Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures and tables
- Notes on contributors
- Editors’ introduction to the series
- One Policy analysis in Canada: an introduction
- Part I The profession of policy analysis in Canada
- Part II Policy analysis at different levels of Canadian governments
- Part III Policy analysis in the executive and legislative branches of Canadian government
- Part IV Policy analysis outside government: parties, interest groups and the media
- Part V Pedagogy and policy analysis in the Canadian university system
- Part VI Conclusion
- Index
Fourteen - Policy analytical capacity and Canadian business associations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2022
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures and tables
- Notes on contributors
- Editors’ introduction to the series
- One Policy analysis in Canada: an introduction
- Part I The profession of policy analysis in Canada
- Part II Policy analysis at different levels of Canadian governments
- Part III Policy analysis in the executive and legislative branches of Canadian government
- Part IV Policy analysis outside government: parties, interest groups and the media
- Part V Pedagogy and policy analysis in the Canadian university system
- Part VI Conclusion
- Index
Summary
One of the more notable—and well-noted—trends in public policymaking in Canada since the early 1980s has been a shift in the nature of policy advisory systems. The broadbrush strokes of this change paint a picture in which the closed dominance of professional public servants has been eroded in favour of more open, collaborative and inclusive systems. In these systems, civil society actors are now given an opportunity to play a much more extensive role in public policy analysis and advice. We have moved from a state-centric ‘vertical’ model towards a polycentric ‘horizontal’ one (Halligan, 1995; Craft & Howlett, 2013; Evans & Sapeha, 2015; Veselý, 2013; Atkinson et al., 2013; Bakvis, 2000; Savoie, 2003; Lindquist & Desveaux, 2007; Brooks, 2007; Mintrom, 2007; Prince, 2007; Phillips, 2007).
This ‘externalization’ of policy advice has several manifestations, and includes the use of external consultants, think tanks, private research institutes, partisan political advisers, polling firms, universities, business and labour organizations, and other non-governmental organizations (Howlett & Migone, 2013; Craft & Howlett, 2013; Veselý, 2013; Atkinson et al., 2013; Howlett, 2015; Savoie, 2003; Speers, 2007; Abelson, 2007). It is sometimes traced back to the heyday of new public management (NPM) in the 1980s and early 1990s when budgetary constraints and a desire for streamlining dovetailed with a neoliberal restructuring of state functions (Bakvis, 2000; Speers, 2007; Evans & Wellstead, 2013; Voyer, 2007). Today, a “new governance” philosophy still persists and is articulated even at the centre of the Canadian federal bureaucracy. The Privy Council Office's 2016 Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada touted an initiative to make the functioning of the public service, “even more collaborative, connected and open.” In the words of the Report: “It will be important never to return to a time where policy was developed in splendid isolation from the operations and services that implement it, or the people affected by it” (PCO, 2016, p. 18).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Policy Analysis in Canada , pp. 297 - 316Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2018