Policy advisory systems" have been central to moving beyond individual actor considerations to assessments of the interactive effects of multiple interlocking sets of suppliers, in specific jurisdictions, that provide policy advice to policymakers. This article argues, while useful, the advisory system concept should be revised given that previous approaches animated by the location of supply and government control over it have been weakened. We argue for a "second wave" of advisory system studies that: (1) reorients the unit of analysis from the public service to advisory systems themselves, (2) better contextualizes advisory system operation and dynamics based on the subsystems within which they operate, and (3) focuses on questions of why advisory system components combine in particular policy instances and with what effect. Using access and compatibility, we posit a typology of policy advisory networks and develop four archetypes of policy ideational compatibility. KEY WORDS: policy advice, policy theory, public management, subsystems, context 215 0190-292X V C 2015 Policy Studies Organization

No abstract

No abstract

Comparative public policy combines theories of the policy process with the study of political systems and specific issue areas. Yet, some ambiguity surrounds what distinguishes the comparative approach from other perspectives on public policy. This review brings greater clarity to the comparative policy project by emphasizing the need to be attentive to similarities and differences regarding the institutional contexts in which policymaking takes place. This attention is necessary to avoid “forcing a fit” between the empirical reality and theories and frameworks designed with specific institutional configurations in mind. While forced fit posed problems for past research, recent theoretical advancements have been devised to facilitate comparison across dissimilar institutional settings. The following discussion highlights amendments to established approaches intended to deal with problems of comparison and identifies promising new perspectives from which comparative analysis may be conducted. The latest wave of comparative policy scholarship, having accounted for institutional variation, looks beyond institutions to policy discourses in order to explain how ideas, norms, and political culture affect how policy actors maneuver within, maintain, or change the institutional environment in which they operate.

In light of recent interest in the theoretical foundations of policy paradigms, this paper aims to specify the qualities that differentiate paradigmatic from non-paradigmatic policy ideas. While the incommensurability thesis that underlies the concept of paradigms has been the target of much criticism, there is something intuitively appealing about the incommensurability of policy alternatives that is not yet fully understood. Hesitant to abandon completely the notion of incommensurability, this paper emphasizes the relative nature of ideational commensurability and provides an account of how the exclusivity of a paradigm may wither in relation to competing perspectives. The empirical section demonstrates this pattern of paradigmatic policy-making by examining solutions advanced to alleviate problems in Canadian trade-industrial policy between 1975 and 1995. Contrary to the popular perception that paradigmatic ideas yield policy stability, the findings suggest that even in areas where clearly articulated paradigms initially exist, strictly paradigmatic thinking is often fleeting.