A Comparative Analysis of Expert Advisors’ Role Perceptions in Policymaking: The Case of Hong Kong, China

Abstract

Using the Q method with a Hong Kong dataset, this paper identifies four types of expert advisors in a hybrid regime. These four types have shared and distinct preferences for managing tensions between scientific knowledge and value/interests, between scientific and layperson’ knowledge, and the different preferences of policymakers, citizens, and experts. Their degrees of involvement in policymaking and varied strategies to influence policymaking reflect the features of the hybrid regime. The findings provide useful lessons for expert advisors to manage tensions between science and politics over contested issues.

Keywords:

• expert advisors
• comparative role perceptions
• hybrid regime
• Q method
• policymaking

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for the funding support of the Hong Kong Research Grant Council [Project ID: 24613715] and the anonymous reviewers’ helpful suggestions.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. At present only 40 of 70 legislators are popularly elected, and the remaining 30 legislators are elected by much smaller constituencies (https://www.voterregistration.gov.hk/eng/statistic2018.html).

2. Basic Law, Article 62 and 73 (https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_4.html).

3. Electoral Affairs Commission. Report on the 2017 Chief Executive Election (https://www.eac.hk/pdf/chief/en/2017_CE_Report/2017ce_full_report.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2019).

4. Eight university professors were appointed as principal officials from 2002 to 2018.

5. Over 80% of R&D expenditure by the higher education sector in Hong Kong, which produces both basic and applied knowledge for policy research, was funded by the government, amounting to 8,486 million HKD in 2016. Other government sector funding schemes for R&D amounted to 914 million HKD (Task Force on Review of Research Policy and Funding, 2018, https://www.ugc.edu.hk/doc/eng/ugc/publication/report/report20180606/invitation.pdf).

6. Interview 17LD, April 27, 2016. Only 5 of 30 non-governmental think tanks in Hong Kong were ranked as among the most influential regionally and internationally, according to the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report (https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=think_tanks). Only two of the five top think tanks (Civic Exchange and Lion Rock Institute) published their revenue in 2016, which amounted to 9.24 million HKD and 1.719 million HKD, respectively. See also “Five Hong Kong think tanks make it to list of region’s top 90”, South China Morning Post, February 27, 2017 (https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/2074127/five-hong-kong-think-tanks-make-it-list-regions).

7. When we collected interview data for this study, more than 71% of 717 respondents perceived Hong Kong’s political conflict to be serious (The Chinese University of Hong Kong, March 2016).

8. In the 2001 Asian Barometer Survey conducted in Hong Kong, 64.5% of respondents somewhat disagreed and 9.2% strongly disagreed with the statement “we should get rid of parliament and elections and have the experts decide everything”. In the 2012 Asian Barometer Survey, 44.2% of the respondents disagreed and 37.9% strongly disagreed with a similar statement (http://www.asianbarometer.org/intro).

9. Although government departments and policy bureaus focus on different aspects of policy-related work, the type of commissioned policy research is not necessarily correlated with the type of commissioning government agency. In one case, a policy research study was commissioned by the department and the funding was approved by the policy bureau (Interview 12HZ, April 5, 2016; Interview 4ZY, March 11, 2016).

10. If the number of statements were too large, it would be too time-consuming and difficult for the participants to sort the statements.

11. Each grid of Appendix I provides the serial number of each statement and the total number of statements. The wordings of the statements are provided in Appendix II.

12. These four types concern the meanings of the terms (definitive), questions of fact (designative), the worth of something that does or could exist (evaluative), and something that should or should not exist (advocative).

13. The PCA showed that eight factors had eigenvalues above 1.00. The eight-factor solution (PCA and varimax rotation) accounted for 71% of the overall variance, but had only ten significantly loading Q sorts. We then compared seven-factor, six-factor, five-factor, and four-factor solutions, and decided to extract four factors, because the solution explained 50% of the overall variance, and had 22 significantly loading Q sorts, which was more than other solutions (see Watts and Stenner 2012, pp. 197–199).

14. S8, 19, 37, 43, and 47 did not distinguish between any pairs of factors. All of these statements were non-significant at P > 0.01. Statements 37, 43, and 47 were also non-significant at P > 0.05. The wordings of these statements and those quoted in the rest of the paper can be found in Appendix II.

15. The distinguishing statements included S18, S33, S27, S35, S34, S48, S20, and S3, significant at P < 0.01; and S32, S15, S36, and S4, significant at P < 0.05.

16. Interview 11LJ, March 30, 2016.

17. Interview 18XY, April 28, 2016.

18. Interview 9HP, March 24, 2016.

19. For Type II experts, the distinguishing statements included S36, S20, S25, S21, S23, S32, S9, and S30, significant at P < 0.01; and S27, S49, and S2, significant at P < 0.05.

20. Interview 4ZY, March 11, 2016.

21. Interview 13HY, April 6, 2016.

22. Interview 16LJ, April 23, 2016.

23. Interview 4ZY, March 11, 2016.

24. The distinguishing statements included S7, S3, S4, S40, S39, S18, and S44, significant at P < 0.01; S42 and S28, significant at P < 0.05.

25. This was confirmed by their recognition of citizens’ contribution to policy-relevant knowledge (S12, +3; S29, +1) and their appreciation that good policy solutions should fulfill societal needs. Interview 6MJ, March 15, 2016; Interview 3ZT, March 7, 2016.

26. They were aware of the contested values and political division involved in many issues (S3, +4; S18, −2).

27. Some were aware that their advice was expected to justify the government’s predetermined position. Interview 6MJ, March 15, 2016. Interview 5LC, March 14, 2016.

28. Interview 6MJ, March 15, 2016.

29. Interview 3ZT, March 7, 2016.

30. The distinguishing statements included S26, S11, S34, S30, S28, S16, S21, S22, S45, significant at P < 0.01; and S14, S24, S31, S49, and S2, significant at P < 0.05.

31. Interview 24NX, May 18, 2016; Interview 2ZS, March 4, 2016; Interview 19FY, May 2, 2016.

32. Interview 24NX, 2ZS and 19FY.

33. Interview 1FZ, 2ZS, 19FY and 24 NX.

34. Interview 2ZS, March 4, 2016.

35. Interview 2ZS, March 4, 2016.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council [ECS: 24613715].

Notes on contributors

Wei Li

Wei Li is Assistant Professor of the Department of Government and Public Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include politics–expertise dynamics in policy processes, state–society relations in welfare service provision and political–administrative relations in policymaking.