Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making

Lundin, Martin; Öberg, PerOla

doi:10.1007/s11077-013-9182-1

Cited by 51 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Actors might initiate policy forums with scientists and stakeholders in order to legitimize their political goals rather than to achieve real counseling or knowledge transfer. Experts are then merely part of the game because they are needed to justify policy making of the government or policy proposals of interest groups (Weingart 2006), especially regarding highly conflictual issues (Lundin and Öberg 2014). Busch (2009) calls this process "policy-based evidence-making."…”

Section: Legitimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Policy forums are issue-based intermediary organizations where diverse types of political and societal actors repeatedly interact. Policy forums are important elements of modern governance systems as they allow actors to learn, negotiate, or build trust. They can vary in composition, size, membership logic, and other distinct features. This article lays the foundation of a theory of policy forums based on three interrelated elements: First, it discusses conditions for the formation of a forum and describes the logic of these organizations as one of an asymmetric multipartite exchange. Second, it enumerates the potential set of goals and motivations of participating actors that are fed into this exchange. Third, it proposes eight different dimensions on which policy forums differ and which affect the exchange mechanisms among actors. We claim that empirical work on policy forums should systematically take these elements into account and propose elements of a research agenda.

show abstract

Section: Legitimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even if scientific support for one option is overwhelming, evaluating alternatives can be the best course (Jordan et al 2013). Weighing options publicly can make social problems and solutions better understood and make adequately informed decisions more likely (Barabas 2004;Hajer and Wagenaar 2003;Lundin and Öberg 2014;Mansbridge 2003: 524;Öberg et al 2015;Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012: 11). Deliberation adds democratic legitimacy by increasing the chance of including different perspectives (Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012: 10).…”

Section: Theory Linking Expert Information and Public Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Available information may be contested (Boswell 2009a;Fisher and Gottweis 2012;Lundin and Öberg 2014). But use of expert information (expertise) generally reduces policy failure risk (Christiano 2012;Howlett and Wellstead 2011;Lindblom and Woodhouse 1993: 22).…”

Section: Theory Linking Expert Information and Public Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freezing deliberation through public expert advice

Bækkeskov

Öberg²

2016

Journal of European Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When important public issues are debated, many options for government action should be subjected to serious reflection. Constrained discussions over policy options may hamper democratic legitimacy and accountability, and produce decisions that ignore relevant reasons and facts. Hence, constrained deliberation has important consequences for knowledge construction and utilization. We advance theory on 'epistemic policy learning' by showing mechanisms that promote expert consensus in external arenas, and that these can hamper deliberation on public policy. Government-appointed experts, in combination with mass media, can 'freeze' deliberation by presenting one unified front. Comparison of national print media coverage in Sweden and Denmark during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic offers support. The similar polities enacted different policies: Sweden sought to vaccinate its full population while neighbouring Denmark targeted small groups. Yet experts dominated both public discourses and echoed each other's support of national policy. In turn, public policy debates were scant in both contexts.

show abstract

“…Studies on science-policy dynamics have identified the level of political disagreement as a key factor for how scientific expertise and scientific results are used in policy processes. On the one hand, policymakers will engage more intensively with scientific evidence when the issue is contentious, and when it is receiving significant public attention (Lundin and Öberg 2014). On the other hand, political tension also makes policymakers less receptive to adopt their views on the basis of expert advice (Jasanoff 1990; Stevens 2007, 2011).…”

Section: Science and Policy Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging Experts: Science-Policy Interactions and the Introduction of Congestion Charging in Stockholm

Broström

McKelvey

2017

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes the conditions for mobilizing the science base for development of public policy. It does so by focusing upon the science-policy interface, specifically the processes of direct interaction between scientists and scientifically trained experts, on the one hand, and agents of policymaking organizations, on the other. The article defines two dimensions – cognitive distance and expert autonomy – which are argued to influence knowledge exchange, in such a way as to shape the outcome. A case study on the implementation of congestion charges in Stockholm, Sweden, illustrates how the proposed framework pinpoints three central issues for understanding these processes: (1) Differentiating the roles of, e.g., a science-based consultancy firm and an academic environment in policy formation; (2) Examining the fit between the organizational form of the science-policy interface and the intended goals; and (3) Increasing our understanding of when policymaker agents themselves need to develop scientific competence in order to interact effectively with scientific experts.

show abstract

Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making

Cited by 51 publications

References 45 publications

Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?

Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?

Freezing deliberation through public expert advice

Engaging Experts: Science-Policy Interactions and the Introduction of Congestion Charging in Stockholm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About