Thanks for sharing this! I was a little surprised by how (from what I hear) the first two sections seem like they’d quite accurately describe the U.S. Congress, if you just switched out EU-specific labels for U.S.-specific labels. (In particular, the two kinds of advisory roles and the fact that advisors can mainly just persuade others on issues for which there isn’t a party line seem similar.)
Really? From what I have heard (from an advisor in the EP), the U.S. Congress doesn’t have group advisors. Instead, the research service plays a more important role. I was told that the Secretary Generale of the European Parliament wants the EP to be the same, which is why the EP research service was founded.
My understanding is that the U.S. Congress has “committee staffers” who (as discussed e.g. here) advise/assist with a party’s work on a committee. This seemed similar to me to your description of group advisers, although maybe I misunderstood.
Maybe U.S. Congress committee staffers play similar roles as EP group advisers individually, but smaller roles collectively when it comes to researching policy & legislative issues?
That’s true about the staff of some agencies that support Congress, but presumably because of their greater number (and influence?), “Congressional staffer” in a U.S. context usually refers to partisan staff, at least as I’ve heard it used. (There’s ~5x [edit: actually, 3x is more accurate—the earlier estimate mistakenly included partisan staff who are non-DC-based] more partisan advisors and assistants than nonpartisan research staff, and I’d be surprised if the latter did negotiation or led work on some piece of legislation. I compare “advisors and assistants” to “research staff” because nonpartisan non-research staff work at places like the Government Printing Office, which I’d guess aren’t very influential.)
Thanks for sharing this! I was a little surprised by how (from what I hear) the first two sections seem like they’d quite accurately describe the U.S. Congress, if you just switched out EU-specific labels for U.S.-specific labels. (In particular, the two kinds of advisory roles and the fact that advisors can mainly just persuade others on issues for which there isn’t a party line seem similar.)
Really? From what I have heard (from an advisor in the EP), the U.S. Congress doesn’t have group advisors. Instead, the research service plays a more important role. I was told that the Secretary Generale of the European Parliament wants the EP to be the same, which is why the EP research service was founded.
My understanding is that the U.S. Congress has “committee staffers” who (as discussed e.g. here) advise/assist with a party’s work on a committee. This seemed similar to me to your description of group advisers, although maybe I misunderstood.
Maybe U.S. Congress committee staffers play similar roles as EP group advisers individually, but smaller roles collectively when it comes to researching policy & legislative issues?
What I was told is that U.S. Congress staff don’t work for one party or the other but for both, but that might have been wrong.
That’s true about the staff of some agencies that support Congress, but presumably because of their greater number (and influence?), “Congressional staffer” in a U.S. context usually refers to partisan staff, at least as I’ve heard it used. (There’s ~5x [edit: actually, 3x is more accurate—the earlier estimate mistakenly included partisan staff who are non-DC-based] more partisan advisors and assistants than nonpartisan research staff, and I’d be surprised if the latter did negotiation or led work on some piece of legislation. I compare “advisors and assistants” to “research staff” because nonpartisan non-research staff work at places like the Government Printing Office, which I’d guess aren’t very influential.)
In this case, it’s basically like in the EP.