Policy analytical capacity is a pivotal source of good governance. Although this capacity can be acquired by decision makers in various ways, it is clear that the internal stock of analytical capacity is strategic in terms of supporting policymaking. This stock can be concentrated in specific types of organisational roles (like policy professionals), but it can also be considered a constitutive component of ordinary bureaucratic work. This paper adopts this latter perspective to analyse the characteristics in terms of policy work and analytical capacities of high-level bureaucrats of the central administrations of the Old Southern Four: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The data were collected through a large online survey involving more than 1000 high civil servants. The empirical evidence offered shows the high differentiation in terms of policy work and analytical capacities that characterise the four analysed central bureaucracies and confirms that, despite the expected similarities among the four countries, differences are striking and concern almost all dimensions of analysis. Moreover, Spain has a higher stock of policy analytical capacities. Thus, adopting a policy work perspective can be a fruitful lens for analysing whether and how administrative reforms are capable of penetrating the micro dimensions of administrative behaviour.
Points for practitioners
The paper offers the first comparative analysis of the policy work and the analytical capacities of the central administration in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain.
The results show that, despite the many similarities among the four countries, there are significant differences in terms of ways of working and the held analytical capacities of the high level servants.
The offered data show a specific map of policy analytical skills that can be used as a point of departure for designing improvements in high civil servants’ training.
AlonsoJCliftonJDìaz-FuentesD (2016) The slow pace of public administration reform in Spain. In: HammerschmidG, et al. (eds) Public Administration Reforms in Europe: The View from the Top. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 205–216.
2.
AubinDBransM (2020) Policy advisory styles in the francophone Belgian civil service. International Review of Administrative Sciences86(3): 463–478.
3.
BertelsmannS (2022) Sustainable Governance Indicators 2021. Available at: https://www.sgi-network.org/2021 (accessed 6 October 2022).
4.
BostonJMartinJPallotJ, et al. (1996) Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
5.
BransMAubinD (eds) (2017) Policy Analysis in Belgium. Bristol: Policy Press.
6.
BurroniLPavoliniEReginiM (eds) (2021) Mediterranean Capitalism Revisited. One Model, Different Trajectories. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
7.
CapanoG (2018) Policy design spaces in reforming governance in higher education: The dynamics in Italy and the Netherlands. Higher Education75(4): 675–694.
8.
CapanoGLippiA (2021) States’ performance, reforms, and policy capacity in Southern European Countries. In: BurroniLPavoliniEReginiM (eds) Mediterranean Capitalism Revisited. One Model, Different Trajectories. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 42–66.
9.
ColebatchHKHoppeRNoodgegraafM (eds) (2010) Working for Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
10.
CraftJHalliganJ (2017) Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience. Policy Sciences50(1): 47–62.
11.
CraftJWilderM (2017) Catching a second wave: Context and compatibility in advisory system dynamics. Policy Studies Journal45(1): 215–239.
12.
De BruyckerI (2015) Pressure and expertise: Explaining the information supply of interest groups in EU legislative lobbying. Journal of Common Market Studies54(3): 599–616.
13.
Di MascioFNataliniA (2013) Analysing the role of ministerial cabinets in Italy: Legacy and temporality in the study of administrative reforms. International Review of Administrative Sciences79(2): 328–346.
14.
DrorY (1967) Policy analysts: A new professional role in government service. Public Administration Review27(3): 197–203.
15.
DuncanODDuncanB (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review20(2): 210–217.
16.
FilgueirasFKogaNVianaR (2020) State capacities and policy work in Brazilian civil service. Sociologia e Politica28(74): 1–22.
17.
FleischerJ (2009) Power resources of parliamentary executives: Policy advice in the UK and Germany. West European Politics32(1): 196–214.
18.
FobéE (2021) Boosting the Capacity for Policy Analysis Among Public Officials: New Representative Evidence from Belgium. Leuven: KU Leuven Public Governance Institute.
19.
GallagherM (1991) Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems. Electoral Studies10(1): 33–51.
20.
GouglasA (2015) Greek Ministerial advisers: Policy managers not experts?International Journal of Public Administration38(1): 15–27.
21.
HammerschmidG (2015) COCOPS executive survey on public sector reform in Europe – views and experiences from senior executives – reduced version. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6599 data file version 1.0.3.
22.
HammerschmidGVan de WalleSAndrewsR, et al. (eds) (2016) Public Administration Reforms in Europe: The View from the Top. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
23.
HeadBFergusonMCherneyA, et al. (2014) Are policy-makers interested in social research? Exploring the sources and uses of valued information among public servants in Australia. Policy and Society33(2): 89–101.
24.
HoppeRJeliazkovaM (2006) How policymakers define their jobs: A Netherlands case study. In: ColebatchHK (ed.) The Work of Policy: An International Survey. Lanham: Lexington Books, pp. 61–82.
25.
HowlettM (2009) Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration52(2): 153–175.
26.
HowlettM (2019) Comparing policy advisory systems beyond the OECD: Models, dynamics and the second-generation research agenda. Policy Studies40(3–4): 241–259.
27.
HowlettMWellsteadACraftJ (2017) Policy Work in Canada: Professional Practices and Analytical Capacities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
28.
KickertW (2011) Distinctiveness of administrative reform in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Common characteristics, of context, administration and reforms. Public Administration89(4): 801–818.
29.
KogaNMLoureiroMde Moura PalottiPL, et al. (2022) Analysing the information sources Brazilian bureaucrats use as evidence in everyday policymaking. Policy & Politics50(4): 483–506.
30.
KuhlmannSWollmannH (2014) Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
31.
KuperusHRodeR (2016) Top Public Managers in Europe. Management and Employment in Central Public Administrations. The Hague: Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.
32.
LampropoulouM (2020) Policy responses to the Eurozone crisis: A comparative analysis of southern European administrations. Public Policy and Administration35(3): 289–311.
33.
LasswellH (1971) A Pre-view of Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier.
34.
LodgeMWegrichK (eds) (2014) The Problem-solving Capacity of the Modern State: Governance Challenges and Administrative Capacities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
MaleyM (2015) The policy work of Australian political staff. International Journal of Public Administration38(1): 46–55.
NekolaMKohoutekJ (2016) Policy work at the sub-national level: Analytical styles of Canadian and Czech directors and managers. Canadian Public Administration59(2): 289–309.
38.
OngaroE (2010a) Public Management Reform and Modernization. Trajectories of Administrative Changes in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
39.
OngaroE (2010b) The Napoleonic administrative tradition and public management reform in France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. In: PainterMPetersBG (eds) Tradition and Public Administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 174–190.
40.
PageEJenkinsB (2005) Policy Bureaucracy: Government with a Cast of Thousands. London: Oxford University Press.
41.
PageEWrightV (eds) (2007). From the Active to the Enabling State The Changing Role of Top Officials in European Nations. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
42.
PainterMPierreJ (2005) Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
ParradoS (2014) Analytical capacity. In: LodgeMWegrichK (eds) The Problem-solving Capacity of the Modern State: Governance Challenges and Administrative Capacities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.86–104.
44.
ParradoS (2020) Public administration and its problem-solving capacities. In: MuroDLagoI (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Spanish Politics. Oxford Handbooks. Online edn, 5 March 2020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198826934.013.15 (accessed 6 December 2022).
45.
PetersBG (2015) Policy capacity in public administration. Policy and Society34(3–4): 219–228.
46.
RadinB (2000) Beyond Machiavelli. Policy Analysis Comes of Age. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
47.
SaguinKRameshMHowlettM (2018) Policy work and capacities in a developing country: Evidence from the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration40(1): 1–22.
48.
SilvaP (2017) Political advisers in Portugal: Partisanship and loyalty in policy processes. Public Admininstration95(2): 378–392.
49.
SotiropoulosDA (2004) South European public bureaucracies in comparative perspective. West European Politics27(3): 405–422.
50.
SteenTWeskeU (2016) Understanding elites: values, attitudes, motivations and role perceptions of top public sector executives in Europe. In: HammerschmidG, et al. (eds) Public Administration Reforms in Europe: The View from the Top. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 26–38.
51.
SuzukiHHurH (2020) Bureaucratic structures and organizational commitment: Findings from a comparative study of 20 European countries. Public Management Review22(6): 877–907.
52.
TiernanA (2012) Advising Australian federal governments: Assessing the evolving capacity and role of the Australian public service. Australian Journal of Public Administration70(4): 335–346.
53.
Van der MeerFRaadscheldersJ (2007) The changing role of the senior civil service in Dutch national government. In: PageEWrightV (eds) From the Active to the Enabling State. Transforming Government. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 99–120.
54.
Van der MeerFRaadscheldersJToonenT (eds) (2015) Comparative Civil Service Systems in the 21st Century. London: Palgrave.
55.
VeselýA (2017) Policy advice as policy work: A conceptual framework for multi-level analysis. Policy Sciences50(1): 139–154.
56.
VeselýAWellsteadAEvansB (2014) Comparing sub-national policy workers in Canada and the Czech Republic: Who are they, what they do, and why it matters?Policy and Society33(2): 103–115.
57.
WellsteadAStedmanRLindquistE (2009) The nature of regional policy work in Canada’s federal public service. Canadian Political Science Review3(1): 34–56.
58.
WellsteadAMStedmanRCHowlettM (2011) Policy analytical capacity in changing governance contexts: A structural equation model (SEM) study of contemporary Canadian policy work. Public Policy and Administration26(3): 353–372.
59.
WildavskyA (1979) Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little Brown.
WuXHowlettMRameshM (eds) (2018) Policy Capacity and Governance: Assessing Governmental Competences and Capabilities in Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
