Commissions appointed to examine and propose solutions to major policy problems play a vital role in policy formulation in the Nordic countries. Whereas existing accounts emphasize the corporatist and statist features of these bodies, this article investigates the changing role of academic knowledge within commissions. It does so through an empirical and normative analysis of Norwegian ad hoc advisory commissions appointed during the period 1967-2013. Based on a quantitative analysis of commission composition and citation practices, the article finds a growing reliance on academics and academic knowledge in commission work. Moreover, drawing on different reasonable conceptions of democratic legitimacy, the article argues that this trend is problematic mostly from approaches that regard democracy as aggregative, participatory, and intrinsically justified. From the perspectives of deliberative, elite, and epistemically justified democracy 'scientization' is less of a problem; it can even be recommendable.

The final chapter revisits the overarching argument about the varying power of economists within the state and its impact on the adoption of market-conforming policies. It points out that although economists often played a central role in tax reform processes, their influence depended crucially on the institutionalization of economic knowledge within the state in the postwar period. The chapter also considers what general lessons can be drawn from this analysis and discusses the future prospects for the role of economists in public policy making. Although many studies stress the resilience of economists as providers of market-oriented policies, this conclusion also points to some potential sources of change.

The role of experts and expert knowledge in policymaking has attracted growing public and academic attention. Scholarship on the topic has, however, remained deeply fragmented. It is discussed in separate silos of the literature – such as evidence-based policymaking, epistemic communities, and ideas and politics – and this has hindered sustained empirical study. This article argues that to stimulate more systematic research on the role that experts play in policymaking and develop a theoretical understanding of it, we need to foster dialogue across these literatures. To facilitate this, the article critically reviews how the role of expert knowledge in policymaking is conceptualised and explained in existing literatures, and offers suggestions about how to create common ground for future research by reframing research around the question of the influence of experts, and examining more closely the administrative underpinnings of expert influence.

Citizens’ perceptions of the performance of public service providers are a central concern for academics and policy-makers alike. A growing body of behavioral public administration research emphasizes the psychological biases that shape the perceptions of citizens. This article makes a novel contribution to this debate by examining the interaction between politically motivated bias and cognitive bias in citizens’ performance appraisals. It asks: Are citizens more negative about failing service delivery by public organizations than by private organizations, and if so, why? This is investigated through a survey experiment conducted among a representative sample of 2,623 Dutch citizens. The main finding of the study is that public organizations are punished more severely by citizens for negative performance information than private organizations, but this tendency is concentrated among citizens who have a preference for private service provision and varies across service areas. Our study shows not only that citizens’ processing of information about public services is subject to various forms of bias, but also that these biases interact in shaping how citizens view public organizations. Further investigating these complex dynamics is an important task for behavioral public administration scholars seeking to understand the specific implications of behavioral dynamics for the broad range of organizations providing public services.

The growing role of economic expertise in contemporary policy-making has received increasing scholarly attention. Yet, so far, this discussion has only been tenuously linked to relevant debates in public policy and administration, such as the work on policy advisory systems. The article attempts to bridge this gap by examining the changing reliance on academic economic knowledge within policy advisory bodies. It does so by analysing appointments and citation patterns in Norwegian advisory commissions in economic policy over the last 45 years. The analysis shows a marked increase in the number of academic economists appointed to commissions and in citations to economic literature. Moreover, it reveals an orientation towards the most prestigious outlets of the international economics discipline. This development can be interpreted as a scientization of policy advice in the economic field, that is, a growing reliance on academic expertise for analysis and arguments about public policy.