To date, no systematic attempt has been made to describe the main features of the Italian policy advisory system. In particular, we know very little about the role of political scientists within it. This study addresses precisely this gap in the literature. First, by presenting original data derived from an online survey to which 177 Italian political scientists responded, we reconstruct frequency, type, recipient(s), and areas of their (potential) policy advice. Second, by focusing on two very relevant policy processes—the approval of the so-called Italicum (electoral law) and of the so-called Jobs Act (labour market reform)—we add insightful qualitative details to our quantitative analysis. Empirical results show that Italian political scientists are seldom engaged in policy advisory activities: many of them have never been. Moreover, there are no particular differences—from the point of view of personal characteristics (gender and level of academic career)—between policy advisors and the so-called pure academics. Finally, as the two case studies show, informal advice has the greatest impact on policymaking. This latter aspect reminds us of how much the Italian policy advisory system (PAS) is still poorly institutionalised and largely based on personal relationships as well as on political proximity.

Of Pure Academics and Advice Debutants: The Policy Advisory Roles of Political Scientists in Italy / A. Pritoni, M.T. Galanti - In: The Advisory Roles of Political Scientists in Europe : Comparing Engagements in Policy Advisory Systems / [a cura di] M. Brans, A. Timmermans. - [s.l] : Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. - ISBN 978-3-030-86004-2. - pp. 205-224 [10.1007/978-3-030-86005-9_10]

Of Pure Academics and Advice Debutants: The Policy Advisory Roles of Political Scientists in Italy

M.T. Galanti
2022

Abstract

To date, no systematic attempt has been made to describe the main features of the Italian policy advisory system. In particular, we know very little about the role of political scientists within it. This study addresses precisely this gap in the literature. First, by presenting original data derived from an online survey to which 177 Italian political scientists responded, we reconstruct frequency, type, recipient(s), and areas of their (potential) policy advice. Second, by focusing on two very relevant policy processes—the approval of the so-called Italicum (electoral law) and of the so-called Jobs Act (labour market reform)—we add insightful qualitative details to our quantitative analysis. Empirical results show that Italian political scientists are seldom engaged in policy advisory activities: many of them have never been. Moreover, there are no particular differences—from the point of view of personal characteristics (gender and level of academic career)—between policy advisors and the so-called pure academics. Finally, as the two case studies show, informal advice has the greatest impact on policymaking. This latter aspect reminds us of how much the Italian policy advisory system (PAS) is still poorly institutionalised and largely based on personal relationships as well as on political proximity.
Settore SPS/04 - Scienza Politica
2022
Book Part (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Pritoni-Galanti2022_Chapter_OfPureAcademicsAndAdviceDebuta.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 287.1 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
287.1 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/906455
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact