Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- Biographical notes
- Part I Methodological issues: quality control and assurance in scientific policy advice
- Part II Collegial science advisory bodies
- 5 Knowledge, advice and influence: the role of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1970–2009
- 6 International Commission on Radiological Protection: policy and worldwide standards
- 7 The European Commission and the collection and use of science and technology advice
- Part III Collegial science policy advisory bodies
- Part IV Research-based advisory organisations
- Part V Academies of science
- Index
- References
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
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- Biographical notes
- Part I Methodological issues: quality control and assurance in scientific policy advice
- Part II Collegial science advisory bodies
- 5 Knowledge, advice and influence: the role of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1970–2009
- 6 International Commission on Radiological Protection: policy and worldwide standards
- 7 The European Commission and the collection and use of science and technology advice
- Part III Collegial science policy advisory bodies
- Part IV Research-based advisory organisations
- Part V Academies of science
- Index
- References
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 AdviceInstitutional Design for Quality Assurance, pp. 73 - 101Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
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
and 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
1988. ‘Assessing complex technical issues: Public inquiries or commissions?’, Political Quarterly, April–June: 178–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2004. ‘Democratisation of scientific advice’, British Medical Journal 329: 1339–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1992. ‘The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change’, Policy Sciences 25: 275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1995. ‘Reflections on scientific advice and EC transboundary pollution policy’, Science and Public Policy 22/3: 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1980b. ‘Introduction', in (ed.) 1980a.
1983. ‘Does social science contribute effectively to the work of governmental commissions?’, American Behavioural Scientist 26/5: 643–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1993. ‘The Royal Commission and Departmental Committee in the British Policy-making process’, in and (eds.), Advising West European Governments: Inquiries, Expertise and Public Policy, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 37–49.Google Scholar
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
(ed.) 1973. The Role of Commissions in Policy-making, London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
and 1985. ‘The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications’, Science, Technology and Human Values 10/3: 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1986. Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making, New York: St Martin's Press.Google Scholar
2007b. Review of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: Final Report, prepared for Defra by PricewaterhouseCoopers, London: Defra, May.Google Scholar
2008. Government Response to the Review of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London: Defra, June.Google Scholar
2000b. Financial Management Policy Review of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London: Defra.Google Scholar
1993. The Government Response to the Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Pollution Paper No. 19, London: DoE.Google Scholar
2003. Our Energy Future: Creating a Low Carbon Economy, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
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
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
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
1995. ‘Boundaries of science’, in , , and (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage, pp. 393–443.Google Scholar
2003. ‘Theoretical strategies of poststructuralist policy analysis: Towards an analytics of government’, in and (eds.), Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2007. Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees, London: Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, November.Google Scholar
1992. ‘Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy co-ordination’, International Organisation 46/1: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
and 2005. ‘A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7/3: 175–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.) 2003a. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2003b. ‘Introduction’, in and (eds.) 2003a, pp. 1–32.
1993. ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics 25/3: 275–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1974. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
, and 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
2004. The Sustainable Development Strategy: Illusion or Reality? Thirteenth Report Session 2003–04, HC 624, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
2007. Governing the Future, Third Report Session 2006–07, HC 123, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
2007. ‘STS perspectives on scientific governance’, in , , and (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 583–607.Google Scholar
2000. ‘Influencing government policymaking’, in (ed.), Banking on Knowledge: The Genesis of the Global Development Network, London: Routledge, pp. 162–79.Google Scholar
1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2004a. ‘The idiom of co-production’, in (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order, London: Routledge, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2004b. ‘Ordering knowledge, ordering society’, in (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order, London: Routledge, pp. 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1994. ‘Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework’, Journal of Public Policy 14/2: 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
2001. ‘Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in climate change’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 26/4: 478–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2001. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
1990. ‘The unified pollution inspectorate and best practicable environmental option in the UK’, in and (eds.), Integrated Pollution Control in Europe and North America, Washington DC and IEEP, London: The Conservation Foundation, pp. 169–208.Google Scholar
2006. ‘Risk and precaution: Changing perspectives from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’, Science in Parliament 63/1: 16–17.Google Scholar
and 2002. Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
and 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
and (eds.) 1993a. Advising West European Governments: Inquiries, Expertise and Public Policy, Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
and 1993b. ‘Introduction: Governments, information, advice and policy-making’, in and (eds.) 1993a, pp. 1–19.
. 1995. ‘The role of knowledge in the policy process’, Journal of European Public Policy 2/2: 159–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1991. ‘Frame-reflective policy discourse', in , , and (eds.), Social Sciences and Modern States, Cambridge University Press, pp. 262–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1995. ‘Styles of using scientific expertise: A comparative framework’, Science and Public Policy 22/3: 147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1975. Committees of Inquiry, London: Allen and Unwin for Royal Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
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
1987. ‘Knowledge, policy-oriented learning and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation, 8/4: 649–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
1998. ‘The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy 5/1: 98–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1995. Special issue on scientific expertise in Europe, 22/3.
1997. Integrated Pollution Control: Change and Continuity in the UK Industrial Pollution Policy Network, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
1985. ‘The roles of proof and concern in the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 16/9: 346–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2004. ‘Introduction: Think tanks, policy advice and governments’, in and (eds.) 2004, pp. 1–16.
and 2004. Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
1986. ‘Between knowledge and politics: The three faces of policy analysis’, Policy Sciences 19: 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999. ‘Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics’, Science and Public Policy 26/3: 151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1977. ‘Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research’, Policy Analysis 3/4: 531–45.Google Scholar
and 1980. Social Science Research and Decision-Making, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
1955. Government by Committee: An Essay on the British Constitution, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
and 1996. ‘The UK's Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution after 25 years’, Environmental Management and Health 7/2: 35–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1993. ‘The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology within British science policy and the nature of science policy advice’, in and (eds.) 1993a, pp. 137–50.
- 10
- Cited by