Reconsidering expertise for public policymaking: The challenges of contestability

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Brian W. Head
{"title":"Reconsidering expertise for public policymaking: The challenges of contestability","authors":"Brian W. Head","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>It is commonly claimed there is a crisis of expertise in liberal democracies and that experts who provide evidence-based policy ideas have become widely distrusted. This paper reconsiders the nature of this perceived crisis in policy advisory systems. The literature has identified four reasons for this trend—politicisation, diversification, diminished policy capacity, and populism. Building on these claims, this paper suggests that the <i>contestability</i> of policy advice has been the key underlying shift in policy advisory processes. Contestability can be positively useful for testing the robustness of policy proposals. However, if the policy debate has no evidentiary standards, the contest becomes a clash of opinions and slogans. Hence, several approaches have been proposed to strengthen the role of professional expertise and improve the quality and legitimacy of evidence-informed policymaking. One approach is the rebuilding of bureaucratic capacity to provide evidence-informed policy advice. However, a technocratic–elitist style that invokes scientific authority would be difficult to sustain politically in relation to complex issues affecting citizen well-being. A second approach is to improve stakeholder engagement and to enhance respect for the expertise embodied in ‘lived experience’. Thus, rebuilding trust and legitimacy may require broadening the range of relevant expertise through multi-stakeholder approaches.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Points for practitioners</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Types of expert policy advice have evolved and diversified, with many sources and channels both inside and outside government</li>\n \n <li>Contestability of policy advice has become more widespread</li>\n \n <li>Public service policy capacity has arguably been weakened through outsourcing, use of consultants, interest group lobbying, and the growing influence of ministerial advisors</li>\n \n <li>Evidence-informed advisory systems have been challenged by fast decision-making, wicked problems, media misinformation, and populist slogans</li>\n \n <li>Rebuilding capacity and trust in high-quality policy systems requires new thinking, including more inclusive processes and a wider view of relevant expertise.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"83 2","pages":"156-172"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12613","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12613","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is commonly claimed there is a crisis of expertise in liberal democracies and that experts who provide evidence-based policy ideas have become widely distrusted. This paper reconsiders the nature of this perceived crisis in policy advisory systems. The literature has identified four reasons for this trend—politicisation, diversification, diminished policy capacity, and populism. Building on these claims, this paper suggests that the contestability of policy advice has been the key underlying shift in policy advisory processes. Contestability can be positively useful for testing the robustness of policy proposals. However, if the policy debate has no evidentiary standards, the contest becomes a clash of opinions and slogans. Hence, several approaches have been proposed to strengthen the role of professional expertise and improve the quality and legitimacy of evidence-informed policymaking. One approach is the rebuilding of bureaucratic capacity to provide evidence-informed policy advice. However, a technocratic–elitist style that invokes scientific authority would be difficult to sustain politically in relation to complex issues affecting citizen well-being. A second approach is to improve stakeholder engagement and to enhance respect for the expertise embodied in ‘lived experience’. Thus, rebuilding trust and legitimacy may require broadening the range of relevant expertise through multi-stakeholder approaches.

Points for practitioners

  • Types of expert policy advice have evolved and diversified, with many sources and channels both inside and outside government
  • Contestability of policy advice has become more widespread
  • Public service policy capacity has arguably been weakened through outsourcing, use of consultants, interest group lobbying, and the growing influence of ministerial advisors
  • Evidence-informed advisory systems have been challenged by fast decision-making, wicked problems, media misinformation, and populist slogans
  • Rebuilding capacity and trust in high-quality policy systems requires new thinking, including more inclusive processes and a wider view of relevant expertise.
重新考虑公共决策的专业知识:可竞争性的挑战
人们普遍认为,在自由民主国家中存在着专业知识危机,提供以证据为基础的政策理念的专家受到了广泛的不信任。本文重新审视了政策咨询体系中这一被认为存在的危机的本质。文献指出了这一趋势的四个原因--政治化、多样化、政策能力减弱以及民粹主义。基于这些观点,本文认为政策建议的可竞争性是政策咨询过程中的关键性根本转变。可竞争性对于检验政策建议的稳健性具有积极作用。然而,如果政策辩论没有证据标准,竞争就会变成意见和口号的冲突。因此,人们提出了几种方法来加强专业知识的作用,提高以证据为依据的决策的质量和合法性。一种方法是重建官僚机构的能力,以提供有实证依据的政策建议。然而,对于影响公民福祉的复杂问题,援引科学权威的技术官僚-精英主义风格在政治上难以为继。第二种方法是改善利益相关者的参与,加强对 "生活经验 "所体现的专业知识的尊重。因此,要重建信任与合法性,可能需要通过多方利益相关者的方法来扩大相关专业知识的范围。 实践者要点 专家政策建议的类型已经发展并多样化,在政府内部和外部都有许多来源和渠道 政策建议的可竞争性已经变得更加普遍,公共服务政策能力可以说已经通过外包、使用顾问、利益集团游说和部长顾问日益增长的影响力而被削弱了 循证咨询系统已经受到快速决策、棘手问题、媒体误导和民粹主义口号的挑战 重建高质量政策系统的能力和信任需要新思维,包括更具包容性的程序和更广泛的相关专业知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信