Embedding Expertise for Policy Responses to COVID-19: Comparing Decision-Making Structures in Two Federal Democracies

Abstract

The COVID-19 crisis focused attention on how experts from different scientific fields provided advice to governments through expert committees and task forces. We compared experiences in two federal democracies, Belgium and Australia, by applying a mixed methods approach (literature review, media review, policy documents analysis). This comparative study found that expertise was institutionalized in different ways and its processes and priorities shifted over time. The policy coordination challenges inherent in federalism were largely overcome in Australia through strongly embedded health advisory processes. In Belgium, the advisory process was less stable, with advisory councils being abandoned, replaced, expanded, or downgraded during the course of the crisis.

An evaluation of North Carolina science advice on COVID-19 pandemic response

“…This section provides a brief overview of United States federalism and its interaction with deepening partisan polarization. Though federalism does not necessarily create instability in science advice the temperament of federalism at a given time plays a role in the opportunities for science advice to support policymaking coherence (Easton et al, 2022 ).…”

Why do democracies respond differently to COVID-19? A comparison of the United States and South Korea

“…Differences in cognition of experts and political leaders, as well as differences in the urgency of crises also affect crisis response in democracies ( 20 , 21 ). A stable decision-making structure that can institutionalize expertise into crisis response will be more conducive to efficient crisis management ( 22 ). The differences in the roles of the administrative and legislative departments in democracies will also shape different crisis responses ( 23 ).…”