No abstract

The growing complexity of policy challenges has necessitated the reconsideration of the classic state-centered deliberative models and their replacement with more inclusive concepts like that of the policy advisory system. Still, although the asymmetrical power distribution across different advisors has been recognized, the question of why some actors are able to exercise greater influence than others has received relatively little systematic attention. This paper addresses this question while focusing its attention on Ukraine and Moldova in a departure from the literature's empirical preoccupation with Western liberal democracies. Through a qualitative analysis of 45 semi-structured interviews, the paper empirically tests the theoretical conceptualization, which explains policy influence as a result of the interaction of content, context, demand and supply factors. The findings illustrate the usefulness of the framework as a theoretical tool beyond Western democratic systems. However, they also indicate the need for conceptual refinements accounting for the significant role played by internationalization, personalization, informality, politicization and political polarization in advisory dynamics in hybrid regimes like those in Ukraine and Moldova in order for advisory scholarship to overcome its Western bias.