Search results

AbstractIt is commonly claimed there is a crisis of expertise in liberal democracies and that experts who provide evidence‐based policy ideas have become widely distrusted. This paper reconsiders the nature of this perceived crisis in policy advisory systems. The literature has identified four reasons for this trend—politicisation, diversification, diminished policy capacity, and populism. Building on these claims, this paper suggests that the contestability of policy advice has been the key underlying shift in policy advisory processes. Contestability can be positively useful for testing the robustness of policy proposals. However, if the policy debate has no evidentiary standards, the contest becomes a clash of opinions and slogans. Hence, several approaches have been proposed to strengthen the role of professional expertise and improve the quality and legitimacy of evidence‐informed policymaking. One approach is the rebuilding of bureaucratic capacity to provide evidence‐informed policy advice. However, a technocratic–elitist style that invokes scientific authority would be difficult to sustain politically in relation to complex issues affecting citizen well‐being. A second approach is to improve stakeholder engagement and to enhance respect for the expertise embodied in 'lived experience'. Thus, rebuilding trust and legitimacy may require broadening the range of relevant expertise through multi‐stakeholder approaches.Points for practitioners
Types of expert policy advice have evolved and diversified, with many sources and channels both inside and outside government
Contestability of policy advice has become more widespread
Public service policy capacity has arguably been weakened through outsourcing, use of consultants, interest group lobbying, and the growing influence of ministerial advisors
Evidence‐informed advisory systems have been challenged by fast decision‐making, wicked problems, media misinformation, and populist slogans
Rebuilding capacity and trust in high‐quality policy systems requires new thinking, including more inclusive processes and a wider view of relevant expertise.

AbstractRittel and Webber boldly challenged the conventional assumption that 'scientific' approaches to social policy and planning provide the most reliable guidance for practitioners and researchers who are addressing complex, and contested, social problems. This provocative claim, that scientific-technical approaches would not 'work' for complex social issues, has engaged policy analysts, academic researchers and planning practitioners since the 1970s. Grappling with the implications of complexity and uncertainty in policy debates, the first generation of 'wicked problem' scholars generally agreed that wicked issues require correspondingly complex and iterative approaches. This tended to quarantine complex 'wicked' problems as a special category that required special collaborative processes. Most often they recommended the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in exploring the relevant issues, interests, value differences and policy responses. More than four decades later, however, there are strong arguments for developing a second-generation approach which would 'mainstream' the analysis of wicked problems in public policy. While continuing to recognize the centrality of complexity and uncertainty, and the need for creative thinking, a broader approach would make better use of recent public policy literatures on such topics as problem framing, policy design, policy capacity and the contexts of policy implementation.