Several approaches have emerged for understanding how policy advisory systems are organised and operate. A dominant early theme in PAS research has been location, focusing on distributional issues about where the supply of advice was located and the ability of a government to control it. Research charted the ascendency and decline of advisory units, with an emphasis on the public service’s changing role, and the impacts on policymaking and governing of new sources of supply and shifting demand. A second approach has been the content of policy advice. This has recognised that, while location was important, the composition, operation, and influence of units within these systems were in part a result of the congruence of the content of advice with demand, regardless of the location or government control. Third are the dynamics linked to the stability and change of individual components or entire systems over time. The main focus has been the externalisation and politicisation of these systems because of their significance and identifiability. Another approach is to examine change according to its magnitude: from overarching frameworks to micro adjustments. Finally, organisational dynamics are considered as types of advisory units rise and fall in significance or change character.

Internal non-public service sources of policy advice cover parliamentary committees, public inquiries and other bodies that operate within the broader public sector. Some units have substantial independence, while others may be at the beck and call of ministers. The spectrum ranges from bodies located within government with permanent standing to those existing under ad hoc arrangements that may include external actors. Advice is distinguished by whether it is solicited or not, the former being commissioned by government (e.g. taskforces) and the latter being about the capacity to influence policy. Three categories of alternative policy advice within government are independent policy advisory bodies; agencies that report to parliament rather than the executive; and ad hoc entities that operate as extensions to government and comprise a range of government appointed inquiry forms.Each has changed with implications for the policy advisory system, although depoliticisation and politicisation are factors. The institutionalisation of independent standing bodies is notable. The trend to flexible instruments has allowed governments to reduce reliance on formal and independent public reviews. The expansion and contraction of alternative sources of advice has occurred over time and varies between countries, but the broad trends have been similar.

The changing position of the public service is examined in relation to the growth of ministers’ policy roles. As the political executive assumed greater policy leadership, a stronger emphasis has been placed on the contestability of advice and increasing use of other advisory sources. There is a tendency for public service policy capacity to decline, but there are differences across the policy advisory systems due to country-specific patterns of reforms. The public service has become more disposed to being internally collaborative and externally engaged through policy processes, but regular injunctions for greater connectivity indicate continuing shortfalls. There is a question of whether a restoration of capacity is possible and what the advisory role is for a public service that has been emphasising generalist and process-based functions as a broker and convenor of advisory inputs.

Chapter 5 explores the politically appointed staffs working in ministers’ and prime ministers’ offices. Comparative analysis showcases the flexibility of policy advisory systems (PAS) and the several interpretations of the Westminster tradition. Advisers were added to PAS to extend ministers’ control, address deficiencies in public service advice and increase ministers’ capacity to address the politics of policy work. Their effects have attracted debates about politicisation. At best, advisers identify political risks and help ministers avoid the derailment of policy agendas.They serve as ports of call for officials, interested stakeholders and other ministers, as well as facilitate the circulation of policy advice within government. At worst they have corrosive effects, overstepping boundaries by throwing their weight around and directing public servants without appropriate authority. They act as gatekeepers on the professional advice of the public service before it reaches ministers. There is widespread agreement that partisan advisers have become more prominent and influential. Central political offices have become adept at using them as systemic instruments to secure political alignment and coordination throughout government. Their growing numbers and the specialisation of policy functions have become important for how ministers exert political control and seek contestable policy.

The examination of Westminster policy advisory systems begins with the administrative tradition that has fundamentally shaped, and continues to influence, the practices in the four cases and the country-specific developments. The anglophone countries constitute a coherent set because of their common tradition and their close historical and ongoing associations and interactions. This overview addresses the shared characteristics of the Westminster-type system and the constituent features of government pertinent to policy advisory systems. It compares public organisation and structures and unique characteristics, focusing on political executives, the machinery of government and ancillary public sector advisory agents (e.g. parliamentary committees, commissions of inquiry). The unique characteristics of the cases are examined, such as the distinct patterns of public sector reform that have implications for policy advice and the role of central agencies vis-à-vis departments.

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.

Chapter 8 analyses the patterns of change and the state of the respective systems. Comparative analysis provides an understanding of the types and nature of change, drawing attention to system-wide and localised modifications to advisory instruments. It also highlights distinct types of changes and the shared and distinct trajectories that have impacted the configuration and operation of these systems. The analysis focuses on differences in types of change by adapting Hall’s (1993) three ‘orders’ of change: first-order policy advisory systems (PAS) changes involving routine adjustments to existing practices or units; second-order change addressing the ascendency and decline of categories of advisers and shifts in advisory practices; and third-order macro-level changes. The trajectories of PAS change are distinguished by differences in tempo and sequencing, some being gradual and longer-term (e.g., erosion of public service capacity), while others are abrupt and transformational (e.g., responses to the global financial crisis). The cases feature different sequencing when (de)institutionalisation occurs (e.g., partisan advisers). The dynamics of externalisation and politicisation are reappraised using subtypes that reveal their breadth. The flexibility and adaptability inherent in PAS, government preferences and environmental pressures will lead to continuing change and the need for comprehensive approaches to understand it.

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.