This chapter returns to country-level appraisals comparing the distinctive features of the four policy advisory systems (PAS) and implications for the policymaking of different advisory system configurations. The book shows that the Westminster PAS has been significantly transformed over forty years and that its elasticity has been enabled by an administrative tradition that is pragmatic and highly instrumental. Several dimensions are reappraised, providing insights into the state of the PAS. There has been remarkable change in the four PAS in terms of the supply and demand of advice. Some advisers have become more influential; others have been relegated or their influence has fluctuated because of changing ministerial needs, competition from other suppliers and the turbulence of policymaking. The work of policy advising has evolved within the public service and though the increasing professionalisation of external advisory activity. Finally, there are the implications for the quality of public policy through the directions in which PAS have changed. Questions are asked about the effectiveness of advisory systems, the impact on public policy and what learning has occurred from managing PAS. Comparative analysis helps to understand the evolving architecture of PAS and the art and craft of advising governments.

Quality policy advice is essential for good governance, but the advice needed, who provides it and how, have evolved in Westminster policy advisory systems (PAS). The public service role has been transformed as new sources of advice have emerged and ministers have been critiqued for ignoring officials’ advice while focusing on the short term. In a contestable environment, public service advice is replaced by that of consultants, think tanks and political aides. Four themes guided the analysis of advisory systems: the place of advisory work in the Westminster administrative tradition; structural and organisational trends; comparative analysis of advisory systems’ stability and change; and managing PAS and implications for policy making. The main arguments are: PAS is more dynamic and complex than is currently depicted; politicisation and externalisation continue as important dynamics but need to be explained; parallel processes have operated to increase flexibility in using advice instruments and independent agencies; and PAS change has been gradual and endogenous. At the macro level, dimensions of an evolving advisory system are identified based on the directions of change, which indicates a more expansive understanding of PAS that takes into account the complexities of public policy and the centrality of government.