IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v42y2023i3p275-287..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dealing with the challenges of legitimacy, values, and politics in policy advice

Author

Listed:
  • Giliberto Capano
  • Michael Howlett
  • Leslie A Pal
  • M Ramesh

Abstract

Policy advice has been the subject of ongoing research in the policy sciences as it raises fundamental issues about what constitutes policy knowledge, expertise, and their effects on policymaking. This introduction reviews the existing literature on the subject and introduces the themes motivating the articles in the issue. It highlights the need to consider several key subjects in the topic in the contemporary era: namely the challenge of legitimacy, that of values, and the challenge of politics. The papers in the issue shed light on the ongoing delegitimization of conventional knowledge providers, the problem of the normative basis of experts’ advice, the increasing politicization of expertise in policymaking, and the relevance of political context in influencing not only the role of experts but also whether or not their advice is accepted and implemented. It is argued that these modern challenges, when not addressed, reinforce trends toward the inclusion of antidemocratic values and uninformed ideas in contemporary policymaking.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:3:p:275-287.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puad026
    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. 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. Beryl A. Radin, 1997. "Presidential address: The evolution of the policy analysis field: From conversation to conversations," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 204-218.
    3. Leslie A Pal, 2023. "Speaking good to power: repositioning global policy advice through normative framing," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 347-358.
    4. Jing Zhao & Xufeng Zhu, 2023. "Spreading expertise: think tanks as digital advocators in the social media era," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 359-377.
    5. Anthony Perl & Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 2018. "Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing policy models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a “post-fact” world?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 581-600, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Natália Massaco Koga & Ana Paula Karruz & Pedro Lucas de Moura Palotti & Marcos Luiz Vieira Soares Filho & Bruno Gontyjo do Couto, 2023. "When bargaining is and is not possible: the politics of bureaucratic expertise in the context of democratic backsliding," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 378-391.
    8. Azad Singh Bali & M Ramesh, 2023. "Knowledge–practice gap in healthcare payments: the role of policy capacity," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 406-418.
    9. Melissa-Ellen Dowling & Tim Legrand, 2023. "“I do not consent”: political legitimacy, misinformation, and the compliance challenge in Australia’s Covid-19 policy response," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 319-333.
    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. 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.
    2. Marc Debus & Jale Tosun, 2021. "Political ideology and vaccination willingness: implications for policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 477-491, September.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Adam Fforde, 2019. "Yes, but what about the authority of policy analysts? A commentary and discussion of Perl et al., ‘Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignoranc," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 153-169, March.
    7. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Kris Hartley & Minh Khuong Vu, 2020. "Fighting fake news in the COVID-19 era: policy insights from an equilibrium model," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 735-758, December.
    15. Adam FFORDE, 2020. "Towards a theory of ignorance," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 13(2), pages 137-161, November.
    16. Steffen Eckhard & Vytautas Jankauskas, 2020. "Explaining the political use of evaluation in international organizations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 667-695, December.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Ric Neo, 2021. "The International Discourses and Governance of Fake News," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(2), pages 214-228, April.

    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:275-287.. 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.