Browsing by Author "Bailey, Tracy Gillian"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The provision and influence of evidence-based policy advice : a case study of the National Advisory Council on Innovation
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University., 2020-03) Bailey, Tracy Gillian; Mouton, Johann; Cloete, Nico; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Evidence-based policy(-making) (EBP) has been adopted in many countries as knowledge and expertise are increasingly regarded as part of the core capabilities of political administrations in modern democracies. Advisory bodies which produce scientific or evidence-based advice have become an important form of support to and institutionalisation of EBP. However, empirical studies have shown that EBP remains an ideal in the context of the complexities of public policy-making and that advisory bodies seldom have much impact on the policy process. In South Africa, the National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) is a statutory body mandated to provide evidence-based advice to the Minister of Science and Technology. Since its establishment in 1997, there have been widespread perceptions that it is ineffective and uninfluential and therefore unable to realise its full potential and contribution to strengthening science, technology and innovation (STI) policy-making in the country. The main question this study seeks to address is: how does the nature of NACI’s institutional and organisational design, the policy context within which it operates, and the interaction and relationship between these aspects, impact on the outcomes of NACI’s advice and its influence on the policy process? Using a qualitative case study design based on documentary analysis and interviews with key informants, the study approaches this question through four empirical lenses: (1) the broader political and policy environment, with a specific focus on institutional and policy developments for the governance of science and technology; (2) NACI as an organisation – the conditions under which it emerged, its institutional design, and how it has interpreted and adjusted to its policy and institutional environments over time; (3) one of NACI’s longer-term advisory initiatives as a way of seeing ‘NACI in action’ and assessing the uptake of its advice; and (4) the factors which have played a role in shaping and constraining the provision of advice and NACI’s influence on policy. The findings reveal that while NACI looks good on paper and has produced a fairly substantial array of advice and supporting research evidence, in reality it has faced various challenges amidst complex dynamics which have limited its real and potential influence. Key among these have been inadequate internal capacity, its lack of independence from the Department of Science and Technology (DST), its low profile in the system, negative perceptions of its credibility and legitimacy, and a policy environment that is uncoordinated and beset with its own capacity challenges. Overall, the study demonstrates that there are ever-increasing degrees of dilution in the production and movement of NACI’s work, leaving the potential for its influence progressively weakened. The new White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation (2019) proposes an expanded mandate and strengthened role for NACI in support of a new inter-ministerial structure for STI coordination. For NACI’s potential and effectiveness in this regard to be fully realised, it is argued that various issues will need to be addressed including NACI’s internal capacity; its independence, profile and credibility; role clarification between NACI and the DST; and better institutionalisation of NACI’s advisory work within the policy process.