Cultural Imprints on Scientific Policy Advice: Climate science–policy interactions within Austrian neo‐corporatism

Abstract

Climate policy is a prime example of the growing importance of expert advice. A plethora of advisory bodies and processes have emerged around the world to inform mitigation and adaptation policies. However, there are marked differences in the organization and practice of science-policy interactions in national contexts.Against this background, the article aims to provide an in-depth account of the imprints of the peculiar Austrian neo-corporatist culture on scientific advice in the new field of climate policy. Because scholars have observed a decline in the underlying Austrian political culture, we aim to clarify whether a hybridization of neo-corporatist and pluralist advisory features can be found or to what extent neo-corporatist advisory patterns still prevail in the new domain of climate policy. Our research draws on the approaches of 'national styles of policy-making' and 'civic epistemologies' to develop an analytical framework. We briefly present the main features of Austrian climate policy before analyzing pertinent patterns of scientific advice. Our article particularly focuses on mapping the actors and organizational advisory formats, categorizing the selection criteria for researchers' expertise, assessing the overall relevance of scientific knowledge and identifying dominant patterns of sciencepolicy interactions. Overall, our analysis indicates that neo-corporatist advisory features prevail in Austrian scientific climate policy advice. Only a limited extent of pluralist patterns and, therefore, a low degree of hybridization could be revealed.

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.…”

Open Science at the Science-policy Interface: Bringing in the Evidence?

“…The prevalence of informal contacts entails that science-policy interactions lack transparency. (Hermann et al, 2015). Policy-makers treat scientific input as an internal concern with the effect that recommendations by committees remain invisible.…”

“…(Oliver et al, 2014) document an increasing amount of research stressing the serendipitous nature of the policy process which gives primacy to informal contacts. In these environments, formalized advice through contract research does not promote transparency, but shifting to research programs has boosted transparency regarding beneficiary institutions, funding amounts, topics and publication of results (Hermann et al, 2015).…”

“…Whereas in earlier decades, public servants played a dominant role in policy advice, they are now expected to consult external sources (academia, stakeholder organizations, think tanks, political organizations) (Head, 2015). At least in industrialized countries, governments increasingly rely on external advice and (scientific) evidence as a way to improve governance (Hermann et al, 2015). This has led to increased interest in understanding the interlinkages between policy making and expertise (Lundin and Öberg, 2014).…”

Climate change adaptation at different levels of government: Characteristics and conditions of policy change

“…Science can produce relevant knowledge not only about climate change and its impacts, but also about policy-making and its effectiveness. So far, climate science is brokered to policy-makers with various arrangements (Hermann et al, 2015), and social science is often concerned with monitoring and evaluating policies. Although monitoring and evaluation feedback loops can trigger policy learning (Preston et al, 2011), this has not been observed for comprehensive environmental strategies, such as those on adaptation (Steurer, 2008;Casado-Asensio and Steurer, 2014;Clar, 2019).…”