IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v52y2019i2d10.1007_s11077-018-9338-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advisory bodies and morality policies: does ethical expertise matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Nathalie Schiffino

    (Institut de Recherche ISPOLE)

  • Kristian Krieger

    (Institut de Recherche ISPOLE)

Abstract

Governments and parliaments struggle to design biomedical policies: while research and practice make rapid progress, they often trigger value conflicts. One response involves institutionalised ethics expert bodies. Drawing on in-depth empirical research, this article analyses the influence of such expert bodies within the policy advisory system. Specifically, it examines the critical case of the Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics (BACB). In spite of an exclusive formal mandate, the BACB’s direct influence on policies is limited. The BACB analysis enables to complement existing theories by highlighting the importance of looking beyond organisational and inter-organisational factors and studying the politico-institutional settings of a particular polity. These settings help better understand patterns of influence and factors affecting the type and level of influence of advisory bodies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9338-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9338-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-018-9338-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-018-9338-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Bert Fraussen & Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun, 2020. "Conceptualizing consultation approaches: identifying combinations of consultation tools and analyzing their implications for stakeholder diversity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 473-493, September.
    6. Brendan Whitty & Jessica Sklair & Paul Robert Gilbert & Emma Mawdsley & Jo‐Anna Russon & Olivia Taylor, 2023. "Outsourcing the Business of Development: The Rise of For‐profit Consultancies in the UK Aid Sector," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 54(4), pages 892-917, July.
    7. Arshed, Norin, 2017. "The origins of policy ideas: The importance of think tanks in the enterprise policy process in the UK," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 74-83.
    8. Belloir Alexandre & van den Berg Caspar, 2020. "Functional Politicization in the Dutch Senior Civil Service: Evidence from Longitudinal Surveys and Qualitative Research (2007 – 2019)," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 49-73, December.
    9. Vincent Caby, 2023. "Techniques for overcoming difficult interdisciplinary dialogue in expert panels: lessons for interactional expertise," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Ishani Mukherjee & Michael Howlett, 2015. "Who Is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Public Policy-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 65-75.
    11. 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.
    12. Arnošt Veselý, 2017. "Policy advice as policy work: a conceptual framework for multi-level analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 139-154, March.
    13. Jean Philippe Décieux, 2021. "The Dialectic of Transnational Integration and National Disintegration as Challenge for Multilevel Governance," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.
    14. Daniel Polman & Gerry Alons, 2021. "Reap what you sow: implementing agencies as strategic actors in policy feedback dynamics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 823-848, December.
    15. Andrew Jordan & Duncan Russel, 2014. "Embedding the Concept of Ecosystem Services? The Utilisation of Ecological Knowledge in Different Policy Venues," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 192-207, April.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2018. "Internal ministerial advisory bodies: An attempt to transform governing in the Slovak Republic," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, June.
    20. 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.

    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:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9338-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.