The Adviser Elite. Power and influence in the backrooms of government

Ministerial advisers are prominent members of the political elite (Hustedt et al 2017; Shaw and Eichbaum 2014), broadly defined as a ‘small, relatively cohesive and stable group with disproportionate power to affect national and supranational outcomes’ (Best and Higley 2018). They hold strategic positions next to members of government and they participate in, or directly influence, political decision-making. Although they are not members of the Paretian ruling elite, and most of them are placed at what Mosca described as the elite ‘second stratum’, many can be highly influential and powerful and, at times, in direct competition with politicians, political parties, legislatures and governments. The study of advisers as elites, however, has not received so much attention. Most studies so far have approached the topic primarily through the lens of public policy and/or public administration. Much of the focus has been on relations within the executive triangle. Despite some exceptions, we still lack cross country, comprehensive, longitudinal data and systematic analyses on advisers’ socio-demographic, educational and occupational backgrounds; thus, what Laswell (1952) has called ‘personal’ and ‘social circulation’ of the political elite is difficult to study. Individual career approaches are only just now slowly emerging. There is a shortage of datasets like DATACUBE, or SEDEPE when it comes to adviser research. As we move further away from western consolidated democracies, the data and analyses grow scarcer, and poorer in quality. Additionally, the study of power and influence has been one of many major themes in elite studies, but it has received scant attention in adviser research. Like most political actors, advisers do not simply ‘have’ power. Instead, they ‘create the potential for power’ (Burch and Holliday 1996, 7), taking advantage of the range of opportunities, the institutional framework, the resources available and the strategic use of such resources. Invisible actors as ministerial advisers also have their share of resources – and are a resource in themselves – within the wider network of power relationships. Pressing contemporary policy issues (climate change, migration or disease outbreaks) require governments to combine analytical skills and expert knowledge. Also, given increasing political polarization, the emergence and electoral success of populist parties, and pressure from the media, politicians are increasingly seeking advisory capacity from individuals they trust. Despite their relevance, ministerial advisers tend not to be subject to much legal scrutiny and, most importantly, their functions tend to be legally vague, neglected or bypassed (Di Mascio and Natalini 2016) generating distrust from citizens. Thus, legitimation of the adviser elites is another understudied topic of this research area. Last, but not least, does it all matter? Can advisers influence policy as we think they do – and under what conditions? When they succeed or fail, how can we measure their performance? While acknowledgement of the ‘expanded coterie of political staffs’ (Craft 2015a, p.56) has spurred research on the conceptualization of ministerial advisers' roles (Craft 2015a; 2015b; Connaughton 2010; Maley 2000), research is still required to assess the implications of ministerial advisers for government dynamics.