13 Commissions of Inquiry and Policy Change: A Comparative Analysis

Commissions of inquiry as vectors for change in public sector ethics: A few thoughts for further research

“…I will not discuss whether commissions of inquiry result in policy change in matters of ethics; I will rather reflect on their capacity to generate change in ethical behaviour from members of the public sector. Indeed, we do not only hope that commissions generate policy change—a hope that, as recent studies have shown, seems to materialize more often than we might think (Inwood and Johns ). We also hope that individuals will change their behaviour as a result of changes in systems and policies.…”

Advisory machinery for large‐scale crises and a risky future

“…In many cases advisory bodies are created for a specific purpose and with a limited lifespan (i.e., reporting date). This is the case with Commissions of Inquiry or with any special-purpose advisory commission such as those created by provincial governments on health services or higher education (Inwood & Johns, 2014). Some of these advisory bodies have been successful while others have gone essentially unheeded.…”

A Voice without a Veto: Consensus-Building through Inclusion of Stakeholders

“…It is difficult to determine whether commission proposals are actually implemented, because the amount of time between receiving a report and passing legislation can vary, a point that Gosnell (1934) observes. Nevertheless, Marier (2009), Inwood and Johns (2014), Inwood and Johns (2018), Tama (2014), andTama (2016) all find evidence that commissions influence policy change. In a rare quantitative study linking membership composition and the later legislative fate of the bill, Hermansson (1993) shows that bills prepared by broadly representative commissions encounter less resistance in parliamentary committees and pass by a higher vote margin.…”

“…In Britain, Royal commissions of inquiry date back as far as the Domesday Book (commissioned by William the Conqueror and published in 1086), and their current form was adopted in 1517 (Clokie and Robinson, 1937;Lockwood, 1967). 5 They are common in other Westminster democracies and Commonwealth countries as well, dating to 1861 in Canada (Inwood and Johns, 2014) and to 1819 in Australia (Prasser, 2003, 67). However, they are also common in monarchies and consensus democracies with (neo)corporatist interest group politics (Siaroff, 1999), such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, where their use dates to the early seventeenth century, well before modern parliamentary democracy (Hesslén, 1927).…”