In modern democracies, policy advice and policy analysis have a common path. Policy advice helps in analysing policy problems and providing public solutions. One major evolution is that policy advice – solicited by and offered to policymakers – is instrumental (Mayer et al, 2005). It is used to help counter the reduced policy-analytical capacity of governments. Such reduction in capacity results from the increasing complexity of policy problems and their solutions (Jasanoff, 2005; Painter and Pierre, 2005; Howlett, 2008). Advice may be provided by institutionalised advisory bodies. Stakeholder experts may also be solicited for instrumental reasons. When stakeholders hold the key to successful implementation, it is wise for policy formulation to take into account their input. The motives of policymakers to request and receive policy advice from citizens may alternatively be grounded in substantive democratic arguments, favouring legitimisation of decisions thanks to the empowerment of civil society actors, stakeholders and citizens (Brans and Vancoppenolle, 2005; Montpetit, 2008; Schiffino et al, 2013). Therefore, the way policy advice supports policy analysis and policymakers varies in the extent to which it is expert advice, stakeholder advice or a mixture of both.

As a consensus system with neo-corporatist traits, the Belgian advisory system is populated with strongly institutionalised advisory bodies. These bodies play an important role in the policymaking process at all levels of government and hence tend to be highly integrated into the formal policymaking cycle. This chapter discusses the advisory bodies that have been established, supported and regulated by Belgian governments at both national and subnational levels of policy. The aim is primarily to answer three questions on the context and characteristics of policy advice in Belgium in general and policy advisory bodies in particular. The first question pertains to how and why these advisory bodies are established by policymakers. Second, we investigate the role of different types of expertise in these advisory bodies. Third, we discuss their influence on policymaking in Belgium. By reflecting on these questions, we show that the Belgian institutionalised advisory system struggles to meet four important challenges in policymaking, that is, managing growing competition from advisers, blending expert advice with representative opinion, securing societal support for policy interventions from groups other than traditional representative organisations, and ensuring political primacy in the policy process.