Article 5 - Mulgan. Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice

7 important questions on Article 5 - Mulgan. Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice

What is politicization of advice

Public servants are expected to maintain at a distance from the concerns of their political masters, erosion of such distance, crossing a line between responsiveness to the elected government and excessive involvement in the government

Objectivity and policy advice

- Some theorists deny the possibility of objectivity, because all advice takes place within a political context

-But another argument is that objectivity is taken for granted in everyday discourse, and that the idea of misrepresenting information for partisan purposes makes sense within that discourse
- Standards of objectivity and impartiality can lack independent validity
- Sexing up evidence: manipulating evidence for misleading effects, or ‘spin’

Objectivity of public service advice can be an issue in 2 arenas:

Internal to the executive – relationship between government and their officials
- Need for accurate information as basis for decision making
- Policy-making needs to be based on the best available evidence

Public – relationship between government and its citizens
- Citizens have right to expect that information provided by their leaders is factually correct
- Information produced by government advisers reaches the public
- Accuracy of the public record is a foundation of democratic dialogue
  • Higher grades + faster learning
  • Never study anything twice
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Discover Study Smart

Political masters and responsibility

Ministers disown responsibility by referring to their advisers in public statements
- E.g. ‘My department advises me that’
-  A reason is less responsibility in case information turns out to be incorrect
- Second reason is to increase reliability of the information, minister’s statements have higher credibility if they come from non-partisan officials

Who takes responsibility for spin?

- Initiative for distorting public service advice can come directly from politicians, who pressure their officials, but difficult to discover

-When public servants distort evidence, it’s often unclear whether they do it because of indirect pressure from politicians or voluntarily (because of personal partisan support)

- Indirect pressure is hard to detect but just as effective
- A major incentive for political distortion is the decision to make the reports publicly available

-There is greater openness of government information now, so officials face greater pressures not to embarrass politicians with facts that will undermine them

Freedom of information and politicization

Nowadays more public service advice is expected to be made public
- Puts pressure on governments to support their policies by referencing to official research
- Also puts pressures on officials collecting evidence


If ministers can’t keep awkward information secret, they will aim to manipulate information to their advantage


Public servants are subject to conflicting ethical pressures arising from 2 public service principles:
- Obliged to provide ministers with unbiased and objective information
- Have to avoid embarrassing their ministers in public

How to guarantee unbiased information

- providing those who create information with a degree of institutional independence
- Some areas of public data collection can be isolated from political interferences, e.g. quantitative information

Government departments are under pressure to make use of spin if they suspect their advice will be made public, unless:
- Institutional independence of data collectors
- Routinized data collection


The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo