Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Contested Autonomy of Policy Advisory Bodies: The Trade-off Between Autonomy and Control of Policy Advisory Bodies in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Sweden

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe

Abstract

Autonomy and control are important dynamics in each advisory system. Autonomy is important because it ensures independent and critical advice and allows advisors to ‘speak truth to power’ (Wildavsky 1989; Pielke 2010). At the same time, government control is also an important aspect (Van Twist et al. 2015; Craft and Halligan 2015; Halligan 1995) to assure that advices are on-topic, on-time, in the right format, and relevant for government decision-making,- and policymaking processes. This paper describes the trade-off the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom make with regard to the level of ‘autonomy’ and ‘control’ of their policy advisory bodies. We make a distinction between legal, economic, and operational means (Künneke 1991) through which autonomy is stimulated or control is exercised on a managerial and policy (primary processes) level of policy advisory bodies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andresen, S., Skodvin, T., Underdal, A., & Wettestad, J. (Eds.). (2000). Science and politics in international environmental regimes. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anton, T. J. (2002). Policy-making and political culture in Sweden. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C. Van den. (2016). The externalization and politicization of policy advice in the Netherlands. Presented at the International Conference of the International Public Policy Association, May 2015, Milan, Italy. Panel T08P06—Comparing policy advisory systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstone, T., & Plowden, W. J. L. (1988). Inside the think tank. Advising the cabinet. London: William Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botcheva, L. (2001). Expertise and international governance. Global Governance, 7, 197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, G., & Verhoest, K. (1999). A comparative perspective on decentralisation as a context for contracting in the public sector: Practice and theory. In Y. Fortin (Ed.), La Contractualisation dans le Secteur Public des Pays Industrialisés depuis 1980 (pp. 199–240). Paris: L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, Y. D., & Treur, J. H. F. (1996). Decentralisation and autonomisation as a strategy for increased effectiveness in the public and the private sector: Society and economy in Central and Eastern Europe. Public Administration, 57, 64–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2006). Autonomy and regulations. Coping with agencies in the modern state. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connaughton, B. (2010). Glorified gofers, policy experts or good generalist: A classification of the role of the Irish ministerial advisor. Irish Political Studies, 25, 347–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2013). The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems: The impact of externalization and politicization on policy advice. Policy and Society, 32, 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J., & Halligan, J. (2015). Looking back and thing ahead: 30 years of policy advisory system scholarship. Prepared for the T08P0—Comparing policy advisory systems. International Conference on Public Policy. Catholic University of Sacro Cuore, Milan, 1–4, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doubledag, R. & Wilsdon, J. (2013 April). Future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichbaum, C., & Shaw, R. (2007). Revisiting politicization: Political advisors and public servants in Westminister systems. Governance, 21, 337–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichhorst, W., & Wintermann, O. (2005). Generating legitimacy for labor market and welfare state reforms: The role of policy advice in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. (IZA Discussion Papers, No. 184).

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, J. (2012). Policy advice and institutional politics: A comparative analysis of Germany and Britain. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, M., & Matthews, F. (2015). Party patronage in the United Kingdom: A pendulum of public appointments. In P. Kopecky, P. Mair, & M. Spirova (Eds.), Party patronage and party government in European democracies. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fobé, E., Brans, M., Vancoppenolle, D., & Van Damme, J. (2013). Institutionalized advisory systems: An analysis of member satisfaction of advice production and use across 9 strategic advisory councils in Flanders (Belgium). Policy and Society, 32, 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaffney, J. (1991). The political think-tanks in the UK and the ministerial cabinets in France. West European Politics, 14, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, S., Cunningham, P., & Flanagan, K. (2003). Typifying scientific advisory structures and scientific advice production methodologies (TSAS). European Commission: Prepared for Directorate-General Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 569–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public sector. In G. Peters & D. T. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 138–172). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: From ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science and Public Policy, 26, 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Migone, A. (2013). The search for substance: Externalization, politicization and the work of Canadian policy consultants 2006–2013, Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7, 112–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Newman, J. (2010). Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy making in multi-level governance systems. Policy & Society, 29, 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Welstead, A. M. (2011). Policy analysis in the bureaucracy revisited: The nature of professional policy work in contemporary government. Politics & Policy, 39, 613–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Künneke, R. W. (1991). Op armlengte van de overheid: een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek naar de effecten van verzelfstandiging op de efficiëntie van openbare nutsbedrijven. Universiteit Twente: vakboek bestuurskunde: Enschede.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, E. (1998). A quarter century of Canadian think tanks: evolving institutions, conditions and strategies. Think tanks across nations: A comparative approach. Manchester: University of Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molander, P., Nilsson, J. -E., & Schick, A. (2002). Does anyone govern? The relationship between the government office and the agencies in Sweden. Report from the SNS constitutional project. Stockholm, SNS.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). Ministerial advisors: Role, influence and management. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2008). The politics of bureaucracy: An introduction to comparative public administration. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G., & Barker, A. (1993). Advising west European governments: Inquiries, expertise and public policy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, B. (2003). Typifying scientific advisory structures and scientific advice production methodologies. The cases of Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. Institutet för studier av utbildning och forskning. Stockholm: SISTER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersson, O. (2015). Rational politics: Commissions of inquiry and the referral system in Sweden. In J. Pierre (Ed.), The oxford handbook of Swedish politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, R. (2010). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. & Bouchaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis, new public management, governance, and the Neo- Weberian state (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Talbot, C. (2004). Unbundled government a critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putters, K., & van Twist, M. (2007). Bijdragen aan beleid of tegenspel bieden? Modaliteiten voor een vernieuwd adviesstelsel. Beleidswetenschappen, 61, 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasser, S. (2006). Providing advice to government. Papers on Parliament. Canberra: senate of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Premfors, R. (1983). Governmental commissions in Sweden, The American Behavioral Scientist (pre-1986), 26, 623–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C. (1995). The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 2, 159–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, M. (2010). De commissie: Over de politiek-bestuurlijke logica van een publiek geheim. Den Haag: Boom/Lemma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, M., & van Twist, M. (2010). The positioning of commissions in a knowledge democracy. In R. Veld (Ed.), Knowledge democracy: Consequences for science, politics and media (pp. 299–313). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smullen, A., van Thiel, S., & Pollitt, C. (2001). Agentschappen en de verzelfstandigingsparadox. Beleid en Maatschappij, 28(4), 190–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siefken, S. (2007). Expertkommissionen in politischen prozess. Eind Bilanz zur rot-grunen bundesregierung 1998-2005. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D., Denham, A., Garnett, M., Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Tilburg & Berenschot. (2004). Spelen met doorwerking: Over de werking van doorwerking van de adviezen van adviescolleges in het Nederlandse openbaar bestuur. Utrecht: Tilburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Twist, M. D., Bressers, J., Scherpenisse, M., van der Steen, M., & Schulz, M. (2015). Strengthening (the institutional setting) of strategic advice. OECD Seminar towards a public governance toolkit for policymaking ‘What Works and Why’ April 22, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veld, R. J. In ‘t. (2010). Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics, and media. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Peters, G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration & Society, 24, 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., & Bach, T. (2012). Executive agencies, ministers, and departments: Can policy and management ever be separated? Administration & Society, 44, 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, J. (1984). The ministers’ minders: Personal advisers in national government. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1989). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • WRR. (2007). Op steenworp afstand: op de brug tussen wetenschap en politiek. Den Haag: WRR.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Netherlands School of Public Administration, The Hague, The Netherlands

    D. Bressers, M. J. W. van Twist, M. A. van der Steen & J. M. Schulz

  2. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    M. J. W. van Twist & M. A. van der Steen

Authors
  1. D. Bressers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. J. W. van Twist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. van der Steen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. M. Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Bressers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Public Leadership and Social Enterprise—PulSE Faculty of Business and Law , The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

    Edoardo Ongaro

  2. Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Sandra Van Thiel

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bressers, D., van Twist, M.J.W., van der Steen, M.A., Schulz, J.M. (2018). The Contested Autonomy of Policy Advisory Bodies: The Trade-off Between Autonomy and Control of Policy Advisory Bodies in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. In: Ongaro, E., Van Thiel, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_61

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation