Government research institutes in the Italian policy advisory system

Abstract

In a Napoleonic country such as Italy, ministerial cabinets have traditionally served as central advisors in the politicised policy advisory system (PAS), while evidence-based policy-making has usually been marginal. Nevertheless, recent developments in political systems have pushed for the pluralisation of the Napoleonic PAS toward a stronger demand for scientific and expert advice. Against this backdrop, the role of government research institutes (GRIs) as advisors represents an interesting change that could potentially fuel the development of an evidence-based approach in a period of changing advisory practices. We investigate these developments through a case study concerning 20 Italian GRIs that are engaged as influential advisors or recruited to support implementation through policy work. We obtained evidence through document analysis, in-depth interviews, and a questionnaire administered to the 20 GRIs. The overall picture displays a shift in conceiving policy advice in the political system and opens the door to innovation. Points for practitioners Evidence-based policy making is expanding also in countries with scarce policy capacities. Government research institutes may be asked to perform different policy works, including evidence-based advice and also implementation tasks. The financial autonomy and reputation of the government research institute matter for their advisory role. Policy advice is described as the result of the matching between a contingent political demand and the offer of expert knowledge.

‘Best advice available’ – Challenge and change in developing an optimal policy advisory system in Ireland

“…Conventional thinking about advisory content questioned whether it conformed to either partisan 'political' or administratively 'technical' forms of advice (Craft & Howlett, 2012). This prototypical model has given way to the diversity of 'sharing truths with many actors of influence' (cited in Craft & Halligan, 2017, p. 50), which identifies fluid and dispersed advisory practices, and capacities which fuse political, technical and evidence-based perspectives (Craft & Howlett, 2012;Galanti & Lippi, 2022).…”

“…This has resulted in the growth of private consultancy, think tanks, policy development within political parties, academia and research institutes. The demand for scientific and expert advice is reflected in literature on advisory bodies and research institutes (Galanti & Lippi, 2022;LSE GV314 Group, 2018) and 'consultocracy' (Howlett & Migone, 2014;Marciano, 2023). 'Consultocracy' discusses how the engagement of consultants requires more attention and may be viewed as giving rise to an 'invisible public service' (Howlett & Migone, 2014).…”