IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rrpaxx/v13y2009i3p1-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy Advice in Multi-Level Governance Systems: Sub-National Policy Analysts and Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Howlett

Abstract

Despite the existence of a large body of literature on policy analysis, empirical studies of the work of policy analysts are rare, and in the case of analysts working at the sub-national level in multi-level governance systems, virtually non-existent. Many observers decry the lack of even such basic data as how many policy analysts work in sub-national government, on what subjects, and with what effect. This is true in many countries, for example, the U.S., Germany, and Canada, all federal systems with extensive sub-national governments but where what little empirical work exists focuses on government at the national level. In most cases, in justifying their observations and conclusions observers rely on only one or two quite dated works, on very partial survey results, or on anecdotal case studies and interview research. This article reports the findings of a 2008–2009 survey aimed specifically at examining the background and training of provincial policy analysts in Canada, the types of techniques they employ in their jobs, and what they do in their work on a day-by-day basis. The resulting profile of sub-national policy analysts presented here reveals several substantial differences between analysts working for national governments and their sub-national counterparts, with important implications for training and for the ability of nations to accomplish their long-term policy goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Howlett, 2009. "Policy Advice in Multi-Level Governance Systems: Sub-National Policy Analysts and Analysis," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rrpaxx:v:13:y:2009:i:3:p:1-16
    DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2009.10805127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/12294659.2009.10805127
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/12294659.2009.10805127?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. C Eden & F Ackermann & J M Bryson & G P Richardson & D F Andersen & C B Finn, 2009. "Integrating modes of policy analysis and strategic management practice: requisite elements and dilemmas," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 2-13, January.
    2. Nancy Shulock, 1999. "The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 226-244.
    3. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    4. Robert H. Nelson, 1989. "The office of policy analysis in the department of the interior," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 395-410.
    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. 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.
    2. Pierre-Olivier Bédard, 2015. "The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.

    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. Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Christof Rissi & Fritz Sager, 2013. "Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 348-364, September.
    5. Justin Longo & Alan Rodney Dobell, 2018. "The Limits of Policy Analytics: Early Examples and the Emerging Boundary of Possibilities," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 5-17.
    6. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    7. Mitoko, Jeremiah, 2021. "Economics of Microcredit-From current crisis to new possibilities," MPRA Paper 108392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann, 2021. "Modelling Stakeholder Dynamics for Supporting Group Decision and Negotiation: Theory to Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1001-1025, October.
    9. Peter S. Hovmand & David F. Andersen & Etiënne Rouwette & George P. Richardson & Krista Rux & Annaliese Calhoun, 2012. "Group Model‐Building ‘Scripts’ as a Collaborative Planning Tool," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 179-193, March.
    10. Z Zhu, 2011. "After paradim: why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 784-798, April.
    11. Vigren, Andreas & Ljungberg, Anders, 2018. "Public Transport Authorities’ use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in practice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 560-567.
    12. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2015. "An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 10-31, December.
    13. Iris Stucki & Fritz Sager, 2018. "Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 373-385, September.
    14. Maria Ljunggren Söderman & Ola Eriksson & Anna Björklund & Göran Östblom & Tomas Ekvall & Göran Finnveden & Yevgeniya Arushanyan & Jan-Olov Sundqvist, 2016. "Integrated Economic and Environmental Assessment of Waste Policy Instruments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-21, April.
    15. David J. Pannell, 2004. "Effectively communicating economics to policy makers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 535-555, September.
    16. Alexander Kleibrink & Edurne Magro, 2018. "The making of responsive innovation policies: varieties of evidence and their contestation in the Basque Country," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, December.
    17. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.
    18. Witting Antje, 2015. "Measuring the Use of Knowledge in Policy Development," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 54-62, December.
    19. Ackermann, Fran & Andersen, David F. & Eden, Colin & Richardson, George P., 2011. "ScriptsMap: A tool for designing multi-method policy-making workshops," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 427-434, August.
    20. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:rrpaxx:v:13:y:2009:i:3:p:1-16. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRPA20 .

    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.