Search

This article provides fresh empirical insights into the evolving nature of policy analytical capacity in Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand. We argue for a focus on the formal policy staff employed in government to provide greater conceptual clarity and empirical purchase regarding specific types of policy analytical resources linked to capacity. Using ten years of administrative data we chart the evolution of the size, composition, and distribution of formal public service policy staff in these cases. We find, contrary to expectations, that formal policy staff have increased in all four cases. Comparative analysis reveals not only uneven staffing capacity across government organizations, but also important developments in the seniority and distribution of staff in "analysts" and "managers" classifications. The findings are used to generate country profiles that demonstrate more nuanced patterns of policy analytical capacity change over time. The findings also raise important questions about shortcomings in how governments track and classify their policy staff, and their ability to effectively manage policy analytical resources in policy making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the themes of policy advice, expertise, and policy advisory systems. It argues that persistent challenges and more emergent trends involving their intersection can be effectively understood through the lenses of instrumentality, authority, and adaptability. In the wake of renewed questions about the continued viability of longstanding public administration advisory arrangements, these themes help locate new pressures on those arrangement such as those linked to technological developments, shifting conceptions of expertise, and growing recognition of the challenges of managing systems of advice. These themes help facilitate continued engagement with persistent challenges linked to adequate policy capacity, the role of the public service advice, and question of rigour, legitimacy, and the democratic contexts of policy advising. Points for practitioners: Technological innovations and turbulent governance arrangements have renewed debates around technocracy, democratic control and participation, the role of evidence, and normative and ethical considerations inherent in the generation and use of policy advice.Policy capacity remains important for well‐functioning policy advisory systems. It has itself become multifaceted reflecting not only important differences in types of expertise and policy advice, but also concerns around its management and deployment in varying governance contexts.The competencies required for policy workers inside and outside of government should reflect changes in the role of expertise and evolving systems of policy advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns of a decline in public service policy capacity coupled with evolving policy advisory systems have seen public services seek to reform their policy capacity and practices. This article examines the flagship policy modernisation initiatives launched by the Australian, Canadian, British, and New Zealand governments. Comparative analysis reveals a shared emphasis on overarching objectives, but important differences in their design, how they are embedded within the public service, and their comprehensiveness. The New Zealand and British initiatives are found to be the most comprehensive and stable, while the Canadian and Australian approaches suffer from repeated reinvention exercises and resource and leadership precarity. An examination of these initiatives also provides new insights into understanding the trade‐offs and tensions around how these initiatives aim to address public service policymaking and effective advisory system participation. Points for practitioners: The public service's role within advisory systems is evolving and needs to be carefully reconsidered.Senior officials need to get serious about effectively scoping reform initiatives and being clearer about the trade‐offs associated with broad or more targeted approaches.Initiatives are drastically under‐resourced even in the best of scenarios. Governments and senior officials need to step up and invest in sustainable and well‐institutionalised initiatives.Practitioners will need to be creative about how and where they can access tools and approaches to improve their policymaking in cases where governments continue to under‐resource policy modernisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the infrastructure policy sector's capacity to respond to climate change adaptation through an analysis of the Canadian case. It includes a three-level examination of capacity: at the macro level through a virtual policy network analysis; at the meso level through examination of the lead department's evolving mandate and resources; and at the micro level through analysis of survey data related to departmental workers policy tasks and attitudes. Four hypotheses across these three levels are set out and tested at the national and subnational levels. Together, the findings suggest that the policy capacity in the Canadian infrastructure sector will be unable to meet the demands placed upon the sector to respond to the increasing challenges of climate change adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue contributes to extant empirical scholarship assessing governmental capacity to meet significant policy challenges, in this case those related to climate change adaptation. The study includes detailed examination of five policy sectors-finance, infrastructure, energy, forestry, and transportation-in two countries, Canada and the United States-in order to determine what kinds of governance arrangements and analytical capacities exist in this area, how they are changing (if at all), and how they interrelate with the status and evolution of climate change outcomes in each sector. The articles provide a comprehensive sampling of policy network structure and behavior, organizational mandates and resources, and actual job duties and training of policy actors across these sectors at both the federal and subnational level of government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Political Science Review is the property of Canadian Political Science Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)