A Comparative Assessment of Elite Policy Recruits in Canada

Abstract

Recent case studies and large-N survey evidence has confirmed long-suspected shortages of public sector "policy capacity". Studies have found that government policy workers in various jurisdictions differ considerably with respect to types of policy work they undertake, and have identified uneven capacity for policy workers to access and apply technical and scientific knowledge to public issues. This suggests considerable difficulties for government's ability to meet contemporary policy and governance challenges. Despite growing attention to these matters, studies have not examined the "elite" policy workers many governments recruit to address these capacity shortages. Using an established survey instrument, this study of two Canadian recruitment programs provides the first comparative analysis of elite policy recruits, as policy workers. Three research questions anchor the study: (1) What is the profile of these actors? (2) What types of policy work do "elite" policy analysts actually engage in? (3) How does their policy work compare by recruitment program? The article provides fresh comparative data on the nature of elite policy work and policy analytical capacity, but, more importantly, a crucial baseline for future comparative study of how elite recruitment may facilitate "supply-side" capacity gains expected from recruitment programs.

Composition, distribution, and change in Canada's federal policy staff

“…1 We recognize that policy work can and likely occurs in variously classified positions like "programs" or "executive" classifications (see Shepherd & Stoney, 2018), however the EC classification is the most formal policy oriented classification. This is well reflected in official government classification materials and with flagship policy recruitment initiatives placing their policy recruits into the EC classifications (see Craft & Daku, 2017;Craft & Harty, 2017;Government of Canada, n.d.;Public Service Commission of Canada, 2019). This notion is further reinforced by official documentation from the Treasury Board Secretariat that outlines the responsibilities of EC staff.…”

Assessing policy analytical capacity in contemporary governments: New measures and metrics

“…Recruitment patterns and new job titles reflected this policy orientation (Ouimet et al., 2017; Craft and Daku 2017) and ensure that incumbents are at least minimally competent in their duties. Thus, assessing and measuring PAC can focus on the number of these individuals and their skills (Howlett and Wellstead 2011) in order to develop proxy measures for it.…”

“…These professionals emerged in many countries beginning in the 1960s and simultaneously engaged in the provision of policy advice while creating a new professional class of policy advisors in government (Dror, 1967; Meltsner, 1976; Svallfors, 2020). This group self‐identified as ‘policy analysts’ and led to the creation of a new class of civil service recruits with a designated ‘policy’ function (Craft and Daku 2017).…”

Leadership, Change and Conflict: An Examination of Informal Human Resources Theory for Policy Capacity

“…Given HR personnel's important role in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining staff, there are implications for HR personnel with respect to policy capacity, yet HR and policy capacity is understudied. While studies on the role of external policy consultants in government policymaking processes shed light on one aspect of HR and the externalization of policy capacity (for example Howlett & Migone, 2013a;2013b, 2013c, overall the existing literature on HR and policy capacity is theoretical and conceptual (for example Aucoin & Bakvis, 2005;Lindquist, 2018) with very few empirical studies (for example Craft & Daku, 2017;Craft & Harty, 2017;Kaleem, 2017).…”