develops two detailed case studies of the current organisation of policy professionals in smaller central agencies like Ministries of Justice as well as in larger omnibus Ministries of the Environment.

  • The study finds a ‘distributed’ model of policy shops—in which multiple policy units exist throughout the agency—to be dominant in both cases and in all the governments examined and suggests this is now the new normal, replacing the dominance of the older more integrated central shop model. The predominance of the distributed model contributes to the fragmentation of policy advice already underway in government due to the growth in the number of external advisors such as consultants and think tanks, and internal ones such as political staffers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge brokering for public sector reform ‘We're trying to get out of here, that's what we're doing’: A Bourdieusian examination of ‘choice’ in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Knowing what not to know: Unravelling the dynamics of selective knowledge in government policymaking Cabinetisation or a Westminster solution? Understanding the employment of public servants in Australian ministers’ offices Issue Information - TOC
×
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