Tracing scientisation in the EU Commission’s expert group system

Abstract

This study traces the sweeping claim of a "scientisation" of EU governance, that is a growing authority of research-based knowledge within modern policymaking, by zooming in on the EU Commission's expert group system, and its "high level groups" in particular. With new quantitative and qualitative data that cover the period between 2005 and 2017, the study assesses whether alleged scientisation pressures are translated into actual patterns of participation and into modes of committee governance, and how this has changed over time. The study does not find signs of a substantial scientisation of the membership structure and this contrasts with the numbers of the official expert group register. Nonetheless, the considerable authority of epistemic claims seems to leave its mark on the management of the expert group system, i.e. the groups' mandate framings, the selection of chairpersons and committee member labelling practices.

Assessing the Contributions of Higher Education

“…The role of experts and expertise within public policy processes has received considerable attention within the literature of political science and public administration, and the phenomenon is far from new (for example, Diner, 1980). The European Commission commonly creates expert groups to provide policy advice in the development of legislation or implementation processes, and scholars have monitored the composition and leadership of these groups in order to explore whether there has been an increasing "scientisation" of these advisory mechanisms (Krick & Gornitzka, 2020). Christensen and Hesstvedt (2019) analyzed more than 1,500 Norwegian advisory bodies operating between 1972 and 2016 to explore the relative role of academics and interest groups in the composition of these bodies.…”

“…It is also important to note that the involvement of university faculty as expert advisors or consultants takes place across the spectrum of policy activity. It can include advising on macro-level economic policies to the highest levels of government (Flickenschild & Afonso, 2019), but it more commonly involves the sharing of highly specialized expertise to advise on policy issues at the meso-level of government; within some systems, examples of academic researchers contributing their expertise directly through their participation in advisory bodies can be found in almost every policy sector (Christensen & Hesstvedt, 2019;Krick & Gornitzka, 2020).…”

“…The fact that these activities are often dynamic, fluid and episodic also means that they are extremely difficult to map. While information on some relationships is quite public, such as appointments to senior government advisory bodies or expert panels (Flickenschild & Afonso, 2019;Krick & Gornitzka, 2020), other forms of interaction may run the gamut between formal technical reports to informal advice to government officials or advocacy groups, and some activities may be regarded as confidential or privileged by government or other stakeholders. Senior civil servants may be aware of the work of specific advisors or consultants, but be unaware of the range of interactions between professors and lower level officials within their own department or ministry.…”

Who are engaging in the nano-specific partner expert groups? An analysis of partner expert groups vs. expert groups

“…There has been a lot of research into the organisation and use of expert groups (EGs) in the European Union, see e.g. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. EGs are less well-defined and cover expert consultations in different contexts, whereas PEGs are solely focussed on supporting ECHA in their preparation of guidance documents within the scope of Europe's chemical legislation [24].…”

Participatory Governance Practices at the Democracy-Knowledge-Nexus

“…The last decades have also seen a sharp and steady increase of access to information and scientific knowledge, growing levels of educational attainment around the world and a global shift towards 'knowledge societies' and 'knowledge markets' that rely on -and bring about -highly specialized societies (Gornitzka and Krick 2018;Holst and Molander 2017). Spurred by a general rationality mandate of public policy-making, the 'ceremonial worth' of expertise (Meyer and Rowan 1977) and a widespread belief in the merits of 'evidence-based policy-making' (Straßheim and Kettunen 2014), policy-makers have become more and more inclined to base their political choices on expert knowledge to retain credibility (Krick and Gornitzka 2020). The rise of powerful, detached expert bodies is one of the consequences of this development, the spread of technocratic governments, especially in times of crises, is another (Bickerton and Accetti 2017;Majone 2001).…”