IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v42y2023i3p419-439..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes

Author

Listed:
  • Caner Bakir

Abstract

So far, interest in policy and political sciences has mostly centered around the varieties of policy advisory systems (PASs) and knowledge regimes in consolidated democracies rather than in consolidated autocracies, which largely remain as black boxes. Drawing on a hybrid literature review, this article aims to fill this gap. It reviews selected articles published between 1992 and February 2023 in the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Social Science Citation Index database to not only to reveal the current state of empirical and theoretical knowledge and persistent knowledge gaps but also to offer an integration of the literature that leads to a preliminary conceptual framework in this emerging topic. In doing so, it contributes to the body of knowledge on this topic in three main ways. First, it provides a comprehensive review of PASs in consolidated autocracies to identify the central features of policy knowledge production within and across autocracies. Second, it proposes “the vicious circle of authoritarian PAS and knowledge regime” as a conceptual approach. In doing so, it takes a modest step toward a holistic conceptualization and synthesis of this literature to date. Third, it establishes connections between fragmented literature studies; identifies theoretical, conceptual, empirical, and methodological gaps; and proposes suggestions concerning promising paths for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Caner Bakir, 2023. "The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 419-439.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:3:p:419-439.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puad013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Cobham, 2022. "Monetary policy frameworks in the Middle East and North Africa: How do they compare with other groupings?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(1), pages 108-130, February.
    2. Wang, Qi & Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 347-364.
    3. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2019. "Informational Autocrats," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 100-127, Fall.
    4. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2022. "Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03916510, HAL.
    5. Sonin, Konstantin & Egorov, Georgy, 2023. "Why Did Putin Invade Ukraine? A Theory of Degenerate Autocracy," CEPR Discussion Papers 18078, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Gerschewski, Johannes, 2013. "The three pillars of stability: legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 20(1), pages 13-38.
    7. Jesper Dahl Kelstrup, 2017. "Quantitative differences in think tank dissemination activities in Germany, Denmark and the UK," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 125-137, March.
    8. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    9. Craft, Jonathan & Howlett, Michael, 2012. "Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 79-98, August.
    10. Michael Howlett, 2019. "Comparing policy advisory systems beyond the OECD: models, dynamics and the second-generation research agenda," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3-4), pages 241-259, July.
    11. Saipira Furstenberg, 2018. "State responses to reputational concerns: the case of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in Kazakhstan," Central Asian Survey, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 286-304, April.
    12. Ademar Schmitz & David Urbano & Maribel Guerrero & Gertrudes Aparecida Dandolini, 2017. "Activities Related to Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Academic Setting: A Literature Review," Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, in: Marta Peris-Ortiz & Jaime Alonso Gómez & José M. Merigó-Lindahl & Carlos Rueda-Armengot (ed.), Entrepreneurial Universities, chapter 0, pages 1-17, Springer.
    13. Ademar Schmitz & David Urbano & Gertrudes Aparecida Dandolini & João Artur Souza & Maribel Guerrero, 2017. "Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: a systematic literature review," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 369-395, June.
    14. Caspar F. Berg, 2017. "Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 63-84, March.
    15. Bert Fraussen & Darren Halpin, 2017. "Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 105-124, March.
    16. Nina Belyaeva, 2019. "Revisiting demand, politicization and externalization in authoritarian political regimes: policy advisory system in Russian practices," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3-4), pages 392-409, July.
    17. Thurid Hustedt & Sylvia Veit, 2017. "Policy advisory systems: change dynamics and sources of variation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 41-46, March.
    18. Sylvia Veit & Thurid Hustedt & Tobias Bach, 2017. "Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 85-103, March.
    19. Dmitry Zaytsev, 2019. "Fluctuating capacity of policy advice in Russia: testing theory in developing country context," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3-4), pages 353-373, July.
    20. Jonathan Craft & John Halligan, 2017. "Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 47-62, March.
    21. Thurid Hustedt, 2019. "Studying policy advisory systems: beyond the Westminster-bias?," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3-4), pages 260-269, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett & Leslie A Pal & M Ramesh, 2023. "Dealing with the challenges of legitimacy, values, and politics in policy advice," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 275-287.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johan Christensen, 2018. "Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 291-311, September.
    2. Nathalie Schiffino & Kristian Krieger, 2019. "Advisory bodies and morality policies: does ethical expertise matter?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 191-210, June.
    3. Grant D. Jacobsen, 2019. "How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 315-342, September.
    4. Nikolova, Milena & Popova, Olga, 2023. "Echoes of the Past: The Enduring Impact of Communism on Contemporary Freedom of Speech Values," IZA Discussion Papers 16657, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Max Grömping & Darren R. Halpin, 2021. "Do think tanks generate media attention on issues they care about? Mediating internal expertise and prevailing governmental agendas," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 849-866, December.
    6. Christopher S. Hayter & Albert N. Link & Matthew Schaffer, 2023. "Identifying the emergence of academic entrepreneurship within the technology transfer literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 1800-1812, October.
    7. Houqiang Yu & Xueting Cao & Tingting Xiao & Zhenyi Yang, 2020. "How accurate are policy document mentions? A first look at the role of altmetrics database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1517-1540, November.
    8. Adele Parmentola & Marco Ferretti & Eva Panetti, 2021. "Exploring the university-industry cooperation in a low innovative region. What differences between low tech and high tech industries?," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1469-1496, September.
    9. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Percentile and stochastic-based approach to the comparison of the number of citations of articles indexed in different bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 223-252, April.
    10. Lola Redondo-Rodríguez & Diana C. Pérez-Bustamante Yábar & Eloísa Díaz-Garrido, 2023. "Impact of technological innovation on digital entrepreneurship and the effects on the economy," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 1501-1526, September.
    11. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    12. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    13. Araújo, Tanya & Fontainha, Elsa, 2017. "The specific shapes of gender imbalance in scientific authorships: A network approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 88-102.
    14. Schulze, Günther G. & Zakharov, Nikita, 2023. "Political cycles of media repression," BOFIT Discussion Papers 3/2023, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    15. Junwen Zhu & Weishu Liu, 2020. "A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 321-335, April.
    16. Shir Aviv-Reuven & Ariel Rosenfeld, 2023. "A logical set theory approach to journal subject classification analysis: intra-system irregularities and inter-system discrepancies in Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 157-175, January.
    17. Saïd Echchakoui, 2020. "Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(3), pages 165-184, September.
    18. Saïd Echchakoui, 0. "Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    19. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    20. M. Jae Moon & Seulgi Lee & Seunggyu Park, 2023. "Citizensourcing policy advisory systems in a turbulent era," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 303-318.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:3:p:419-439.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.