Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In China, there are two types of MPA: part-time and full-time, with the former mainly attended by government department staff.

  2. The attention test was conducted by the question “What is the topic of the policy report you just read?” If respondents’ answers match the policy topic they have read, they pass the attention test. Here, 127 respondents failed the attention test, and no individual characteristic differences were found between these failed samples and the passed samples.

  3. We categorized bureaucratic officials into older and younger groups at the age threshold of 30, considering the age restrictions for bureaucratic positions in China, where most roles require candidates to be 30 years old or younger.

  4. This can be seen from the news conference of the Chinese Ministry of Education, referring to the website: http://news.sohu.com/a/588311090_362042.

References

  • Abelson, D. E. (2018). Do think tanks matter?: Assessing the impact of public policy institutes. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.

  • Bai, B., & Ding, H. (2019). The nature of policy lssues and policy participation of think tanks. Tribune of Study, 4, 62–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banuri, S., Dercon, S., & Gauri, V. (2019). Biased policy professionals. The World Bank Economic Review, 33(2), 310–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, M., Debus, M., & Müller, J. (2015). Personal characteristics of MPs and legislative behavior in moral policymaking. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40(2), 179–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, O. (2011). Guanxi-building in the workplace: A dynamic process model of working and backdoor guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, E., & Lui, E. (2023). Integrating identity in policy design theory. Policy & Politics, 51(1), 2–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Clegg, J., & Tan, H. (2006). Cultural awareness in knowledge transfer to China—The role of guanxi and mianzi. Journal of World Business, 41(3), 275–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, C. (2004). China’s scientific elite. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, D. G., & Wechsler, B. (1992). Trust in the public sector: Individual and organizational determinants. Administration & Society, 23(4), 471–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celis, K., Childs, S., & Kantola, J. (2016). Regendering party politics: An introduction (Vol. 22, pp. 571–575). SAGE.

  • Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2005). Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S. D. (2012). 164 Environment and Identity. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0010

  • Cooper, D., Lowe, A., Puxty, A., Robson, K., & Willmott, H. (1988). Regulating the UK accountancy profession: episodes in the relation between the profession and the state. In ESRC conference on corporatism at the policy studies institute, London, January.

  • Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x12000049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2013). The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems: The impact of externalization and politicization on policy advice [Article]. Policy and Society, 32(3), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J. (2005). The social transformation of trust in government. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daviter, F. (2015). The political use of knowledge in the policy process. Policy Sciences, 48(4), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9232-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, B. J. (2003). Red capitalists in China: The party, private entrepreneurs, and prospects for political change. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doberstein, C. (2017). Whom do bureaucrats believe? A randomized controlled experiment testing perceptions of credibility of policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 45(2), 384–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, Z. (2022). Organizational basis and mechanism of hierarchical political trust:An empirical study based on the survey on China's social attitudeand development (2016), Central University of Finance and Economics.

  • Eagly, A., & Steffen, V. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men in social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., & Wood, W. (2016). Social Role Theory of Sex Differences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenberger, S., Varone, F., Sciarini, P., Stähli, R., & Proulx, J. (2023). When do decision makers listen (less) to experts? The Swiss government’s implementation of scientific advice during the COVID-19 crisis. Policy Studies Journal, 51(3), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. (2017). Think tanks and strategic policy-making: The contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9246-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E., Rein, M., & Moran, M. (2006). The Public and its Policies. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halfmann, W., & Hoppe, R. (2004). Science/Policy boundaries: A changing division of labour in dutch expert policy advice. Scientific expertise and political decision making. Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public service. In B. Peters & D. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 138–172). McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, N. P. (1992). Information flows and policy coordination in the Chinese bureaucracy. In K. Lieberthal & D. M. Lampton (Eds.), Bureaucracy, Politics, and Decision Making in Post-Mao China (pp. 125–148). University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartner-Tiefenthaler, M., Nienaber, A.-M., & Yanagida, T. (2023). Occupation matters! A multilevel analysis of organizational trust in professional bureaucracies in the healthcare sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(3), 512–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenteufel, P., Smyrl, M., Genieys, W., & Moreno-Fuentes, F. J. (2010). Programmatic actors and the transformation of European health care states. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 35(4), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, B., Ferguson, M., Cherney, A., & Boreham, P. (2014). Are policy-makers interested in social research? Exploring the sources and uses of valued information among public servants in Australia. Policy and Society, 33(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs, H. (2005). Advisory systems in pluralistic knowledge societies: A criteria-based typology to assess and optimize environmental policy advice. In S. I. Maasen & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? (pp. 41–61). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hjort, J., Moreira, D., Rao, G., & Santini, J. F. (2021). How research affects policy: Experimental evidence from 2,150 brazilian municipalities. American Economic Review, 111(5), 1442–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornung, J., Bandelow, N. C., & Vogeler, C. S. (2019). Social identities in the policy process. Policy Sciences, 52(2), 211–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, G. D. (2019). How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States. Policy Sciences, 52, 315–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, T. E., & Jorgensen, P. D. (2009). Policy knowledge, policy formulation, and change: revisiting a foundational question. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00300.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W., & Stano, E. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Vol. 45). Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. Y. (2018). Getting the message across: Evaluating think tank influence in Congress. Public Choice, 175, 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. (2009). China’s new think tanks: Where officials, entrepreneurs, and scholars interact. China Leadership Monitor, 29, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberthal, K. (1995). Governing China: From revolution through reform. Norton.

  • Lindvall, J. (2009). The real but limited influence of expert ideas. World Politics, 61(4), 703. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887109990104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. (2019). Upward mobility and authoritarian stability: Merit-based elite recruitment in China. Columbia University.

  • Liu, X. (2018). Coordination, domination and income distribution: the structure of social stratification in transitional China. Sociological Studies, 33(01), 89–115+244.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGann, J. G. (2020). 2019 global go to think tank index report. TTCSP.

  • Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir, R., & Wetherell, M. (2010). Identity, politics and public policy. Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.ippr.org/publications/55/1765/identity-politics-and-public-policy.

  • Nachiappan, K. (2013). Think tanks and the knowledge–policy nexus in China. Policy and Society, 32(3), 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. R. (1986). The paradox of mass politics: Knowledge and opinion in the American electorate. Harvard University Press.

  • Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Policy Press.

  • Oh, C. H. (1997). Explaining the impact of policy information on policy-making. Knowledge and Policy, 10(3), 25–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattyn, V., Blum, S., Fobé, E., Pekar-Milicevic, M., & Brans, M. (2019). Academic policy advice in consensus-seeking countries: The cases of Belgium and Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, R. F., & Oh, C. H. (1994). The utilization of policy research. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of policy studies (pp. 69–94). Marcel Dekker Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rome, S. H., & Hoechstetter, S. (2010). Social work and civic engagement: The political participation of professional social workers. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37, 107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2014). Theories of the policy process. Westview Press.

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework. Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(4), 649–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2), 129–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. University Press of Kansas.

  • Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2000). Introduction to the symposium: The changing think tank landscape. Global Society, 14(2), 149–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2007). Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration, 85(2), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00649.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundquist, J. L. (1978). Research brokerage: The weak link. In L. E. Lynn (Ed.), Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection (pp. 126–145). National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.

  • van den Berg, C. F. (2017). Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: Externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vivalt, E., & Coville, A. (2023). How do policymakers update their beliefs? Journal of Development Economics, 165(3), 103121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 615–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00287.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1977). Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 531–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1986). The circuitry of enlightenment: Diffusion of social science research to policymakers. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(2), 274–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1999). The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation, 5(4), 468–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. (2009). Policy analysis as policy advice. In R. Goodin, M. Moran, & M. Rein (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 152–168). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548453.003.0007.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K. (2005). Public administrators’ trust in citizens: A missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 273–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, R., & Greenfield, P. M. (2015). Cultural evolution over the last 40 years in China: Using the Google Ngram Viewer to study implications of social and political change for cultural values. International Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., & Deng, M. (2017). Measurement and comparative study of political attitudes of the new social stratum: Based on survey data from six provinces and cities. Jianghai Academic Journal, 4, 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Hu, W. (2017). Determinants of public trust in government: Empirical evidence from urban China. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(2), 358–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X. (2009). The influence of think tanks in the Chinese policy process: Different ways and mechanisms. Asian Survey, 49(2), 333–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X. (2011). Government advisors or public advocates? Roles of think tanks in China from the perspective of regional variations. The China Quarterly, 207, 668–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X. (2017). Think tank management system in China. East Asian Policy, 9(2), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1793930517000198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X. (2020). Think tanks in politically embedded knowledge regimes: Does the “revolving door” matter in China? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(2), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318776362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X., & Xue, L. (2007). Think tanks in transitional China. Public Administration and Development: THe International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 27(5), 452–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China [Grant Number 22&ZD114], the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities for Zhongnan University of Economics and Law [Grant Number 2722023DD006 and 2722024AK003] and Program of the Innovation and Talent for Income Distribution and Public Finance [Grant Number B20084].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, 430073, People’s Republic of China

    Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang

  2. Institute of Income Distribution and Public Finance, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, 430073, People’s Republic of China

    Jingjing Zeng

Authors
  1. Jingjing Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guihua Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guihua Huang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Respondents’ individual characteristics and work experience

See Appendix Table 

Table 10 Descriptive Statistics
Full size table

10.

Appendix B: The full results of ordinal logistic regression

See Appendix Tables

Table 11 The full results of ordinal logistic regression on trust level for the economic dual circulation policy
Full size table

11, 12,

Table 12 The full results of ordinal logistic regression on trust level for the Belt and Road policy
Full size table
Table 13 The full results of ordinal logistic regression on trust ranking for the economic dual circulation policy
Full size table

13 and

Table 14 The full results of ordinal logistic regression on trust ranking for the Belt and Road policy
Full size table

14.

Appendix C: The summarized results in robustness check

See Appendix Tables

Table 15 Summary of OLS results on trust level for the economic dual circulation policy
Full size table

15,

Table 16 Summary of OLS results on trust level for the Belt and Road policy
Full size table

16,

Table 17 Summary of OLS results on trust ranking for the economic dual circulation policy
Full size table

17 and

Table 18 Summary of OLS results on trust ranking for the Belt and Road policy
Full size table

18.

Appendix D: The summarized results in heterogeneity analysis

See Appendix Tables

Table 19 The difference of gender of bureaucratic officials' trust bias in the economic dual circulation policy, based on the DV of trust level
Full size table

19,

Table 20 The difference of gender of bureaucratic officials' trust bias in the Belt and Road policy, based on the DV of trust level
Full size table

20,

Table 21 The difference of age of bureaucratic officials' trust bias in the economic dual circulation policy, based on the DV of trust level
Full size table

21,

Table 22 The difference of age of bureaucratic officials’ trust bias in the Belt and Road policy, based on the DV of trust level
Full size table

22,

Table 23 The department difference of bureaucratic officials’ trust bias in the economic dual circulation policy, based on the DV of trust ranking
Full size table

23,

Table 24 The department difference of bureaucratic officials’ trust bias in the Belt and Road policy, based on the DV of trust ranking
Full size table

24,

Table 25 The interactions of treatment with gender in the economic dual circulation policy
Full size table

25,

Table 26 The interactions of treatment with gender in the Belt and Road policy
Full size table

26,

Table 27 The interactions of treatment with age in the economic dual circulation policy
Full size table

27,

Table 28 The interactions of treatment with age in the Belt and Road policy
Full size table

28,

Table 29 The interactions of treatment with department in the economic dual circulation policy
Full size table

29, and

Table 30 The interactions of treatment with department in the Belt and Road policy
Full size table

30.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeng, J., Huang, G. Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports. Policy Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09533-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09533-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation