Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-twqc4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-08T17:42:42.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Knowledge, advice and influence: the role of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1970–2009

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2011

By
Susan Owens
Edited by
Justus Lentsch  and
Peter Weingart
Susan Owens
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Justus Lentsch
Affiliation:
Heinrich Böll Foundation
Peter Weingart
Affiliation:
Universität Bielefeld, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction: in search of theory

We do not have a well-developed theory of policy advice, let alone of ‘good advice’, which is an altogether more demanding concept. In one sense this is surprising, given the growing propensity of governments to seek counsel from committees, commissions and think tanks of various kinds, as well as from individuals and institutions deemed to have relevant expertise. In another sense, the lack of a coherent theory should not surprise us, because policy advice is complex, both conceptually and in practice. Advice can take a myriad of different forms, depending on the credentials of the advisers, their relation to governmental institutions, the issues they address, and the time horizon over which their recommendations might be expected to take effect. Nor is it easy to determine what is ‘good’ in this context, though we might reasonably agree that it has something to do with both the intrinsic qualities and the consequences of the advice.

If we seek to understand the nature and practice of advice, and its role and influence in policy and political processes, then we need to do conceptual work on (at least) three levels. We have to think about the ways in which advice and advisers might themselves be characterised; we need to explore the processes through which policies are formulated, developed and modified; and if we are to make sense of outcomes, we must pay attention to the many ways in which power is exercised in modern democratic societies.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Politics of Scientific Advice
Institutional Design for Quality Assurance
 , pp. 73 - 101
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

,Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) 2005. Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and Bystanders: A Commentary on the Report published by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in September 2005, London: ACP, December, available at: www.pesticides.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/Web_Assets/ACP/RCEP_Response_vfinal.pdf (last accessed 1 September 2009).Google Scholar
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Baker, R. 1988. ‘Assessing complex technical issues: Public inquiries or commissions?’, Political Quarterly, April–June: 178–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bal, R., Bijker, W. and Hendriks, R. 2004. ‘Democratisation of scientific advice’, British Medical Journal 329: 1339–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, A. and Peters, B. Guy (eds.) 1993. The Politics of Expert Advice, Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. J. and Howlett, M. 1992. ‘The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change’, Policy Sciences 25: 275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. 1995. ‘Reflections on scientific advice and EC transboundary pollution policy’, Science and Public Policy 22/3: 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, M. (ed.) 1980a. Social Research and Royal Commissions, London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Bulmer, M. 1980b. ‘Introduction', in Bulmer, M. (ed.) 1980a.
Bulmer, M. 1983. ‘Does social science contribute effectively to the work of governmental commissions?’, American Behavioural Scientist 26/5: 643–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, M. 1993. ‘The Royal Commission and Departmental Committee in the British Policy-making process’, in Guy Peters, B. and Barker, A. (eds.), Advising West European Governments: Inquiries, Expertise and Public Policy, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 37–49.Google Scholar
Cartwright, T. J. 1975. Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees in Britain: A Case-Study in Institutional Adaptiveness and Public Participation in Government, London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. A. (ed.) 1973. The Role of Commissions in Policy-making, London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Clark, W. C. and Majone, G. 1985. ‘The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications’, Science, Technology and Human Values 10/3: 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collingridge, D. and Reeve, C. 1986. Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making, New York: St Martin's Press.Google Scholar
,Committee on Standards in Public Life 1995. First Report, Cm 2850, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
,Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) 2007a. Waste Strategy for England, Cm 7086, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
,Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) 2007b. Review of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: Final Report, prepared for Defra by PricewaterhouseCoopers, London: Defra, May.Google Scholar
,Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) 2008. Government Response to the Review of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London: Defra, June.Google Scholar
,Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) 1998. A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone, Cm 3950, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
,Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) 2000a. Waste Strategy 2000, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
,Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) 2000b. Financial Management Policy Review of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London: Defra.Google Scholar
,Department of the Environment (DoE) 1993. The Government Response to the Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Pollution Paper No. 19, London: DoE.Google Scholar
,Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) 2003. Our Energy Future: Creating a Low Carbon Economy, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Eddington, R. 2006. The Eddington Transport Report. The Case for Action: Sir Rod Eddington's Advice to Government, London: The Stationery Office (with agreement of HM Treasury).Google Scholar
Everest, D. A. 1990. ‘The provision of expert advice to government on environmental matters: The role of advisory committees’, Science and Public Affairs 4: 17–40.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. 1993. ‘Science for the post-normal age’, Futures 25/7: 739–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieryn, T. 1983. ‘Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists’, American Sociological Review 48: 781–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieryn, T. 1995. ‘Boundaries of science’, in Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C. and Pinch, T. (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage, pp. 393–443.Google Scholar
Gottweis, H. 2003. ‘Theoretical strategies of poststructuralist policy analysis: Towards an analytics of government’, in Hajer, M. and Wagenaar, H. (eds.), Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Government Office for Science (UK) 2007. Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees, London: Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, November.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. 1992. ‘Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy co-ordination’, International Organisation 46/1: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. and Versteeg, W. 2005. ‘A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7/3: 175–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. and Wagenaar, H. (eds.) 2003a. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. and Wagenaar, H. 2003b. ‘Introduction’, in Hajer, M. and Wagenaar, H. (eds.) 2003a, pp. 1–32.
Hall, P. A. 1993. ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics 25/3: 275–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawes, D. 1993. Power on the Backbenches?, Bristol: School for Advanced Urban Studies.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. 1974. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hendriks, R., Bal, R. and Bijker, E. 2004. ‘Beyond the species barrier: The Health Council of The Netherlands, legitimacy and the making of objectivity’, Social Epistemology 18/2–3: 271–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdgate, M. 2003. Penguins and Mandarins, Spennymoor, County Durham: The Memoir Club.Google Scholar
,House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee 2004. The Sustainable Development Strategy: Illusion or Reality? Thirteenth Report Session 2003–04, HC 624, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
,House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee 2007. Governing the Future, Third Report Session 2006–07, HC 123, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. 2007. ‘STS perspectives on scientific governance’, in Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. and Wajcman, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 583–607.Google Scholar
James, S. 2000. ‘Influencing government policymaking’, in Stone, D. (ed.), Banking on Knowledge: The Genesis of the Global Development Network, London: Routledge, pp. 162–79.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 2004a. ‘The idiom of co-production’, in Jasanoff, S. (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order, London: Routledge, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 2004b. ‘Ordering knowledge, ordering society’, in Jasanoff, S. (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order, London: Routledge, pp. 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. and Sabatier, P.A. 1994. ‘Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework’, Journal of Public Policy 14/2: 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennet, W. 1972. Preservation, London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy, 2nd edn., New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Litfin, K. 1994. Ozone Discourses, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R.A. 1992. Policy Networks in British Government, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, P. 1992. ‘Policy learning and failure’, Journal of Public Policy 12/4: 331–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. 2001. ‘Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in climate change’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 26/4: 478–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, R. W. 1972. ‘Some practical problems of scientist-advisers’, Minerva X/4: 603–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. 2001. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Owens, S. 1990. ‘The unified pollution inspectorate and best practicable environmental option in the UK’, in Haigh, N. and Irwin, F. (eds.), Integrated Pollution Control in Europe and North America, Washington DC and IEEP, London: The Conservation Foundation, pp. 169–208.Google Scholar
Owens, S. 2006. ‘Risk and precaution: Changing perspectives from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’, Science in Parliament 63/1: 16–17.Google Scholar
Owens, S. and Cowell, R. 2002. Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Owens, S. and Rayner, T. 1999. ‘ “When knowledge matters”: The role and influence of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 1/1: 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B.Guy, and Barker, A. (eds.) 1993a. Advising West European Governments: Inquiries, Expertise and Public Policy, Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy and Barker, A. 1993b. ‘Introduction: Governments, information, advice and policy-making’, in Peters, and Barker, (eds.) 1993a, pp. 1–19.
Radaelli, C. M. 1995. ‘The role of knowledge in the policy process’, Journal of European Public Policy 2/2: 159–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rein, M. and Schön, D. 1991. ‘Frame-reflective policy discourse', in Wagner, P., Weiss, C., Wittrock, B. and Wolman, H. (eds.), Social Sciences and Modern States, Cambridge University Press, pp. 262–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renn, O. 1995. ‘Styles of using scientific expertise: A comparative framework’, Science and Public Policy 22/3: 147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, G. 1975. Committees of Inquiry, London: Allen and Unwin for Royal Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
,Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) 2006. Response to Commentary of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides on the RCEP's Report on Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and Bystanders, London: RCEP, July 2006, available at:www.rcep.org.uk/reports/sr-2006-cropspraying/sr-cropspraying.htm (last accessed 25 March 2010).Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. 1987. ‘Knowledge, policy-oriented learning and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation, 8/4: 649–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. 1988. ‘An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein’, Policy Sciences 21/2–4: 129–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. 1998. ‘The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy 5/1: 98–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Science and Public Policy 1995. Special issue on scientific expertise in Europe, 22/3.
Smith, A. 1997. Integrated Pollution Control: Change and Continuity in the UK Industrial Pollution Policy Network, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. 1985. ‘The roles of proof and concern in the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 16/9: 346–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D. A. 2004. ‘Introduction: Think tanks, policy advice and governments’, in Stone, D. and Denham, A. (eds.) 2004, pp. 1–16.
Stone, D. A. and Denham, A. 2004. Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Torgerson, D. 1986. ‘Between knowledge and politics: The three faces of policy analysis’, Policy Sciences 19: 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,UK Government 1974. Control of Pollution Act 1974, Chapter 40, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
,UK Government 1990. Environmental Protection Act 1990, Chapter 43, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
,UK Government 1995. Environment Act 1995, Chapter 35, London: TSO.Google Scholar
,UK Government 2000. Transport Change Act 2000, Chapter 38, London: TSO.Google Scholar
,UK Government 2008. Climate Change Act 2008, Chapter 27, London: TSO.Google Scholar
Weale, A., O'Riordan, T. and Kramme, L. 1991. Controlling Pollution in the Round, London: Anglo German Foundation.Google Scholar
Weingart, P. 1999. ‘Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics’, Science and Public Policy 26/3: 151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, C. H. 1977. ‘Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research’, Policy Analysis 3/4: 531–45.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. and Bucuvalas, M. J. 1980. Social Science Research and Decision-Making, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wheare, K. C. 1955. Government by Committee: An Essay on the British Constitution, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Williams, A. and Weale, A. 1996. ‘The UK's Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution after 25 years’, Environmental Management and Health 7/2: 35–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. 1993. ‘The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology within British science policy and the nature of science policy advice’, in Peters, and Barker, (eds.) 1993a, pp. 137–50.
Wilson, D. 1983. The Lead Scandal, London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, S. 1988. Monkeys, Men and Missiles: An Autobiography 1946–1988, London: Collins.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×