Issue expertise in policymaking

Abstract

In considering issue expertise in policymaking, we unpack differences in the supply and types of expertise with attention to the presumed privileged role of the bureaucracy. Our empirical investigation is based on witness testimonies of congressional hearings for a policy area involving various forms of expertise – critical infrastructure protection policymaking. Three sets of findings stand out. One set substantiates the role of the bureaucracy as an important information conduit while also showing it is not a primary source of issue expertise. A second set shows how differences in issue maturity and salience affect the demand for and supply of expertise. A third set illustrates the influence of a small cadre of hyper-expertise in drawing attention to problems and solutions across different venues. These findings challenge the conventional view of the bureaucracy in policymaking while expanding the understanding of different sources of information and types of issue expertise in policymaking.

Regulating climate change adaptation, the case of surface water

“…One way to counteract this and to increase the legitimacy of regulation is to use objective expert knowledge in the regulation process. This is in line with May's argument on policies without publics, which are policy areas that do not necessarily spur large public engagement, and typical for what he terms "public risks" such as loss of biodiversity, potential natural disasters, and threats to critical infrastructure (May et al, 2013) -in other words, climate change adaptation. When this is the case, expert knowledge is seen as necessary in order to ensure a balanced outcome (May et al, 2013).…”

“…This is in line with May's argument on policies without publics, which are policy areas that do not necessarily spur large public engagement, and typical for what he terms "public risks" such as loss of biodiversity, potential natural disasters, and threats to critical infrastructure (May et al, 2013) -in other words, climate change adaptation. When this is the case, expert knowledge is seen as necessary in order to ensure a balanced outcome (May et al, 2013). But when expert knowledge is being used both by those arguing for a lenient framework and by those trying to ensure a vulnerability reducing regulatory outcome it becomes evident that expert knowledge can clash.…”

Governing the world at a distance: the practice of global benchmarking

“…In the second section, we focus upon the mechanics and Much of the recent proliferation of global benchmarks can be traced to their perceived capacity to help build the reputation of specific organisations as 'issue experts'. 24 The popularity of benchmarking as a strategic tool for producing authoritative expertise -or at least the public appearance of expertise -is most notable in relation to NGOs and some IOs, which frequently find themselves in competition with their peers for allies, attention, and resources. 25 Thanks to the digital revolution of the last two decades, 26 The literature on governmentality is especially useful for the insight that benchmarking functions to make diverse forms of behaviour legible and amenable to intervention.…”

Beyond regulatory capture: Coproducing expertise for critical infrastructure protection

“…Although the NERC CIP standards have provoked considerable public discussion, and the broader critical infrastructure problem has received some policy analysis (May & Koski ; May et al . ), there has been virtually no scholarly historical work on the standards. Our analysis is based on documentary data, including surveys of public comments on regulatory proceedings, congressional hearings, and the trade press, and nearly 70 interviews of key government, industry, and academic stakeholders involved in the standards.…”