Institutionalized advisory systems: An analysis of member satisfaction of advice production and use across 9 strategic advisory councils in Flanders (Belgium)

Policy and Society

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 225-240

  Fobé, Ellen ^a   Brans, Marleen ^a   Vancoppenolle, Diederik ^b   Van Damme, Jan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Flemish Government   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883265257     PISSN: 14494035     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Adamo A. Strategic evaluation of policy influence: What evaluation reports tell us about public policy influence by IDRC-supported research 2002, Evaluation Unit IDRC, Ottawa.
2. Amara N., Ouimet M., Landry R. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication 2004, 26(1):75-106.
3. Banks G. Challenges of evidence-based policy making 2009, 28. APSC, Canberra.
4. Beierle T. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis 2000, 22:739-748.
5. Beierle T. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk analysis 2002, 22(4):739-749.
6. Beierle T., Cayford J. Democracy in practice. Public participation in environmental decisions 2002, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
7. Bekkers V., Fenger M., Homburg V., Putters K. Doorwerking van strategische beleidsadvisering 2004, Erasmus University Rotterdam & University of Tilburg.
8. Bellone C.C., en Goerl F.F. Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy. Public Administration Review 1992, 52:2.
9. Birkeland S., Murphy-Graham E., Weiss C.H. Good reasons for ignoring good evaluation: The case of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program. Evaluation and Program Planning 2005, 3:247-256.
10. Boswell C. The political uses of expert knowledge. Immigration policy and social research 2009, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
11. Bowen S., Zwi A. Pathways to "evidence-informed" policy and practice: A Framework for action. Public Library of Science 2005, 2(7):600-605.
12. Brans M., Maes R. The low countries between convergence and divergence. Polder politics: The reinvention of consensus democracy in the Netherlands 2001, 221-240. Aldershot, Ashgate. F. Hendriks, T.A.J. Toonen (Eds.).
13. Brans M., Vancoppenolle D. Policy-making reforms and civil service: An exploration of agendas and consequences. Challenges to state policy capacity: Global trends and comparative perspectives 2005, 164-184. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. M. Painter, J. Pierre (Eds.).
14. Brans M., Van Damme J., Gaskell J. Balancing expertise, societal input and political control in the production of policy advice. Education councils in Europe 2010, Eunec, Brussels.
15. Bulmer M. The Royal Commission and Departmental Committee in the British policy-making process. Advising west European governments, inquiries, expertise and public policy 1993, 37-49. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. G. Peters, A. Barker (Eds.).
16. Cawson A. Corporatism and welfare: Social policy and state intervention in Britain 1982, Heinemann, London.
17. Cohen N. Technical assistance for citizen participation: A case study of New York City's environmental planning process. American Review of Public Administration 1995, 25(2):119-135.
18. Craft J., Howlett M. Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy 2012, 32(2):79-98.
19. Davies H., Nutley S., Smith P. Editorial: What works? The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice. Public Money & Management 1999, 19(1):3-5.
20. De Standaard N-VA vraagt einde wildgroei adviesraden 2011, November.
21. Dewachter W. Besluitvorming in politiek België 1995, Acco, Leuven.
22. De Winter L., Dumont P. Belgium: Delegation and accountability under partitocratic rule. Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies 2003, 253-280. Oxford University Press. Strom, Müller, Bergman (Eds.).
23. De Winter L. Belgium: Insider pressure groups in an outsider Parliament. Parliaments & pressure groups in Western Europe 2009, Cass, London. P. Norton (Ed.).
24. Dunlop C. The temporal dimension of knowledge and the limits of policy appraisal: Biofuels policy in the UK. Policy Science 2010, 43:343-363.
25. Dunlop C., Magetti M., Radaelli C., Russel D. The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta-analysis of EU and UK cases. Regulation & Governance 2012, 6:23-45.
26. Ebbinghaus B. Reforming Bismarckian Corporatism: The changing role of social partnership in Continental Europe. Paper presented at the Conference: A long good bye to Bismarck? The Politics of Welfare Reform in Continental Europe. Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies 2006, Harvard University.
27. Edelenbos J., Klok P.-J., Van Tatenhove J. The institutional embedding of interactive policy making insights from a comparative research based on eight interactive projects in the Netherlands. The American Review of Public Administration 2009, 39(2):125-148.
28. European Commission Using foresight to improve the science-policy relationship 2006, European Commission, Brussels.
29. Florence E., Martiniello M., Adam I., Balancier P., Brans M., Jacobs D., et al. Social science research and public policies: The case of immigration in Belgium. International Journal on Multicultural Societies 2005, 7(1):49-67.
30. Fobé E., Brans M. Policy-oriented foresight as evidence for policy-making: Conditions of (mis)match. Evidence and Policy 2013, (in press).
31. Grasso P. What makes an evaluation useful? Reflections from experience in large organisations. American Journal of Evaluation 2003, 24:507-514.
32. Green L., Ottoson J., García C., Hiatt R. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization and integration in public health. Annual Review of Public Health 2009, 30:151-174.
33. Greene J.G. Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review 1988, 12:91-116.
34. Halffman W., Hoppe R. Science/policy boundaries: A changing division of labour in Dutch expert policy advice". Scientific Expertise and Political Decision Making 2004, Kluwer, Dordrecht. S. Maasse, P. Weingart (Eds.).
35. Halligan J. Policy advice and the public service. Governance in a changing environment 1995, Canadian Centre for Management Development, Quebec. G. Peters, D. Savoie (Eds.).
36. Head B.W. Evidence-based policy: Principles and requirements. Productivity Commission, Strengthening Evidence Based Policy in the Australian Federation, Vol. 1: Proceedings, Roundtable Proceedings 2010, 13-26. Productivity Commission, Canberra.
37. Hisschemöller M., Hoppe R., Groenewegen P., Midden C. Knowledge use and political choice in Dutch environmental policy: A problem structuring perspective on real life experiments in extended peer review. Knowledge, power and participation in environmental policy analysis and risk assessment 2001, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick. M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn, J.R. Ravetz (Eds.).
38. Howlett M. Enhanced policy analytical capacity as a prerequisite for effective evidence-based policy-making: Theory, concepts and lessons from the Canadian case. Paper prepared at the International Research Symposium on Public Management XII, from 26 t o 28.03.2008 2008.
39. Jasanoff S. The fifth branch. Science advisors as policy makers 1994, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
40. Juntti M., Russel D., Turnpenny J. Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment. Environmental Science & Policy 2009, 12:207-215.
41. Koontz T. We finished the plan, so now what? Impacts of collaborative stakeholder participation on land use policy. Policy Studies Journal 2005, 33(3):459-481.
42. Landry R., Lamari M., Amara N. The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review 2003, 63:192-205.
43. Lavertu S., Walters D., Weiming D. Scientific expertise and the balance of political interests: MEDCAC and medicare coverage decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2012, 22:55-81.
44. Lembruch G., Schmitter F. Patterns of corporatist policy-making 1977, London, Sage.
45. Lowndes V., Pratchett L., Stoker G. Trends in public participation: Part 1. Local government perspectives. Public Administration 2001, 79(1):205-222.
46. Lynn F. Citizen Involvement in hazardous waste sites: Two North Carolina success stories. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1987, 7:347-361.
47. Mayer I., Edelenbos J., Monnikhof R. Interactive policy development: Undermining or sustaining democracy?. Public Administration 2005, 83:179-199.
48. McDavid J., Huse I. Legislator uses of public performance reports: Findings from a five-year study. American Journal of Evaluation 2012, 33(1):7-25.
49. McGurk B., Sinclair A., Diduck A. An assessment of stakeholder advisory committees in forest management: Case studies from Manitoba, Canada. Society and Natural Resources 2006, 19:809-826.
50. Milner S., Bailey C., Deans J., Pettigrew D. Integrated impact assessment in the UK - Use, efficacy and future development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2005, 25:47-61.
51. Nutley S., Davies H., Walter I. Evidence for policy and decision-making: A practical guide 2009, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
52. OECD Better regulation in Europe - Belgium 2010, OECD, Paris.
53. OECD Citizens as partners. Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making 2001, OECD, Paris.
54. Ouimet M., Landry R., Amara N., Belkhodja O. What factors induce health care decision-makers to use clinical guidelines? Evidence from provincial health ministries, regional health authorities and hospitals in Canada. Social Science & Medicine 2006, 62:964-976.
55. Painter M., Pierre J. Challenges to state policy capacity: Global trends and comparative perspectives 2005, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
56. Papadopoulos Y., Warin P. Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?. European Journal of Political Research 2007, 46:445-472.
57. Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: The promise of 'Realist Synthesis'. Evaluation 2002, 8(3):340-358.
58. Peters G., Barker A. Introduction. Governments, information, advice and policy-making. Advising West European Governments, inquiries, expertise and public policy 1993, 1-19. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. G. Peters, A. Barker (Eds.).
59. Pielke R. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics 2010, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
60. Rice J. Advocacy science and fisheries decision-making. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2011, 68(10):2007-2012.
61. Rich R. Measuring knowledge utilization: Processes and outcomes. Knowledge and Policy 1997, 10(3):11-24.
62. Rittel H., Webber M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 1973, 4:155-159.
63. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2004, 29:512-557.
64. Sabatier P. The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly 1978, 23:396-417.
65. Santos S., Chess C. Evaluating citizen advisory boards: The importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications. Risk Analysis 2003, 2:269-279.
66. Schmitter P. Neo-corporatism and the state. EU working paper n° 106 1984, San Domenico di Fiesole, Badia Fiesolana.
67. Scholten I. Corporatism and the neo-liberal backlash in the Netherlands. Political stability and neo-corporatism 1987, Sage, London. I. Scholten (Ed.).
68. Shaxson L. Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 2005, 1(1):101-111.
69. Sterne P., Zagon S. Public consultation guide. Changing the relationship between government and Canadians 1997, Canadian Centre for Management Development, Quebec.
70. Street J. Policy advice in an established official advice structure. AIDS advice through the British Department of Health. Advising West European governments, inquiries, expertise and public policy 1993, 151-164. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. G. Peters, A. Barker (Eds.).
71. Stroobants E., Victor L. Beter bestuur - Een visie op een transparant organisatiemodel voor de Vlaamse administratie 2000, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Brussel.
72. Topf R. Conclusion. Advice to governments - Some theoretical and practical issues. Advising West European governments, inquiries, expertise and public policy 1993, 182-228. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. G. Peters, A. Barker (Eds.).
73. Turnhout E., Hischemöller M., Eijsackers H. Ecological indicators: Between the two fires of science and policy. Ecological Indicators 2007, 7:215-228.
74. Turnpenny J., Nilsson M., Russel D., Jordan A., Hertin J., Nykvist B. Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2008, 51(6):759-775.
75. Vancoppenolle D., Brans M. State-society relations in Belgian policy-making processes: Variations in governance structures and policy roles for civil servants. A comparative multiple-case study. Paper presented at the 12th NISPAcee-conference in Vilnius from 13 to 15 mei 2004 2004.
76. Van Damme J., Brans M. Managing public consultation: A conceptual framework and empirical findings from Belgian case studies. Public Administration 2012, 4:1047-1066.
77. Van Den Brande A. Neo-corporatism and functional-integral power in Belgium. Political stability and neo-corporatism 1987, Sage, London. I. Scholten (Ed.).
78. Van den Bulck K. Pillars and politics: Neo-corporatism and policy networks in Belgium. West European Politics 1992, 15(2):35-55.
79. Van der Duin P., van Oirschot R., Kotey H., Vreeling E. To govern is to foresee. An exploratory study into the relationship between futures research and strategy and policy process at Dutch ministries. Futures 2008, 41:607-618.
80. Van Dooren W., van de Walle S. Performance information in the public sector. How it is used 2009, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
81. Van Waarden F., Lehmbruch G. Renegotiating the Welfare State. Flexible adjustment through corporatist concertation 2004, Routledge, London.
82. Webler T., Tuler S. Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society 2000, 32:566-595.
83. Weiss C.H. Improving the linkage between social research and public policy. Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection 1978, 23-81. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. L.E. Lynn (Ed.).
84. Weiss C.H. Research and policy-making: A limited partnership. The use and abuse of social science 1986, 214-235. Sage, London. F. Heller (Ed.).
85. Weiss C.H. Policy research: Data, ideas, or arguments. Social science and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads 1991, 307-332. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P. Wagner, C.H. Weiss, B. Wittrock, H. Wollman (Eds.).
86. Weiss C.H., Murphy-Graham E., Birkeland S. An alternate route to policy influence. How evaluations affect D.A.R.E. American Journal of Evaluation 2005, 26(1):12-30.