Science–policy interactions in Austrian, Dutch, and Swiss climate policy: a comparative account

Abstract

Scientific expertise plays an important role in the complex field of climate policy. Consequently, science-policy interactions have been institutionalized in many countries. However, science-policy arenas vary considerably across countries. Scholars mainly attribute these differences to the influence of specific political cultures. The literature has primarily compared science-policy arenas of countries with diverging political cultures, whereas comparisons of countries with similar political cultures are rare. The latter is especially true for neo-corporatist cultures. Against this background, we compare the climate science-policy arenas of three neo-corporatist countries, Austria, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Conceptually, we draw on the literature regarding politico-cultural imprints in science-policy arenas. We operationalize national science-policy arenas along four dimensions: the knowledge actors, the organizational formats, the styles of science-policy interactions, and their transparency and visibility. Overall, the three arenas reveal many similarities and much fewer differences. Most similarities correspond to neocorporatist patterns. However, some similarities consistently deviate from neocorporatist patterns. Interestingly, almost all differences between the countries match national variations of neo-corporatism. In light of these observations and the specific problem structure of climate policy, we develop research questions to investigate potential explanations for correspondence to and deviation from neocorporatist patterns. ARTICLE HISTORY

Institutions, Climate Change, and the Foundations of Long-term Policymaking

“…Similarly, I point to one causal mechanism -compensation -that links one feature of corporatism -concertation -to higher levels of climate policy investment. Doing so, theoretically situates previous findings that highlight the role of peak associations and corporatist bargaining in climate and environmental policymaking (Brand & Pawloff, 2014;Hatch, 1995;Hermann et al, 2016;Meckling & Nahm, 2018;Midttun & Hagen, 1997;Scruggs, 2003).…”

Exploring Science–Policy Interactions in a Technical Policy Field: Climate Change and Flood Risk Management in Austria, Southern Germany, and Switzerland

“…These divergent patterns between countries are notable in various respects: On empirical grounds, it is interesting to see that even though the expert communities of the three regions regularly exchange views and experiences, we observe convergence neither on the level of recommended policy instruments nor on the level of advisory styles. With regards to the latter, the comparative science-policy literature would have made us expect that the three regions, because they share a similar neo-corporatist policy culture, would show similar patterns of interaction between science and policy-making [42,[133][134][135]. Similarities can, for sure, be seen with regard to knowledge actors and organizational formats (see Table 1), however, not for the way scientists wriggle into politics.…”

“…Recently, this "two-communities" model has given place to a more differentiated picture: Science-policy studies indicate that sectoral arenas are frequently marked by a great variety of "knowledge actors"-beyond the simple binary classification between "scientist" and "policy-maker"; often with one and the same actors taking different roles depending on the context. This is also reflected in different models of organizational integration, where especially in neo-corporatist policy cultures, like the Netherlands or the German-speaking countries, one often finds "mixed" advisory bodies in which policy-makers, administrative officials, interest group representatives, and scientists sit side-by-side without a clear separation of roles [41,42]. Before this background, we ask the following questions: Who are the main "knowledge actors" in the policy domain of flood risk governance?…”

The social and scientific values that shape national climate scenarios: a comparison of the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK

“…Inclusion of the political, scientific, public and private minorities is common. It has been argued that compromises can be found easier through a closed nature of inclusion and a lack of transparency in how decisions are made, as actors are able to negotiate (and concede) without public scrutiny (Hermann et al 2016;Andeweg and Irwin 2005). Differences between Dutch and Swiss political cultures do exist, though.…”

“…In the Netherlands, the policy-making process is more participatory in that it includes political elites, interest groups and individual citizens (Andeweg and Irwin 2005;van der Brugge et al 2005). In Switzerland, by contrast, different representatives from politics, public administrations and interest groups mediate policies between themselves, with the Swiss electorate called on to decide issues in referendums if a consensus cannot be reached (Hermann et al 2016).…”