Resistant to Change? The European Commission and Expert Group Reform

Tracing scientisation in the EU Commission’s expert group system

“…the kind of policy-related expertise that is the result of coordination between different perspectives and interests, is likely to ensure compliance and reduce risks during implementation (Moffitt 2010, 883) and can be deemed particularly "socially embedded", "usable" and Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research "policy-relevant" (Haas 2004;Krick, Christensen and Holst 2019). This use of the expert group system reflects the Commission's limited in-house capacities that makes it extraordinarily dependent on external input as well as its exceptional need for intra-national coordination that stems from a unique necessity to adapt regulations to varying national legal, administrative and economic conditions (Metz 2013;Moodie 2016;Tørnblad 2018). To be sure, the "expertise" rhetoric adopted by the Commission also has the advantage of elevating the involved perspectives to a more neutral level, where they are less likely to be subject to scrutiny and open power struggles.…”

“…Expert groups are defined by the Commission as consultative bodies set up for the purpose of providing the Commission or its departments with advice and expertise on legislation and implementation (European Commission 2016b). They constitute a central organisational model of channelling external knowledge and policy advice from a range of different sources into the policy process Sverdrup 2008, 2011;Metz 2013;Moodie 2016). The Commission stresses its dependence on the "technical information" provided by these groups for developing efficient policy solutions (European Commission 2016c; see also Holst and Moodie 2015) and, by deeming all members of this advisory system "experts", irrespective of their organisational affiliation or professional training, it cultivates a particularly open approach to expertise.…”

Public deliberation and the fact of expertise: making experts accountable

“…A combination of internal drives and external pressures has thus provided the Commission with a relatively sophisticated regulatory framework (white papers, reports, communications, action plans, guidelines, etc. ), compared both to other international organizations and to EU member states (Moodie 2016). In our test, we shall focus on two of the expert accountability measures that we presented as central in our earlier outline, namely the requirement of investigatory procedures and merit controls and the requirement of cognitive diversity.…”

Governance by Hybrid Advisory Committees – A Hallmark of Social Democracy?

“…8 On the EU level, the two roles blur to a considerable extent and this is constitutive to the Commission's embracing approach to external sectoral and regional input. It can be linked to the Commission's exceptional need for intra-national coordination, and also to the often cited, yet contested, limited in-house resources of the Commission, as compared with national administrations (Metz, 2015;Moodie, 2016). In its relationship with these experts, the Commission stresses its need for the 'technical information' that stakeholders of different economic sectors and regions can provide in order to develop efficient policy solutions (European Commission, 2016b;Mazey & Richardson, 2001).…”

“…The notion of reliable expertise that this approach radiates is a broad one that spans all kinds of knowledge, experience, skill and information as legitimate sources (Metz, 2015;Moodie, 2016). Such expertise is likely to be very policy-relevant and usable but, given the lack of emphasis by the Commission on either independence of the individual experts, nor balance of viewpoints between them, it is less evidence-based and impartial.…”