Policy work at the sub-national level: analytical styles of Canadian and Czech directors and managers.

Nekola, Martin ; Kohoutek, Jan

Introduction

Policy practice is more than a rational and neutral activity, focusing on analysis and research to achieve the goals of governments (Colebatch 2005). There are three arguments to support this claim. First, policy is a multi-faceted activity not limited to designing and executing government intentions (Hogwood and Gunn 1984; Page 2007). Second, the increasing complexity of agendas and the number of government and other actors using analysis to further their interests means that the portrayal of neutral, specialised policy work analysts is descriptively inaccurate (Palumbo and Calista 1990; Sabatier 1999). Third, conceptualizing policy work as only analysis does not accord with the day-to-day experience of many policy practitioners (Colebatch 2006a; Colebatch, Hoppe, and Noordegraaf 2010). Recent research has sought to reduce the discrepancy between high-level theoretical descriptions of policy analysis and research with experiential and modern accounts of policy work (Radin 2000; Colebatch, Hoppe, and Noordegraaf 2010; Radin 2013).

Filling this gap can be done in two ways: through rich qualitative studies of particular policy units along with accounts of historical development (Prince and Chenier 1980; Hollander and Prince 1993; Bakvis 2000), or larger quantitative studies which canvass larger samples of practitioners. Such investigations into policy work stand to improve the understanding of policy work not only in jurisdictions with well-developed policy analysis traditions such as the USA, Canada, and Australia (Dobuzinskis, Laycock, and Howlett 2007), but also in European countries such as the Czech Republic, which are still developing those capacities (Vesely, Nekola, and Hejzlarova 2016). More comparisons are thus needed at the national and sub-national levels to capture the variation in contexts and loci of different forms of policy work (Evans and Vesely 2014) to provide different perspectives on what is unique and what might be taken for granted in our respective jurisdictions.

In recent years, Canadian scholars have undertaken several systematic studies on the activities of policy workers in Canadian government bureaucracies at the federal (Wellstead, Stedman, and Lindquist 2009; Wellstead and Stedman 2010) or provincial and territorial level (Howlett and Newman 2010; Howlett and Wellstead 2011). Not only has this work developed useful survey instruments and gathered data to permit comparison of Canadian practice within and across national and sub-national jurisdictions, it also provides a basis for cross-jurisdictional comparisons. While it is natural to compare practice across similar governance systems, such as the principal Westminster countries, it is illuminating to compare jurisdictions with different governance traditions and trajectories. This paper presents a comparative analysis of Czech and Canadian policy workers located outside national government bureaucracies.

This comparison is important because governments have sought to modernize policy capacity. But while Western democracies in general, and Canada in particular, have dealt with concerns about declining policy capacity (Lindquist and Desveaux 1998; Edwards 2009; Tiernan 2011) attributed to reform movements such as New Public Management (Halligan 1995; Bakvis 2000; Painter and Pierre 2005) and extemalization (Howlett and Migone 2013; Vesely 2013a), the situation in post-communist countries differs significantly. After the Velvet Revolution (1989) in the Czech Republic, which led to democratization and decentralized sub-national governments (Bryson and Cornia 2004), the bureaucracy has been criticized for its inefficiency, lack of strategic governance and red tape, and overall its policy capacity is seen as far less than in Western countries (Potucek 2007; Hejzlarova 2010). Despite their growing importance, the capacity and role of sub-national policy units in an increasingly decentralized Canadian federation and European regionalization (Brusis 2005; Wellstead, Stedman, and Lindquist 2009) had received little scholarly attention. While this gap is closing in Canada (Howlett and Newman 2010; Howlett and Wellstead 2011; Evans and Wellstead 2013), there is little comparative empirical research in the Czech Republic (but see Vesely, Wellstead, and Evans 2014).

Our enquiry focuses at the sub-national level comprising thirteen Czech regions and ten Canadian provinces plus three territories as the two countries' basic geographic units. Despite the geographical distance and differences in administrative structure and responsibilities, this comparison across two countries will enrich our empirical and theoretical understanding of regional and sub-national policy work. Our goal is to identify and elaborate on differences and similarities in the profiles of Czech and Canadian policy directors and managers in sub-national public bureaucracies. We focus on these two work positions for two reasons. First, directors and managers are pivotal and likely have distinct roles in shaping and executing policy work processes--for those developing capacity, getting the balance right should be important (Kuhlmann and Bogumil 2007; Howlett 2011). Second, contrary to the traditional politics-administration dichotomy--perceiving executives as mere implementers with limited influence on the policy-making process--growing evidence suggests they have a critical role in modern decentralized, networked and customer-oriented public administration. Quantitative research into the role and involvement of policy workers in executive positions will shed light on an important layer of policy work in our bureaucratic environments (Meier 2009; Wellstead, Stedman, and Lindquist 2009; Howlett 2011).

Leveraging Canada's large-N empirical surveys, and adding our own data from the Czech Republic, we investigate and compare region-based directors and managers across both countries at the sub-national level across nine areas (that is, gender, age, educational background including further education and previous work experience, work tasks, work activities, sources of information and work methods). These characteristics feed into further discussion of their relevance for the analytical styles developed at the sub-national level by bureaucrats in both countries. What follows begins with an exposition of the theory-based clarification of policy work analytical styles and administrative traditions, and implications for the hypotheses. The methodology underlying the relevant sub-national surveys is presented, followed by reporting on the data and findings on similarities and differences between Czech and Canadian policy directors and managers in regional public bureaucracies. The paper concludes with a discussion of the analytical styles of sub-national policy bureaucrats in both countries and implications for future research.

Background: the Czech Republic and Canada

The Czech Republic is a parliamentary democracy that arose after the split of Czechoslovakia in 1993. The main executive body is the Government with the Prime Minister as the head and ministers as members. The Czech Republic is a unitary state with thirteen administrative regions (kraje). These are public-law corporations re-established as a regional level of self-governance in 2000. The regions are governed by a Board of Councillors and a Regional Council (similar to a Legislative Assembly), the latter elected in fully democratic regional elections. Their administrative bodies, the Regional Authorities (krajske urady), provide the sites for sub-national policy work. In terms of independent powers, the Czech regions resemble Canadian territories more than provinces, but with respect to competencies and responsibilities within their jurisdictions, they show similarity both to Canadian provinces and territories. This especially holds true for regional development, health and social care, land use planning, transportation, tourism, environment, agriculture, education and sport.

Since the 19th century, the Canadian government has developed into a federal system of ten provinces with distinct jurisdictions of governmental authority and three territories with delegated powers. The corresponding empirical accounts of policy capacity and professional policy work at the provincial/territorial as well as the federal government level have grown (Howlett et al. 2014). Plentiful as these accounts are, they rarely deal with empirical enquiries into work-positon related differences in policy work (but see Howlett 2011; Howlett and Walker 2012). More must be said about how Canadian policy workers make sense of and apply their activities, techniques and analytical capacities in relation to the distinctiveness of their work positions. Such enquiry could also cast light on how such work-position indicators stand in relation to categorisations of policy work in other countries.

The Canadian-Czech comparison is warranted for three reasons. First, it can provide new evidence on position-related execution and styles of policy work in two comparable sub-national jurisdictions. We are particularly interested in finding out if the reasonably high level of Canadian federal policy analytical capacity by historical and comparative standards (Prince 2007; Howlett 2008) is valid at the sub-national level. Second, the comparison relies on the methodology used for previous surveys of Canadian federal and provincial professional policy work undertaken between 2006-2009 (Howlett et al. 2014). Third, we focus on two under-researched positions --policy director and manager--crucial for policy work and delivery at the sub-national level. Despite the common knowledge that policy work differs at different levels of government not with respect to analysis but also leadership, responsibilities, strategic planning, and relationships with politicians or stakeholders, these differences have not been studies quantitatively. Taking directors and managers as units of analysis allows us to analyze position-related and cross-country differences between these two groups, and understand the different roles they have in policy-making in the Czech Republic and Canada.

Despite the differences in delegated power and authority, we assume that sub-national units in both countries deal with rather similar issues and that the policy work of regional officials is comparable (see, for example, Vesely, Wellstead, and Evans 2014). This seems a plausible assumption when focusing on the positions of policy director and manager.

Making sense of policy work styles

Similar to the case of modern nation states, sub-national policy work entails the application of knowledge essential for region-specific administrative tasks. This knowledge can be provided by different sources, with in-house supply (Howlett 2009b) being the most prominent. Such policy advice is supplied by professional public servants (Halligan 1995), variously called policy analysts or policy bureaucrats. One view holds that public policy is as an authoritative choice made by politicians based on rational, evidence-based expert advice (Colebatch 2006b). Key activities are research and conversion of findings for policy advising and decisions (Mayer, van Daalen, and Bots 2004). Analysts use a "toolkit" comprising microeconomic analysis, quantitative methods, and organizational analysis (Patton and Sawicki 1993). This view sees policy bureaucrats as rational technicians who possess specialized knowledge for problem solving (Meltsner 1975; Meltsner 1976).

However, increased knowledge of policy-making realities and practice has led theorists to see policy actors as having different, often conflicting, interests in addressing policy problems by interactions in structured processes (Colebatch 2006b). Policy bureaucrats identify different actors and their interests to provide clients with strategic advice on how to most effectively achieve a goal in given political circumstances (Mayer, van Daalen, and Bots 2004: 176). Instead of finding rational solutions to policy problems, policy work works to secure support for certain ideas and interests (Tao 2006). Here, policy bureaucrats act as client advisors who are more intensively involved in client consultations, public dialogue and consensus making, serving as process facilitators and mediators (Mayer, van Daalen, and Bots 2004:177; Wellstead, Stedman, and Lindquist 2009: 37).

Such varied expectations put diverse demands on those engaged in policy work, which require different activities and knowledge. Here bureaucrats are seen as process generalists who may not have formal education in research and/or policy analysis and address substantive problems with conventional rational policy analysis (Meltsner 1975; Meltsner 1976; Feldman 1989; Page and Jenkins 2005). Instead they possess knowledge of the complex processes leading to the acceptance of a public policy, that is, process expertise (Page 2009; Page 2010) underlain by the application of specific skills such as negotiating, bargaining, building support, contacts or networks (Mayer, van Daalen, and Bots 2004).

Possession of process expertise, however, leaves room for acknowledging ethical issues in policy work. These arise as part of the social construction of policy problems (Colebatch 2006b) - addressing them requires accounting for how diverse actors identify and formulate problems, which meanings they attribute to aspects of a problem and ultimately how they perceive the outside world. The consideration and aggregation of values and arguments put forth by different actors ultimately contribute to democratization of a given political regime (Mayer, van Daalen, and Bots 2004). This conceptualization of policy work is associated with normative issues related to internalised aspirations and views of the desirability and utility of public policymaking. Such issues cannot be resolved only with scientific or technical knowledge but through one's active engagement and the application of practical knowledge (Tenbensel 2006: 202) which enables policy officials to address "what should be done." These officials are termed democratic issue advocates/ activists (Mayer, van Daalen, and Bots 2004).

These theory-based conceptualizations of policy work point to four elementary styles:

* the rational-technical style utilizing problem solutions derived from the rigorous application of scientific knowledge and analysis;

* the advisory-interactive style putting policy bureaucrats into the position of consultants, advisors and mediators of client interests vis-a-vis other stakeholders;

* the process expertise style which allows steering the policy process towards a preferred outcome by using politically-oriented skills (negotiations, bargaining) in problem solving; and

* issue activism and participation leaving room for active bureaucratic involvement (advocacy) in addressing the normative aspects of the policy problems of the day. Each style suggests that administrative agents will work in different ways (Howlett 2002; Howlett 2003).

Aside from their utilization for making hypotheses in analyzing survey results, these styles of policy work will help establish profiles for Canadian and Czech regional bureaucrats.

Policy work styles: sources of variation

Policy work styles proceed within broader administrative traditions (Howlett and Lindquist 2004). At the most basic level, these traditions entail patterns in behaviour and practice that persist over time and differ across systems (Peters 2003). Since the literature on policy work styles is predominantly oriented on Western countries, the applicability of the resulting styles to less prominent/widely known national traditions may be challenging but empirically vital. We would expect the mix of policy work to vary not only by the role of analysts, the kind of organization they work in, and level of government, but also with respect to the broader administrative traditions (Howlett and Lindquist 2004; Mayer, van Daalen, and Bots 2004).

The Czech Republic presents a case of administrative ambiguity due to the countervailing effects of communist and post-communist developments. During Communist Party rule (1948-1989), the demand of government for policy analysis in Czechoslovakia was severely limited but not absent (Potucek 2007; Novotny and Hejzlarova 2011; Novotny 2012). After the watershed year of 1989, Czech public administration was slowly modernized, with the creation of more effective structures and management capacities mainly due to the EU accession (Verheijen 2001). However, after 2004 the intensity of modernisation processes subsided, leaving the country as a "reform laggard" especially behind the Baltic states (Meyer-Sahling 2009). Public administration in the Czech Republic thus currently shows some signs of "Westernisation" while keeping some communist-like traits represented by politicization, protectionism and reliance on personalized routines to the detriment of analytical approaches (Meyer-Sahling 2011).

Canada is commonly seen as having an Anglo-Saxon (Westminster) administrative tradition (Halligan 2003). The growth of the modern Canadian state after 1945 led to administrative expansion and greater capacity as new public policy programs were introduced (Dwivedi and Halligan 2003) and trained experts became indispensable to governments (Brooks 2007). During the 1960s Canadian policy analysis was consolidated as a profession, with rational work increasingly complemented by social-justice or client-oriented analytical approaches. Canadian public administration has had NPM-infused reforms though with spurious effects, "leaving only traces rather than significant achievements" (Halligan 2003: 206). Although the Canadian public service has acquired some new management features such as clearer and strengthened accountability lines and more coherent staff training programs, it "has sought to avoid the more extreme positions that entailed less government as an end in itself; reliance on competition and private sector models; and a heavy emphasis on individualisation, contractualisation and performance management." (Dwivedi and Halligan 2003:170)

The foregoing accounts of policy work profiles, analytical styles and administrative traditions leads to several hypotheses:

* HI: We do not anticipate major differences between Canadian and Czech directors or managers as regards their socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, education).

* H2: We expect position-based differences in the previous work experience of Canadian and Czech directors and managers and assume the four groups will show differences in their previous work engagement by policy sector and employment position.

* H3: Work task characteristics should be similar across the four bureaucrats' groups. On the other hand, the four groups should differ in approaches to policy work.

* H4: Canadian directors and managers should be engaged more in activities related to traditional (rational) policy analysis.

* H5: Canadian directors and managers should to use rational analytical methods more than their Czech counterparts who lack formal training in policy analysis.

* H6: Czech directors and managers should show more engagement in ancillary policy work including mediating, consulting and networking, while Canadian directors and managers are more likely to utilize research evidence and evaluation results in their pursuit of an evidence-based approach to policy work.

* H7: Canadian directors and managers are predicted to lean more towards the rational-technical policy style while Czech directors and managers are likely to particularly embrace the advisory-interactive style.

These hypotheses led to a more general hypothesis (H8) that differences between Canadian and Czech sub-national policy work are likely to be country-based rather than position-based. In other words, the effects of a country's administrative-analytical tradition will tend to be more pronounced than those of a worker's official job position.

Methodology

Our data came from two datasets. The first came from 13 separate web-based large-N surveys conducted in Canadian sub-national jurisdictions between 2008 and 2009 by Michael Howlett and his colleagues. The surveys used a questionnaire designed to reflect the argument that more sophisticated empirical assessments of policy work require investigation of at least five elements: (1) the scale and location of policy analysis functions; (2) the political environment surrounding the activity; (3) the analytic methodologies used; (4) the availability and use of information and data; and (5) the dimensions of policy decisions. Mailing lists for surveys in ten provinces and three territories were compiled from public sources such as online government telephone directories, using keyword searches like "policy analyst" in job titles or descriptions. In some cases, names were added to lists from hard-copy sources whose completeness was checked by provincial public service commissions (Howlett and Newman 2010). This yielded a population of 3,856 analysts from which 1,357 responses were received for a response rate of 35.2 percent (Howlett et al. 2014).

The Czech Republic dataset come from a 2012 survey of policy bureaucrats in government offices in the country's 13 regions. The data was collected with a self-administered online survey (CAWI) from a total sample of 2,615 regional bureaucrats. The survey was comprised of twenty-five questions seeking data on personal attributes, employment, further education, workplace activities, interaction and analytical methods. The Canadian questionnaire was used as a template but modified to reflect the different context of Czech public administration in the regions and to ensure respondents' understanding of questions (Vesely 2013b). Sampling for the Czech case used complete lists of workers at regional government offices retrievable from official websites. Office staff performing only routine administration tasks (for example, financial/economic departments, business licensing authorities) were excluded so that the target group had at least minimal involvement in some analytical policy work tasks. From the total number of 2,415 valid e-mail contacts fulfilling these criteria, 783 responses were obtained, which made the overall response rate equal to 32%.

Given our focus on regional directors and managers, Canadian and Czech policy workers in these positions were selected from the overall respondents' population. Selection was made on the basis of respondents' identification with the type of position and yielded a sample of 321 directors (164 Canadians, 157 Czechs) and 359 managers (268 Canadians, 91 Czechs).

Profile of Canadian and Czech regional directors and managers

Demographic characteristics

Our findings show a prevalence of women among Canadian directors and managers over men employed. The Czech managerial positions are also predominantly filled by women rather than men, but slightly more men work at the director level (see Table 1). Not surprisingly, the majority of policy directors in both countries tend to be older (41-60 years) than the managerial group (mostly 31-50 years), but the difference is greater in the Czech case with over three fourths falling into the 30-40 years age cohort. The data on respondents' educational backgrounds show that regional directors in both countries are predominately university graduates or have a professional designation. The same applies to regional managers. Across both jurisdictions, the majority of directors and managers recently participated in further education or training though not primarily oriented on formal policy analysis methods.

Overall, the demographic characteristics display no statistically significant difference for Canadian and Czech directors. The reverse is true for Canadian and Czech managers who differ significantly in their gender and age. Czech regional bureaucracies seem to take on predominantly young (under 30) female managers while such positions in Canada are more evenly distributed between men and women, notably older by comparison (in their 40s).

Policy work activities

Our survey first concentrated on previous job experience. Canadian directors and managers show an identical pattern: about two thirds were previously employed in other provincial or territorial departments or agencies. About one third of Canadian policy directors previously worked in the non-profit sector or academia, and one fourth of managerial staff. The employment track of Czech directors and managers is more varied: over one third of directors previously worked in another regional authority and over one third of managers moved in from the private sector. The second-most common prior employment for policy directors was the for-profit sector; over one fifth had such experience.

Canadian directors and managers tend to concentrate on the same policy tasks: giving advice (96% of directors and managers), providing options on policy issues (95% of directors, 96% of managers) and preparing briefing notes (93% of directors, 95% of managers) which the majority of directors (91%) additionally use for ministerial briefing. Czech directors are mainly preoccupied with communication with other public bureaus (83%), making regional strategic policy documents (82%) and producing analyses as inputs for decision-making (76%). Czech managers are primarily concerned with communicating with other institutions of public administration (58%) but, unlike all other groups, they do almost no policy research or analysis and do not provide policy advice (only 33% and 12% respectively).

As for core policy work activities, information and data collection activities are taken up by over one third of Canadian workers on a weekly or daily basis (Table 2). In contrast, over one third of Czech directors and one fourth of managers collect data and information only a few times a year. Over one third of Canadian policy workers, directors and managers, in selected positions are more frequently (weekly or daily) involved in identifying policy issues or policy options. In comparison, over one third of Czech regional directors and managers do these activities on a monthly basis. A similar finding applies to drafting briefs and position papers: Canadian directors and managers are more heavily involved (over one third of them weekly or monthly) than their Czech counterparts (over one third monthly or quarterly). Canadian policy managers deal with implementation of policy solutions on a daily basis, whereas one third of Czech managers do so on a monthly basis. The biggest differences come in the area of research and evaluation activities: more than one third of Canadians show either weekly (directors) or monthly (managers) involvement, which contrasts with Czech respondents showing no participation in research for half of the directors and over two thirds of managers. Similarly, Canadian directors and managers more often take up evaluation of policy results with over one third of them involved on a monthly basis. In comparison, undertaking ex-post evaluations is sporadic for Czech directors: two thirds are involved a few times a year and never for more than one third of managers. This pattern of involvement across countries is repeated for evaluations of policy processes (see Table 2).

Canadian and Czech policy workers are similar with respect to briefing superiors, be they heads of regional offices (mid-level) or cabinet ministers (high-level). For all bureaucrats surveyed, such briefings are done regularly on a weekly or monthly basis. The only difference is that Czech directors and managers keep more frequent (weekly) contacts with regional office heads, while bureaucratic communication to mid-and-high-level officials tends to be more evenly distributed in the Canadian case. The same interaction pattern applies to communicating policy matters to elected politicians, but the majority of Czech managers do not engage in such contact. The limited bureaucratic interaction further applies country-wise and position-wise when communicating with the general public. This is done on a yearly basis by a majority of Canadian bureaucrats as well as more than one third of Czech directors. Here again, Czech managers stand out: almost one half never communicate with the wider public (see Table 3).

Sources of information and analytical methods used for policy work

The data suggest that Canadian directors and managers use external information more than Czech counterparts. This applies to information sources coming from official governmental sources, external policy advice (professional advice, evaluations, briefing papers), and society at large (information from industry and NGOs). One possible explanation is that Canadian directors and managers tend to be involved in more complex tasks requiring evidence-based solutions and have more frequent access to a variety of information sources and multiple stakeholder expertise. In comparison, Czech directors and managers may engaged in more rudimentary policy work for which internalized personal experience is sufficient (see Table 4).

Finally, the survey sample shows a proclivity for relying on similar work methods regardless of country. The most frequent methods as applied by directors and managers in both countries are brainstorming, cost-benefit analysis, and scenario-building. However, the difference lies in use of methods by position: on average, twice as many Canadian directors and managers than Czech ones make use of cost-benefit analysis and scenario-building, and nearly the same ratio holds for brainstorming.

Discussion

The foregoing helps us to profile Canadian and Czech regional policy directors and managers. Canadian directors and managers are mostly university-educated women over 40 years of age; they tend to perform similar work activities and tasks. In comparison, Czech directors and managers consist of two more distinctive groups: directors are mostly men over 50, managers are mainly women under 30 years of age. That both have university degrees suggests that Czech managers are university graduates with lower practical experience. Their arrival into managerial positions might reflect strategies to diversify and strengthen human resource capacities to manage agendas or might be associated with project-based funding aimed at reducing regional disparities and provided by European Union Structural Funds (Ferry and Mcmaster 2005; Baun and Marek 2006). Such day-to-day management of EU projects may require formal education in management and language proficiency that the older generations of Czech bureaucrats could not provide.

Aside from position-related variations pertinent especially to Czech policy bureaucrats, comparative analysis further reveals Canadian directors and managers are far more likely to use research and evaluation. This suggests that the two groups of Canadian regional bureaucrats tend to perform more analytically complex tasks, supported by Canadian directors and managers making more use of external information sources and several work methods. In comparison, Czech directors tend to primarily rely on their own professional experience in carrying out the work activities that otherwise bear some similarity to those performed by the Canadian sample. Somewhat to the contrary, young Czech managers seem to make up a distinct group untouched by analytical assignments but involved in communication and management tasks to put project agendas into effect.

These profiles of the four groups of bureaucrats and their differences lead us back to the formulated hypotheses. From the above profiles, we see some position-related differences in age and gender (HI confirmed for directors, HI rejected for managers) as well as in previous work experience (H2 confirmed). The Canadian and Czech bureaucrats further differ in work tasks (H3 rejected) as well as, especially in the case of Czech managers, in work activities (H4 confirmed). The much higher extent of the Canadian bureaucrats' utilisation of analytical methods, external information, research and evaluation confirms the relevant hypotheses on the policy analysis grounding of Canadian regional policy work (H5, H6 confirmed).

The profiles of Canadian directors and managers seem to correspond to a combination of the rational-technical style of taking up more complex analyses, requiring some evaluation and application of research results, and the client-oriented advisory-interactive style of interest mediation. On the other hand, Czech managers tend to resemble process-generalists, having little expert knowledge in a given field but possessing process expertise on how to handle their responsibilities. Finally, Czech directors appear to adopt a mix of analytical rationality with limited use of research and issue activism where they use internalised and normative standpoints, derived from years of experience, to address policy problems. Overall, these findings point to a wider set of policy styles in use by Canadian and Czech regional bureaucrats than originally predicted (H7 rejected), with the position-distinct characteristics for some groups (especially Czech managers) outweighed by cross-country differences (H8 confirmed).

Concluding reflections

This paper compared the policy work of professional bureaucrats in sub-national public bureaucracies in Canada and the Czech Republic. It identified the demographic characteristics of regional directors and managers, their tasks and activities, and their analytical styles and showed that directors and managers are involved in policy-making in both countries. However, Canadian directors and managers show much more intensive professional engagement in the application of research and evaluation for analytical purposes than Czech counterparts, and they use more external information. This is likely due to Canadians undertaking of more complex tasks requiring research, evaluation and more information from various stakeholders (industries, NGOs, consultancies) for producing evidence-based solutions. In comparison, Czech managers present a case of policy workers firmly engaged in project management with other activities considered peripheral. This "managerial seclusion," however, does not fit the profile of Czech directors as at least some of them have to apply some analytical methods in order to advise strategically, design policies and manage the whole policy process. Czech regional directors thus tend to perform tasks similar in nature to the Canadian ones but with a greater reliance on personal experience and routine approaches.

Given the overall good performance of Czech regional governments (Charron, Dijkstra, and Lapuente 2014), it seems that despite less frequent policy research and analysis/evaluation activities of Czech directors and managers, they have higher involvement in consultations and communication; that is, securing concerted action in policy-making and implementation. Moreover, activities requiring a higher level of research and analytical capacities are often outsourced by regional authorities. We can also expect a lower demand for policy analysis and advice from sub-national governments with limited discretionary power in unitary states compared to the broader jurisdiction of provinces and territories in federal Canada.

The profiles of Canadian and Czech regional bureaucrats point to a variety of policy styles, ranging from a combination of rational-technical and advisory-interactive (Canadian directors and managers) to process expertise (Czech managers) to a combination of analytical rationality and issue activism (Czech directors). Evidence about the combined policy style of Canadian directors and managers corroborates earlier assumptions on the nature and historical development of sub-national policy work in Canada (see also Howlett and Lindquist 2004; Howlett 2009a). On the other hand, the Czech situation shows more distinct position-related variations with Czech managers as a "new breed" becoming part of the regional administrative structures with the country's EU accession in the early 2000s. The differences between Canadian and Czech sub-national policy work styles may be partly ascribed to divergent administrative traditions and trajectories: an older Canadian tradition of applying policy analysis methods from the late 1960s "lives on" although squeezed by cutbacks and a New Public Management emphasis and performance-driven governments; the Czech tradition seems to be bogged down between traditional and inward (communist-like) routinization of administrative practice and new EU-driven managerialism. This ambiguity of the Czech regional policy work, displaying little rigorous research and evaluation along with an inward orientation of administrative practices, does not warrant its attribution to the rational or post-modern styles of policy work noted by Anglo-American authors (Lindquist 1993; Radin 2000; Dobuzinskis, Laycock, and Howlett 2007).

Our enquiry has three implications for further research. First, investigating policy style combinations contingent on specific jurisdictional and work positions is worthy and might be applied to other positions. Second, such investigations might cast light on the connection between work profiles and the advisory-interactive style for which we found little evidence in our sample. Finally, it would be useful to explore how in-house policy analytical capacities of (public) bureaucracies are compensated by external outsourcing (see also, Lindquist and Desveaux 1998; Vesely 2012). Researching any of these themes on an empirical basis is likely to bring fresh insights into the complex world of policy work and policy bureaucrats.

References

Bakvis, Herman. 2000. "Rebuilding policy capacity in the era of the fiscal dividend: A report from Canada." Governance 13 (1): 71-103.

Baun, Michael, and Dan Marek. 2006. "Regional policy and decentralization in the Czech Republic." Regional & Federal Studies 16 (4): 409-28.

Brooks, Stephen. 2007. "The policy analysis profession in Canada." In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. Laurent Dobuzinskis, David H. Laycock, and Michael Howlett. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 28-65.

Brusis, Martin. 2005. "The instrumental use of European Union conditionality: Regionalization in the Czech Republic and Slovakia." East European Politics & Societies 19 (2): 291-316.

Bryson, Phillip J., and Gary C. Cornia. 2004. "Public sector transition in post-communist economies: The struggle for fiscal decentralisation in the Czech and Slovak Republics." Post-Communist Economies 16 (3): 265-83.

Charron, Nicholas, Lewis Dijkstra, and Victor Lapuente. 2014. "Regional governance matters: Quality of government within European Union member states." Regional Studies 48 (1): 68-90.

Colebatch, Hal. 2005. "Policy analysis, policy practice and political science." Australian Journal of Public Administration 64 (3): 14-23.

--. 2006a. The Work of Policy: An International Survey. Oxford: Lexington Books.

--. 2006b. "What work makes policy?" Policy Sciences 39 (4): 309-21.

Colebatch, Hal, Robert Hoppe, and Mirko Noordegraaf, eds. 2010. Working for Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press.

Dobuzinskis, Laurent, David H. Laycock, and Michael Howlett. 2007. Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art. University of Toronto Press.

Dwivedi, Onkar, and John Halligan. 2003. "The Canadian Public Service: Balancing Values and Management." In Civil Service Systems in Anglo-American Countries, edited by John Halligan, 148-73. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Edwards, Lindy. 2009. "Testing the discourse of declining policy capacity: Rail policy and the department of transport." Australian Journal of Public Administration 68 (3): 288-302.

Evans, Bryan M., and Amost Vesely. 2014. "Contemporary policy work in subnational governments and NGOs: Comparing evidence from Australia, Canada and the Czech Republic." Policy and Society 33 (2): 77-87.

Evans, Bryan M., and Adam Wellstead. 2013. "Policy dialogue and engagement between non-governmental organizations and government: A survey of processes and instruments of Canadian policy workers." Central European Journal of Public Policy 7 (1): 60-87.

Feldman, Martha S. 1989. Order Without Design: Information Production and Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ferry, Martin, and Irene Mcmaster. 2005. "Implementing structural funds in Polish and Czech regions: Convergence, variation, empowerment?" Regional & Federal Studies 15 (1): 19-39.

Halligan, John. 1995. "Policy advice and the public sector." In Governance in a Changing Environment, edited by B. Guy Peters and J. Donald Savoie. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 138-72.

Halligan, John. 2003. "Anglo-American civil service: An overview." In Civil Service Systems in Anglo-American Countries, edited by John Halligan. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1-9.

Hejzlarova, Eva M. 2010. "Policy analysis in the Czech Republic: Positivist or postpositivist?" Central European Journal of Public Policy 4 (2): 88-107.

Hogwood, Brian W., and Lewis A. Gunn. 1984. Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford University Press.

Hollander, Marcus J., and Michael J. Prince. 1993. "Analytical units in federal and provincial governments: Origins, functions and suggestions for effectiveness." Canadian Public Administration 36 (2): 190-224.

Howlett, Michael. 2002. "Understanding national administrative styles and their impact upon administrative reform: A neo-institutional model and analysis." Policy and Society 21 (1): 1-24.

--. 2003. "Administrative styles and the limits of administrative reform: A neo institutional analysis of administrative culture." Canadian Public Administration 46 (4): 471-94.

--. 2008. "Enhanced policy analytical capacity as a prerequisite for effective evidence based policy-making: Theory, concepts and lessons from the Canadian case." International Research Symposium on Public Management XII, Brisbane.

--. 2009a. "A profile of B.C. provincial policy analysts: Trouble-shooters or planners?" Canadian Political Science Review 3 (3): 50-68.

--. 2009b. "Policy advice in multi-level governance systems: Sub-national policy policy analysts and analysis." International Review of Public Administration 13 (3): 1-16.

--. 2011. "Public managers as the missing variable in policy studies: An empirical investigation using Canadian data." Review of Policy Research 28 (3): 247-63.

Howlett, Michael, and Evert Lindquist. 2004. "Policy analysis and governance: Analytical and policy styles in Canada." Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 6 (3): 225-49.

Howlett, Michael, and Andrea Migone. 2013. "Policy advice through the market: The role of external consultants in contemporary policy advisory systems." Policy and Society 32 (3): 241-54.

Howlett, Michael, and Joshua Newman. 2010. "Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-making in multilevel governance systems." Policy and Society 29 (2): 123-36.

Howlett, Michael, Seek L. Tan, Andrea Migone, Adam Wellstead, and Bryan M. Evans. 2014. "The distribution of analytical techniques in policy advisory systems: Policy formulation and the tools of policy appraisal." Public Policy and Administration 29 (4): 271-291.

Howlett, Michael, and Richard M. Walker. 2012. "Public managers in the policy process: More evidence on the missing variable?" Policy Studies Journal 40 (2): 211-33.

Howlett, Michael, and Adam M. Wellstead. 2011. "Policy analysts in the bureaucracy revisited: The nature of professional policy work in contemporary government." Politics & Policy 39 (4): 613-33.

Kuhlmann, Sabine, and Jorg Bogumil. 2007. "Public service systems at sub-national and local levels of government: A British-German-French comparison." In The Civil Service in the 21st Century: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Jos C. N. Raadschelders, Theo A. J. Toonen, and Frits M. Van der Meer. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 137-51.

Lindquist, Evert A. 1993. "Postmodern politics and policy sciences." Optimum: The Journal of Public Sector Management 24 (1): 42-50.

Lindquist, Evert A., and James Desveaux. 1998. Recruitment and Policy Capacity in Government. Ottawa: Public Policy Forum.

Mayer, Igor S., C. Els van Daalen, and Pieter W.G. Bots. 2004. "Perspectives on policy analyses: A framework for understanding and design." International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 4 (2): 169-91.

Meier, Kenneth J. 2009. "Policy theory, policy theory everywhere: Ravings of a deranged policy scholar." Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 5-11.

Meltsner, Arnold J. 1975. "Bureaucratic policy analysts." Policy Analysis 1 (1): 115-131.

--. 1976. Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Meyer-Sahling, Jan-Hinrik. 2009. "Sustainability of civil service reforms in Central and Eastern Europe five years after EU accession." SIGMA Papers 44.

--. 2011. "The durability of EU civil service policy in Central and Eastern Europe after accession." Governance 24 (2): 231-60.

Novotny, Vilem. 2012. Vyvoj ceskeho Studia Verejnych Politik v Evropskem Kontextu [The Development of the Czech Study of Public Policy in the European Context], Praha: Karolinum Press.

Novotny, Vilem, and Eva M. Hejzlarova. 2011. "Lesk a Bida ceske Analyzy Verejnych Politik: Vyvoj a Aktualni Stav Z Pohledu Vnejsich Vlivu [Splendors and Miseries of Czech Policy Analysis: Its State and Development in the Perspective of External Influences]." Politologicka Revue 17 (1): 3-32.

Page, Edward C. 2007. "Middle level bureaucrats: Policy, discretion and control." In Middle Level Bureaucrats: Policy, Discretion and Control, edited by Jos C.N. Raadschelders, Theo A.J. Toonen, and Frits M. Van der Meer. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 152-68.

--. 2009. "Their word is law. Parliamentary counsel and policy making." Public Law, 671-874.

--. 2010. "Bureaucrats and expertise: Elucidating a problematic relationship in three tableaux and six jurisdictions." Sociologie Du Travail 52 (2): 255-73.

Page, Edward C, and Bill Jenkins. 2005. Policy Bureaucracy: Governing with a Cast of Thousands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Painter, Martin, and Jon Pierre. 2005. Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.

Palumbo, Dennis James, and Donald J. Calista. 1990. Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening Up the Black Box. Greenwood Press.

Patton, Carl V., and David S. Sawicki. 1993. Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Peters, Guy B. 2003. "Administrative traditions and the Anglo-American democracies." In Civil Service Systems in Anglo-American Countries, edited by John Halligan. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 10-26.

Potucek, Martin. 2007. "Czech public policy as a scientific discipline and object of research." Central European Journal of Public Policy 1 (1): 102-21.

Prince, Michael J. 2007. "Soft craft, hard choices, altered context: Reflections on 25 years of policy advice in Canada." In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, edited by Laurent Dobuzinskis, David H. Laycock, and Michael Howlett. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 95-106.

Prince, Michael J., and John A. Chenier. 1980. "The rise and fall of policy planning and research units: Organizational perspective." Canadian Public Administration 23 (4): 519-41.

Radin, Beryl. 2000. Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

--. 2013. "Policy analysis reaches mid life." Central European Journal of Public Policy 7 (1): 8-27.

Sabatier, Paul A. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press.

Tao, Jill. 2006. "Policy work at the local level in the United State: Whispers of rationality." In The Work of Policy: An International Survey, edited by Hal Colebatch. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 181-98.

Tenbensel, Tim. 2006. "Policy knowledge for policy work." In The Work of Policy: An International Survey, edited by Hal Colebatch. Oxford: Lexington Books, pp. 199-216.

Tiernan, Anne. 2011. "Advising Australian federal governments: Assessing the evolving capacity and role of the Australian public service." Australian Journal of Public Administration 70 (4): 335-46.

Verheijen, Tony. 2001. Politico-Administrative Relations: Who Rules? NISPAcee.

Vesely, Arnost. 2012. "Policy advisory system in the Czech Republic: From state monopoly to hollowing out?" In 22nd World Congress of Political Science. Madrid.

--. 2013a. "Externalization of policy advice: Theory, methodology and evidence." Policy and Society 32 (3): 199-209.

--. 2013b. "Conducting large-N surveys on policy work in bureaucracies: Some Methodological Challenges and Implications from the Czech Republic." Central European Journal of Public Policy 7 (2): 88-113.

Vesely, Arnost, Martin Nekola, and Eva M. Hejzlarova, eds. 2016. Policy Analysis in the Czech Republic. International Library of Policy Analysis Series. Bristol: Policy Press.

Vesely, Arnost, Adam Wellstead, and Bryan M. Evans. 2014. "Comparing sub-national policy workers in Canada and the Czech Republic: Who are they, what they do, and why it matters?" Policy and Society 33 (2): 103-15.

Wellstead, Adam M., and Richard C. Stedman. 2010. "Policy capacity and incapacity in Canada's federal government." Public Management Review 12 (6): 893-910.

Wellstead, Adam M., Richard C. Stedman, and Evert A. Lindquist. 2009. "The nature of regional policy work in Canada's federal public service." Canadian Political Science Review 3 (1): 1-23.

Martin Nekola is a Senior Research Fellow at the Faculty of Social Sciences at Charles University in Prague, the Czech Republic. Jan Kohoutek is a Research Associate at the Faculty of Social Sciences at Charles University in Prague, the Czech Republic. The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Charles University Research Development Schemes, Program P17--Sciences of Society, Politics, and Media under the Challenge of the Times. The authors thank three anonymous reviewers for useful comments, Michael Howlett for providing the dataset on Canadian policy workers, and Evert Lindquist for editorial advice.

Table 1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics
of Regional Directors and Managers

                                  Directors

Position                       CAN         CZE
Country                      (n = 162)   (n = 157)

Gender      Male                43%         52%
            Female              57%         48%
            Total              100%        100%

Age         <30                 4%          5%
            31-40               20%         24%
            41-50               36%         30%
            51-60               33%         38%
            >60                 7%          3%
            Total              100%        100%

Education   University          96%         96%
              graduate/
              professional
              degree
            Other               4%          4%
            Total              100%        100%

                                  Managers

Position                       CAN         CZE
Country                      (n = 267)   (n = 91)

Gender      Male                46%         32%
            Female              54%         68%
            Total              100%        100%

Age         <30                 12%         41%
            31-40               27%         39%
            41-50               34%         15%
            51-60               23%         6%
            >60                 4%          0%
            Total              100%        100%

Education   University          93%         97%
              graduate/
              professional
              degree
            Other               7%          3%
            Total              100%        100%

Note: Differences in both gender and age of managers are
statistically significant (Chi-Square, p < 0.05, p < 0.01
respectively). Other differences are not statistically
significant.

Table 2. Core Policy Work Activities

                                      Directors

                             CAN          CZE

                          Mean   SD    Mean   SD     CAN-CZE

Appraise policy           3.9    0.9   3.8    1.3    0.0
  options
Collect policy-related    4.1    0.9   3.2    1.2    0.9 **
  data or information
Conduct policy-related    3.8    1.1   1.6    0.8    2.1 **
  research
Identify policy issues    4.2    0.8   3.7    1.3    0.4 **
Identify policy options   4.0    0.8   3.8    1.3    0.2
Implement or deliver      3.3    1.3   3.4    1.5   -0.1
  policies or programs
Evaluate policy results   3.1    1.1   2.4    0.9    0.7 **
  and outcomes
Evaluate policy           3.0    1.0   2.3    0.9    0.8 **
  processes and
  procedures

                                      Managers

                             CAN          CZE

                          Mean   SD    Mean   SD    CAN-CZE

Appraise policy           3.7    1.0   3.8    1.5   -0.1
  options
Collect policy-related    4.0    1.0   3.6    1.6    0.4 **
  data or information
Conduct policy-related    3.7    1.0   1.5    0.9    2.2 **
  research
Identify policy issues    4.0    0.9   3.7    1.5    0.3 **
Identify policy options   3.8    0.9   3.9    1.5   -0.1
Implement or deliver      3.2    1.4   3.5    1.6   -0.3
  policies or programs
Evaluate policy results   2.9    1.1   2.1    1.0    0.9 **
  and outcomes
Evaluate policy           3.0    1.1   1.8    0.9    1.2 **
  processes and
  procedures

Note: Respondents were asked "How often are you involved in the
following types of policy-related work?" using the scale 1 = never,
2 = yearly, 3 = quarterly, 4 = monthly, 5 = weekly, 6 = daily.

Differences marked by asterisks are statistically significant
(* for p < 0.05; ** for p < 0.01).

Table 3. Other Policy Work Activities

                                               Directors

                                      CAN          CZE

                                    Mean   SD    Mean   SD    CAN-CZE

Negotiate with central agencies     3.0    1.1   2.5    0.8    0.6 **
  on policy matters
Consult with the public on policy   2.1    0.8   2.9    1.5   -0.7 **
  matters
Consult with stakeholders on        2.9    0.8   3.1    1.2   -0.2 *
  policy matters
Prepare reports, briefs or          4.0    0.8   3.8    1.2    0.2
  presentations for decision-
  makers on policy matters
Consult with decision-makers on     3.9    0.9   3.4    1.4    0.5 **
  policy matters
Brief lower or midlevel policy      3.6    1.0   4.2    1.4   -0.6 **
  managers
Brief high-level decision-makers    3.5    1.0   4.0    1.2   -0.5 **

                                               Managers

                                      CAN          CZE

                                    Mean   SD    Mean   SD    CAN-CZE

Negotiate with central agencies     2.8    1.1   2.5    1.2    0.3 *
  on policy matters
Consult with the public on policy   2.0    0.9   2.3    1.6   -0.3
  matters
Consult with stakeholders on        2.9    0.9   2.8    1.4    0.1
  policy matters
Prepare reports, briefs or          3.8    0.9   2.9    1.1    0.9 **
  presentations for decision-
  makers on policy matters
Consult with decision-makers on     3.5    1.0   2.8    1.4    0.8 **
  policy matters
Brief lower or midlevel policy      3.5    1.1   4.4    1.4   -0.8 **
  managers
Brief high-level decision-makers    3.1    1.0   2.8    1.4    0.3 *

Note: Respondents were asked "How often are you involved in the
following types of policy-related work?" using the scale 1 = never,
2 = yearly, 3 = quarterly, 4 = monthly, 5 = weekly, 6 = daily.

Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences.

Table 4. Different Sources of Policy-Relevant Information

                                                Directors   Managers

Area           Sources of information           CAN   CZE   CAN   CZE

Science,       Academic research (CAN)/         66%   49%   79%   22%
academia       Specialized domestic or
               foreign literature and
               scientific journals (CZE)

Government     Information from other govern-   89%   73%   85%   67%
               ments (CAN)/Consultations with
               colleagues from other public
               administration departments or
               organizations (CZE)

               Budget data, other financial     80%   69%   74%   53%
               indicators

External       Professional advice              82%   8%    82%   7%
advice
               Consultants' reports (CAN)/      84%   45%   80%   45%
               Consultations with domestic
               or foreign experts (CZE)

               Evaluation reports, briefing     63%   59%   57%   43%
               papers

Society,       Information from industry/com-   75%   17%   67%   11%
stakeholders   mercial sphere representatives

               Information from non-profit      74%   13%   72%   17%
               organizations

Personal       Personal experience              78%   92%   80%   88%

Note: If the question wording differed for Canadian and Czech
sources of information, both options are stated with CAN or CZE
abbreviations respectively. The table presents the share of
"Frequently" to "Always" answers in the CAN case and "Often" and
"Very often" in the CZE case.