IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v44y2025i3p305-317..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Kicked cans and poison pills: third generation policy advisory system studies and the management of quality political advice

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Migone
  • Michael Howlett

Abstract

The decision-making process in government is influenced by a complex system of policy advice, which affects both the kinds of advice solicited and how it is received. Previous first and second generation studies of these policy advisory systems (PAS) focused primarily on identifying the structures and dynamics of advisory relationships in different contexts and jurisdictions. However, managing these systems to inform policy (in)action is now a major area of interest. This “3rd generation” of inquiry looks at system quality and how to measure and manage it. This includes how to manage political risk and inform strategies to address political concerns, such as deferring responsibility to future governments (“kicking the can down the road”) or leaving them unfunded mandates (“poison pills”). Third generation studies of policy advice systems need to consider how advice on such strategies is created and transmitted and not focus exclusively upon advice on management issues concerned with program efficacy and efficiency. That is, a high-quality PAS must manage both technical and political risks and deal with calculations of political blame and credit advice just as they have looked at the costs and benefits of alternate policy arrangements in the past.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Migone & Michael Howlett, 2025. "Kicked cans and poison pills: third generation policy advisory system studies and the management of quality political advice," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 44(3), pages 305-317.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:44:y:2025:i:3:p:305-317.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puaf002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:44:y:2025:i:3:p:305-317.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.