This article addresses the relationship between scientific expertise and policy in European chemicals regulation. We argue that the role of scientific expertise in the European regulation of chemicals varies across decision-making levels, countries, and stages of the policy process. Our case study of the role of scientific expertise in the regulation of brominated flame retardants illustrates considerably different manifestations of this interconnected process across regulatory arenas, even though this case concerns a single group of substances. On the European Union level, we find a mix of technocracy and politicization; in Sweden, a clear-cut politicization; and in Poland, noninvolvement. Such differences can be explained by a combination of factors, in particular frame dominance, and mobilization of advocacy coalitions. Copyright 2010 by The Policy Studies Organization.

Government-voluntary sector “compacts” have emerged in the recent years as an innovative nonprofit policy practice in many industrialized countries around the world. Originating in England in the late 1990s, the compact phenomenon has today spread to societies with relatively different tracks of inter-sectorial relations and different civil society regimes. This introductory article seeks to chart out the diverse functions that the compact solution seems to perform in different institutional surroundings, and it also opens up for a comparative discussion of the broader socio-political contexts in which this policy instrument has developed.

No abstract

Policy institutes, or ''think tanks'', are becoming increasingly ubiquitous in our societies. In this article, we conceptualize think tanks explicitly as a civil society phenomenon, linking the proliferation of this relatively new type of actor to the transformation of civil society structures and of systems of interest representation. Using the case of Sweden as an illustration, we argue that the recent decades' rise of think tanks in institutional settings outside of the USA can only be understood if we take into account the particular features and institutional policy access opportunities of the domestic civil society in each national case, and that think tanks should be analytically understood as the allies of, rather than competitors to, the older, established forces in civil society.

Think tanks, defined as organizations that produce policy research for political purposes (McGann, 2007; Medvetz, 2008), are an increasingly ubiquitous type of policy actor world-wide. In Sweden, the last 20 years’ sharp increase in think tank numbers (Åberg, Einarsson, & Reuter, 2019) has coincided with the decline of the traditional Swedish corporatist model based on the intimate involvement of the so-called ‘popular movements’ in policy-making (Lundberg, 2014; Micheletti, 1995). Contrary to the large, mass-membership based and democratically organized movement organizations, think tanks are small, professionalized, expert-based, and seldom represent any larger membership base. Their increasingly important role as the ideological greenhouses in Swedish civil society might, therefore, be interpreted as an indication of an increasingly elitist and professionalized character of the latter. But what is a think tank? The article explores how a shared understanding of what constitutes a think tank is constructed by think-tankers themselves. In the study, interviewed think tank executives and top-level staff reflect upon their own organizations’ missions and place in the Swedish policy system.