IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v57y2024i2d10.1007_s11077-024-09533-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports

Author

Listed:
  • Jingjing Zeng

    (Zhongnan University of Economics and Law
    Zhongnan University of Economics and Law)

  • Guihua Huang

    (Zhongnan University of Economics and Law)

Abstract

The role of policy advisory systems in the bureaucratic policy-making process has expanded greatly, yet little is known about officials’ trust in the analyses they produce. This study investigates whether mid-career administrators in China place greater trust in policy analyses produced by governmental, quasi-governmental, or private think tanks, and the extent to which trust biases among administrators differ based on their age, gender, or the department they work in. We test for the predicted differences through a web-based randomized controlled experiment conducted with mid-career administrators selected for an executive MPA program (N = 405). The findings, derived from ordinal logistic and OLS regression analyses, reveal that bureaucratic officials have greater trust in reports produced by governmental think tanks. Women, older officials, and officials working in social service departments exhibit greater trust bias favoring government produced analyses. The discussion explores how close institutionalized linkages with the party-state align analyses conducted by governmental think tanks with agencies’ strategic direction. In contrast, the dependency of quasi-governmental and private think tanks on external resources may undercut their credibility, leading their analyses to serve as a complement to, rather than substitute for that of governmental think tanks.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:57:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09533-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-024-09533-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-024-09533-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-024-09533-w?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. Jonas Hjort & Diana Moreira & Gautam Rao & Juan Francisco Santini, 2021. "How Research Affects Policy: Experimental Evidence from 2,150 Brazilian Municipalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1442-1480, May.
    2. Xufeng ZHU, 2017. "Think Tank Management System in China," East Asian Policy (EAP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 92-99, April.
    3. Falk Daviter, 2015. "The political use of knowledge in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(4), pages 491-505, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Olwen Bedford, 2011. "Guanxi-Building in the Workplace: A Dynamic Process Model of Working and Backdoor Guanxi," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(1), pages 149-158, November.
    6. Vivalt, Eva & Coville, Aidan, 2023. "How do policymakers update their beliefs?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Johanna Hornung & Nils C. Bandelow & Colette S. Vogeler, 2019. "Social identities in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 211-231, June.
    11. Joshua Y. Lerner, 2018. "Getting the message across: evaluating think tank influence in Congress," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 347-366, June.
    12. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    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. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Paul Prottung & Benedetta Ricci, 2023. "Who’s Afraid of Policy Experiments?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 23-027/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Frohnweiler, Sarah & Adongo, Charles A. & Beber, Bernd & Lakemann, Tabea & Priebe, Jan & Lay, Jann, 2024. "Effects of skills training on employment and livelihood outcomes: A randomized controlled trial with young women in Ghana," Ruhr Economic Papers 1095, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    7. 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.
    8. Guglielmo Briscese & John List, 2024. "Toward an Understanding of the Political Economy of Using Field Experiments in Policymaking," Natural Field Experiments 00799, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Ankel-Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2023. "Rural electrification, the credibility revolution, and the limits of evidence-based policy," Ruhr Economic Papers 1051, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Roberto Brunetti & Matthieu Pourieux, 2023. "Representative Policy-Makers? A Behavioral Experiment with French Politicians," Working Papers 2319, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    13. Stevanov, Mirjana & Krott, Max, 2021. "Embedding scientific information into forestry praxis: Explaining knowledge transfer in transdisciplinary projects by using German case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    14. Michael McGann & Emma Blomkamp & Jenny M. Lewis, 2018. "The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 249-267, September.
    15. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    16. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    17. Michele Giannola, 2024. "Parental Investments and Intra-household Inequality in Child Human Capital: Evidence from a Survey Experiment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(658), pages 671-727.
    18. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    19. Alberto Arenal & Claudio Feijoo & Ana Moreno & Sergio Ramos & Cristina Armuña, 2021. "Entrepreneurship Policy Agenda in the European Union: A Text Mining Perspective," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(2), pages 243-271, March.
    20. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.

    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:57:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09533-w. 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.