Civil servants throughout different types of politico-administrative systems are increasingly confronted with the demand for balancing responsible and responsive advice (Mulgan 2008) – that is balancing neutral competencies based upon expert knowledge with responsive competencies based upon knowledge on how politics works (Aberbach and Rockman 1994; Eichbaum and Shaw 2010). Often this advice is to be provided in co-operation with a third party as a ministerial adviser, a political staffer or a politically appointed state secretary. Such advisory relations may be conceptualised as multiple-bargains relations (Hood and Lodge 2006; Lodge 2010), in which the minister as the political principal engages in different types of bargains with the agents being the civil service and the political advisers. The advisory domain is typically functionally divided between the agents, reflecting mutual respect for the competencies each party contributes. However, advisory domains can become very contested, subject to conflicts between and shirking by the involved parties. In this paper we explore the factors determining whether the advisory domains are characterised by conflict or not as well as how the different parties in the advisory situation handle those conflicts. Theoretically the paper is based on the perspective of Public Service Bargains (Hood and Lodge 2006) as well as on the concept of administrative politicisation (Eichbaum and Shaw 2008; 2010). Empirically the paper compares the advisory domains in the ministerial bureaucracies in Denmark and Germany, analysing interview and documentary data.
