Government research institutes in the Italian policy advisory system
| Published date | 01 September 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211070510 |
| Author | Maria Tullia Galanti,Andrea Lippi |
| Date | 01 September 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Government research
institutes in the Italian
policy advisory system
Maria Tullia Galanti
University of Milan, Italy
Andrea Lippi
University of Florence, Italy
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 poten-
tially fuel the development of an evidence-based approach in a period of changing advis-
ory practices. We investigate these developments through a case study concerning 20
Italian GRIs that are engaged as influential advisors or recruited to support implemen-
tation 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.
Corresponding author:
Maria Tullia Galanti, Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan, via Conservatorio 7,
Milano 20122, Italy.
Emails: maria.galanti@unimi.it; tullia.galanti@gmail.com
Article
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
Sciences
2023, Vol. 89(3) 791–807
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00208523211070510
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
•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.
Keywords
evidence-based policy-making, Italy, pluralisation, policy advice, policy advisory system,
policy work, research institutes
Introduction
The literature on policy advice systems (PAS)—which comprise an ‘interlocking set of
actors and organisations with unique configurations in each sector and jurisdiction that
provides recommendations for action to policy-makers’(Halligan, 1995, cited in Craft
and Howlett, 2012)—distinguishes between actors that are internal or external to the gov-
ernment (Halligan, 1995). The pluralisation of the advisory process triggered different
combinations of internal and external advisors (Halligan, 1995: 160) and the hybridisa-
tion of their advisory logics (Hustedt and Veit, 2017). In sum, the contemporary PAS
more resembles ‘an assemblage of advisory units and practices’that involves actors
beyond public services (Craft and Halligan, 2020: 4).
In Anglo-Saxon countries, where roles and influences are marked by a high degree of
institutionalisation (Craft and Howlett, 2012, 2013), pluralisation can be driven by poli-
ticians’desire to regain control over bureaucracy, bringing to politicisation an increasing
need for coordination (Diamond, 2020). At the same time, the diversification of advisors
is present in non-Westminster countries, where policy advice is not monopolised by civil
services, but shared with other actors (Veselý, 2013). While traditional advisors, such as
advisory boards and commissions in more institutionalised systems, have received the
attention of scholars (Christensen, 2018; Fobé et al., 2013; Pattyn et al., 2019), other
knowledge actors have received less attention. This is the case of the government research
institutes (GRIs).
GRIs are public institutions outside of the academy, but are often located in the prox-
imity of government. They are internal since they are included in the public sector and
report directly to the central government. At the same time, they have been historically
excluded from decision-making (Veselý, 2013: 201). As reported by some scholars
(e.g. Thunert, 2013), they have remained on middle ground and have only recently
(and incidentally) been attracted to the dynamics of advice. This is not only the case in
Germany, but also in Belgium and the Netherlands.
As argued by this limited set of studies, the advisory role of these research institutions
was recently induced by an increasing request for knowledge and legitimacy by represen-
tative bodies (Veselý, 2013). At the same time, scholars noticed the end of the historical
trend of ‘pure science’that characterised their tradition (Thunert, 2013), suggesting that
792 International Review of Administrative Sciences 89(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial