Search

This article develops the concept of policy advisory system (PAS) management in recognition of the need to better theorise and empirically study how governments approach the complex systems of advice around them. In our analysis, we go beyond the conceptualisation of degrees of government's "control" over advisory sources. We use the dimensions of government agency and discretion and argue that PAS management falls into four forms: authoritative, dependent, laissez-faire, or absent. Using evidence from Australia, Canada, Britain, and New Zealand, we explore how governments operationalise these approaches through a range of choices and practices. The analysis points to the need to recognise that attempts to manage these systems occur both proactively and reactively with clear differences in the broad or narrow scope of management efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This exploratory article examines the contemporary state of formal government policy staff in Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, contributing to the ongoing research seeking to understand the policy capacity of governments. It analyzes the size, composition, and distribution of the countries' formal policy staff across government units. Comparative analysis reveals significant differences in the basic organizing approaches used to categorize policy staff as well as important differences in their numbers, composition, and distribution across government units. While uneven distributions characterize all four cases, there is significant variance in where staff work, their seniority, and functional classifications as "analysts" or "managers". The analysis provides fresh insights into the nature and availability of policy analytical capacity within these governments. It also underscores major gaps in how governments collect and make available basic data on their policy staff, which raises questions about their ability to effectively manage and deploy those staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]