Digital era policy advising: Clouding ministerial perspectives?

Abstract

The growing body of literature on digital governance, and policy advisory systems, often neglects the perspective of elected decision makers. What types of policy advice do ministers need in the digital governance era? Is digitization of government and policymaking reshaping supply and demand dynamics, the content of policy advice, or how advice is used within the policy process? This article borrows existing theoretical frames on digital governance to examine these and other questions from the perspective of ministers. The digital governance era will undoubtedly introduce novel disruptions and dilemmas, but it will also intensify longstanding tensions inherent in advisory work linked to questions of influence, capacity, and how well advisory systems adapt to serve ministers. We use information processing dynamics, policy entrepreneurship, and control and coordination to ground analysis of ministers' advisory demand in the digital governance era. We highlight unique considerations that apply to ministers as well as reflection on their place within the broader context of advisory work. We employ vignettes from the perspective of ministers throughout the article as a useful way to personalize the digital era disruptions and dilemmas particular to ministers.Sommaire : Le point de vue des d ecideurs elus est souvent n eglig e par l'ensemble croissant d'ouvrages portant sur la gouvernance num erique et les systèmes de consultation sur la politique. De quels types de conseils strat egiques les ministres ontils besoin a l'ère de la gouvernance num erique? Est-ce que la num erisation du gouvernement et de la prise de d ecisions remodèle les dynamiques de l'offre et de la demande, le contenu des conseils en matière de politique, ou la manière dont la consultation est utilis ee au sein du processus de politiques? En empruntant les cadres th eoriques existants sur la gouvernance num erique, cet article etudie ces questions parmi d'autres, du point de vue des ministres. L'ère de la gouvernance num erique engendrera sans nul doute de nouveaux dilemmes et perturbations; elle intensifiera aussi les tensions de longue date qui sont inh erentes au travail consultatif et li ees aux questions d'influence, de comp etences, et a la manière dont les systèmes consultatifs s'adaptent pour servir les ministres. Afin de baser l'analyse de demande consultative des ministres a l'ère de la gouvernance num erique, nous utilisons les dynamiques du traitement de l'information, l'entrepreneuriat en politiques, le contrôle et la coordination. Nous soulignons les consid erations particulières qui s'appliquent aux ministres, ainsi que la r eflexion sur la place qu'elles occupent au sein du contexte elargi du travail consultatif. Tout au long de cet article, nous utilisons des vignettes dans

Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Papers Citing Dunleavy et al.’s (2006) “New Public Management Is Dead—Long Live Digital-Era Governance”: Identifying Research Clusters and Future Research Agendas

“…Scholars sharing this research agenda argue that the existing literature on digital government has confined its attention to changes in public service delivery and neglected decision-making. They examine how new trends in information systems, including the soaring amount of information, machine learning technology, and big data, can impact individual decision-makers or the overall cycles of decision-making (e.g., Andrews, 2019; Fishenden & Thompson, 2013; Höchtl et al, 2016; Marando & Craft, 2017).…”

“…The Decision-making in the digital governance era cluster also shows both optimism and skepticism. On the one hand, the proper usage of ICTs allows for the emergence of a small but intelligent bureaucracy capable of policy design and strategic decision-making (Fishenden & Thompson, 2013; Höchtl et al, 2016; Marando & Craft, 2017). On the other hand, technology rather stifles creative decision-making because of the strict application of data and standards.…”

How Government Experts Self-Sabotage: The Language of the Rebuffed

“…When the impact of expert advice on government decision-making is considered, the focus is generally on scientific advisers (Boswell 2009;Cairney and Oliver 2017;Moore 2017;Wynne 1989). Overall, scholarly writing on policy tends to be quite targeted, such as on policy advising during the digital governance era (Marando and Craft 2017) or the public profiles of senior civil servants (Grube 2014a(Grube , 2015, or on the degrees to which evidence can or should be incorporated into policy (Head and Di Francesco 2019;Howlett and Wellstead 2011;Nair and Howlett 2017;Sanderson 2009).…”

The vestiges and vanguards of policy design in a digital context

“…This is true whether Information is wielded on its own or when coupled with the other tools of government, a logic that has even driven some to posit that in the digital age the tool of Information is so central that governments, in essence, become their websites (Margetts ; Steinberg ). And as Marando and Craft () detail, the prominence of information in a digital policy process raises important implications not only for the supply of information as part of policy design, but of information as a resource to be brokered and consumed by political staff, elected officials and citizens (see also Craft and Howlett ).…”

“…On the one hand, even where policy designers possess the capacity for DEPD, they may nonetheless pursue non‐designs in the face of political decision‐makers concerned more with partisan political calculations than they are with rational, evidence‐informed decisionmaking; the reality of electoral cycles and the politics of policy are not erased by big data, crowdsourcing and A/B testing (Clarke, 2014, 2016; Clarke and Craft, 2017). Here, it is worth noting Marando and Craft's () focus on the demand dynamics of DEPD, wherein “demand” for DEPD (versus Digital Era Non‐Designs, or traditional analog (non)designs) from political leaders is a crucial determinant of DEPD “on the ground,” within policy advisory systems. Alternatively, as the digital trails tracking citizens’ online actions, and service and policy successes and failures are made accessible to those outside government (whether via open data initiatives, or at the hand of non‐government actors), the ability for governments to rationalize policy designs with little evidence base may wane.…”