Expert‐Based Information and Policy Subsystems: A Review and Synthesis

Abstract

This article reviews and synthesizes the uses of expert‐based information in policy subsystems. The review begins by summarizing the different uses of information in the multiple streams theory, the punctuated equilibrium theory, the social construction theory, and the advocacy coalition framework. Three uses of expert‐based information are identified as instrumental, learning, and political. The three uses of expert‐based information are then compared across unitary, collaborative, and adversarial policy subsystems. This article synthesizes the findings in a set of propositions about the use of expert‐based information in policy subsystems and about the factors that contribute to shifts from one policy subsystem to another.

Insights from ‘policy learning’ on how to enhance the use of evidence by policymakers

“…They engage in dialog and deliberation with individuals in opposing coalitions (Ingold, 2011a). They are central members in the network but are only intermittently involved, or involved for a short period, and they do not regularly engage in coalition-related activities (Weible, 2008). Thus, brokers play a less integrative role within a coalition but drive collaborations on a subsystem level.…”

“…They are targeted by policy entrepreneurs who seek sufficient support to gain subsystem supremacy. Members in the group who receive cues for Type 2 reasoning from their exogenous environment may approach brokerage position as they seek to make sense of their observations (Weible, 2008). It is thus expected that advocates constitute the loosely connected periphery of a coalition.…”

“…Network homogeneity then enforces Type 1 reasoning (Jenkins-Smith et al, 2014). Hence, whose knowledge individuals are exposed to depends partially on their position in the network structure within which they are embedded (Weible, 2008). Three positions can be deduced from the policy learning literature, using the discussion presented in (Ingold and Gschwend, 2014) as guidance: Policy Entrepreneur, Policy Broker, and Advocate.…”

“…For example, the policy elite that shapes Oregonian transport policy would constitute such a setting. The evidence suggests that these structures include an increasingly diverse and growing set of experts (policy analysts, scientists, consultants, and researchers in government and non-government organizations) who advise individuals with legal powers to impact decisions on a particular policy issue (Weible, 2008). As epistemic guidance diversifies, the available expertize becomes contested and individuals learn from observing others' preferences and actions.…”

Public forest policy development in New Brunswick, Canada: multiple streams approach, advocacy coalition framework, and the role of science

“…Science-based information may be used for different purposes, i.e., learning, instrumental, or political, depending on the level of competition within a policy subsystem (Weible 2008, Weible et al 2010. Policy subsystems (Jenkins-Smith et al 2014) have been characterized as follows: (1) unitary, i.e., dominated by a single coalition with opposition being unorganized and poorly resourced; (2) collaborative, i.e., cooperative coalitions that disagree but find ways to negotiate and work together; or (3) adversarial, i.e., containing rival coalitions, each with incompatible beliefs.…”