Partisanship and science advice: Do the right prefer economists and the left social scientists?

Abstract

It is often claimed that parties on the left and right have different preferences for scholarly knowledge. However, little research has addressed whether partisanship actually matters for science advice preferences, particularly in the European setting. Drawing on original data on governmental appointments of academic scholars to more than 1400 public advisory commissions in Norway between 1969 and 2020, this article examines whether the left–right divide matters for cabinets’ consultation of economists and social scientists. The findings reveal that left-wing governments in Norway have consulted scholars of social science—such as sociologists and political scientists—more frequently than right-wing governments. In contrast, partisanship seem to matter less for the consultation of economic scholars, as economists have been extensively used as advisors by both blocs in the period studied. Overall, the article contributes theoretical and empirical knowledge to the politics of science advice.

Mechanisms of Political Responsiveness: The Information Sources Shaping Elected Representatives' Policy Actions

“…Elected officials, facing a daily information overload, are selective in their information intake due to limited processing capacities (Walgrave & Dejaeghere, 2017). Their choice of specific information sources thus significantly shapes political actions, influencing which societal issues are addressed and what solutions are proposed (Blom-Hansen et al, 2021;Broockman & Skovron, 2018;Hertel-Fernandez et al, 2019;Hesstvedt, 2022). Elected representatives' selectivity creates disparities in source use, making the type of information sources they rely on a crucial factor to consider when examining responsiveness.…”

“…EXPERT SOURCES-We argue that scientists, civil servants, and the government (ministerial advisers) are typical expert sources. First, scientists and policymakers have long been regarded as belonging to separate communities, but this image has been challenged by recent empirical work and the associated turn toward 'evidence-based' policymaking (e.g., Baekgaard et al, 2019;Head, 2016;Hesstvedt, 2022;Newman et al, 2016). Because of their unique epistemic authority, scientists can benefit policymakers as they can provide practical arguments in favor or opposition to specific policy solutions.…”

“…We build on the assumption that information sources shape elected officials' policy actions. Different sources provide different types of information, affecting which societal problems get tackled (priorities) and what solutions are proposed (positions) (Blom-Hansen et al, 2021;Broockman & Skovron, 2018;Hertel-Fernandez et al, 2019;Hesstvedt, 2022). This is all the more the case since elected representatives suffer from daily information overload and inevitably are highly selective in what they pay attention to (Walgrave & Dejaeghere, 2017).…”