Strategic Studies of public policy

Strategic Studies of public policy

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy Boards in Utilizing Policy Advisory Organizations: A Case Study of the Iran’s Cabinet Office

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Matin Ameri Golestan 1
Ali AbdollahiNasab 2
Mohammad Hosain Shojaei 3
meysam narimani 2
1 Researcher/ Technology Studies Institute
2 Assistant Professor of Technology Studies Institute
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Innovation Policy and Foresight, Technology Studies Institute
10.22034/sspp.2025.2021681.3549
Abstract
In recent years, governments have increasingly collaborated with independent policy consulting organizations to enhance efficiency, achieve cost savings, reduce bureaucratic resistance, and leverage external expertise. However, certain legal, financial, and operational constraints have hindered the optimal utilization of these organizations within Iran's decision-making system. Considering the pivotal role of the Cabinet Office (Heiat-e-Dowlat) in national policy formulation, this research aims to provide practical solutions for maximizing its use of consulting capacities to improve policy decisions. Data was collected through in-depth expert interviews and expert panel sessions conducted between July and December 2023. Employing a structural-functional analysis, the study evaluates the current state of the Cabinet Office's relationship with consulting entities. Following an analysis of strengths and weaknesses in key structural and functional components, three alternative propositions are proposed and elaborated to enhance the Cabinet Office's engagement with policy consulting organizations: (1) maintaining the status quo, (2) implementing moderate reforms, and (3) undertaking fundamental transformation. Each proposition outlines the role of the Cabinet Office, the communication approach, necessary structural and functional changes, associated advantages and challenges, and relevant policy implications. These propositions assist decision-makers in analyzing various situations and policy options, enabling policymakers to select a suitable path based on strategic priorities and available resources.
Keywords
Policy Boards
Cabinet Office
Policy Advisory
Evidence Based Policy Making
Open Policy Making
Subjects
منابع فارسی
اصلانی، فیروز و سهرابلو، علی. (1394). کارکردهای نهاد شورا در نظام حقوقی جمهوری اسلامی ایران. فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران.45(3)، 405-427.
 doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2015.55795
آیین‌نامه‌داخلی‌دولت. (1402). آئین نامه داخلی هیأت دولت مصوب 8/9/1368با اصلاحات و الحاقات بعدی. بازیابی‌شده از:
 https://president.ir/fa/consolidated-internal
برنامه‌هفتم‌پیشرفت. (1403). قانون برنامه پنجساله هفتم پیشرفت جمهوری اسلامی ایران (۱۴۰۳-۱۴۰۷) مصوب 18/4/1403 مجلس شورای اسلامی.
خواجه نائینی، علی، نریمانی، میثم، صاحبکار، محمد و لطفی، امیر. (1403). بررسی تطبیقی نقش و کارکرد دفاتر هیئت‌دولت در کشورهای مختلف. فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، 27(3)، 157-178.
 doi: 10.48308/jlr.2024.234551.2665
سلیم, نریمانی, بادامچی، جهرمی, ب. (2024). ارائه الگوی سیاستی به‌منظور ارتقای انسجام نظام تصمیم‌گیری در هیات وزیران مطالعه موردی: دفتر هیات دولت. مطالعات راهبردی سیاستگذاری عمومی, 14(51). 
عامری گلستان، متین، واعظی، رضا، الوانی، سیدمهدی و باقری، علی. (1402). حکمرانی همکارانه، راهکاری برای حل مسئله آب در ایران: شناسایی مؤلفه‌ها و تدوین چارچوب. مطالعات راهبردی سیاستگذاری عمومی، 13(48)، 2-31. 
doi: 10.22034/sspp.2023.2010585.3479
عباسی، طیبه، قلی پور، رحمت ا ... و هادی، مهدی. (1397). شناسایی عوامل تسهیل‌کنندۀ شواهدمحور کردن فرایند خط‌مشی‌گذاری در حوزۀ علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری. مطالعات راهبردی سیاستگذاری عمومی، 8(26)، 65-84.
عبدالحسین زاده، محمد، (1399). نظام شورایی و شوراهای عالی در نظام حکمرانی، نشریه تحول اداری، 18(61)، 8-17.[لینک]
نریمانی، میثم، خواجه نایینی، علی و صاحبکار خراسانی، سید محمد. (1403). ارائه چارچوبی برای ارتقای هماهنگی میان شوراهای اداری و هیأت وزیران در ایران. مطالعات راهبردی سیاستگذاری عمومی، در نوبت انتشار.
 doi: 10.22034/sspp.2024.2033661.3671
نوروزی، عفت و طباطبائیان، سید حبیب الله. (1394). سازمان‌های میانجی: تعاریف، انواع و کارکردها. رهیافت، 25 (60)، 1-16.
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571. 
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2016). Introduction: theories of governance. In Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 1-18): Edward Elgar Publishing.
Arnaboldi, M. (2013). Consultant‐researchers in public sector transformation: An evolving role. Financial Accountability & Management, 29(2), 140-160. 
Bell, E., & Scott, T. A. (2020). Common institutional design, divergent results: A comparative case study of collaborative governance platforms for regional water planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 111, 63-73. 
Bherer, L., Dufour, P., & Montambeault, F. (2016). The participatory democracy turn: an introduction. In (Vol. 12, pp. 225-230): Taylor & Francis.
Commission, S. S. (2016). Open government partnership New Zealand: national action plan 2016-18. 
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 22(1), 1-29. 
Gabriel, R., & Paulus, T. (2015). Committees and controversy: Consultants in the construction of education policy. Educational Policy, 29(7), 984-1011. 
Gash, A. (2022). Collaborative governance. In Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 497-509): Edward Elgar Publishing.
GOV.UK. (2018a). Future policy network. 
GOV.UK. (2018b). The What Works Network Five Years On. 
Gunter, H. M., Hall, D., & Mills, C. (2019). Consultants, consultancy and consultocracy in education policymaking in England. Policy Actors, 52-73. 
Kothari, A., MacLean, L., Edwards, N., & Hobbs, A. (2011). Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 9(3), 203-214. 
Levin, L. (2023). Contracting out public participation to external consultants: Observations on epistemic justice. Public Administration Review, 83(1), 92-102. 
Nabatchi, T., & Emerson, K. (2021). Implementation in collaboration governance. In Handbook of collaborative public management (pp. 402-420): Edward Elgar Publishing.
Neal, J. W., Neal, Z. P., & Brutzman, B. (2022). Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a systematic review. Evidence & Policy, 18(1), 7-24. 
Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., & Innvær, S. (2014). New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health research policy and systems, 12, 1-11. 
Pawłowska, A., & Radzik-Maruszak, K. (2021). Social Councils–Responsible Actors in Collaborative Local Governance or Silent Information-Providers? Empirical Evidence from Selected Cities. Studia Regionalne i Lokalne(1 (83)), 19-36. 
Potts, R., Vella, K., Dale, A., & Sipe, N. (2016). Exploring the usefulness of structural–functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems. Planning theory, 15(2), 162-189. 
Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does deliberative democracy work? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 8(1), 49-71. 
Speer, J. (2012). Participatory governance reform: A good strategy for increasing government responsiveness and improving public services? World development, 40(12), 2379-2398. 
Torfing, J. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm: Oxford University Press, USA.
Tseng, Y.-S. (2022). Algorithmic empowerment: A comparative ethnography of two open-source algorithmic platforms–Decide Madrid and vTaiwan. Big Data & Society, 9(2), 20539517221123505. 
Voets, J., Brandsen, T., Koliba, C., & Verschuere, B. (2021). Collaborative governance. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics: Oxford University Press.
Weiland, C., Sachs, J., McCormick, M., Hsueh, J., & Snow, C. (2021). Fast-response research to answer practice and policy questions. The Future of Children, 31(1), 75-96. 
Zhang, J., Fedder, B., Wang, D., & Jennerjahn, T. C. (2022). A knowledge exchange framework to connect research, policy, and practice, developed through the example of the Chinese island of Hainan. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 530-541.