Scientization Under Pressure—The Problematic Role of Expert Bodies During the Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

This article focuses on the role of experts in the Norwegian decision-making process in central government during the crisis management of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is based on a structural-instrumental and a cultural perspective. The main findings are that managing the pandemic led to a centralization of power in the hands of the political leadership, a blurring of the dichotomy between politics and administration, and a variety of expert advice. The crisis management also reflected the cultural appropriateness of a collaborative decision-making style, but it was not characterized by a scientization of policymaking. Rather than policymaking by experts it was policymaking informed by experts.

The Politics of Vaccines—How to Determine a Fair Vaccine Allocation: Hierarchy, Negotiations, or Culture?

“…Vaccination allocation policy in Norway was originally delegated to a great extent to epidemiological health experts and their advice was informed by norms and values embedded in the public health community. However, over time the issue became more politically salient and a broader set of actors with different interests succeeded in getting the vaccine allocation policy changed; nevertheless, the hierarchically positioned political executives still had the final say (Christensen & Laegreid, 2022).…”

“…To understand the vaccination policy process, we will apply a hierarchical-instrumental perspective supplemented by a negotiating and a cultural perspective (Christensen et al, 2020; Christensen & Lægreid, 2022; March, 1994).…”

The Nordic governments' responses to the Covid‐19 pandemic: A comparative study of variation in governance arrangements and regulatory instruments

“…The Norwegian decisionmaking regime went beyond the narrow sector‐based epidemiological expertise and diversified the list of experts informing the decisionmaking process. Thus, they included economic experts and experts on the effects of school closures on children and young people, but their advice was not that important, at least not from the latter group (Christensen & Lægreid, 2022 ). Legal experts were not involved much, except regarding the law of emergency power.…”

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

“…Public and policymaker trust in official science advisory mechanisms is an important resource for facilitating coordinated and sustained crisis response (Cairney and Wellstead, 2021 ). Crisis response is often accompanied by a centralization of power and greater “blurring” in the division between advisors and political decision making (Christensen and Lægreid, 2022b ). Transparency in advice and the values underpinning policy decisions are important for bolstering public acceptance of the blurred boundary.…”

“…But the very same close-knit, collaborative advising and decision making process that advisors credit with a science driven, balanced pandemic response also infringes on ideals of transparent and independent science advice (see also Christensen and Lægreid, 2022b ). Much of NCDHHS senior leadership includes political appointees and those directly engaged with policy development.…”