Policy & Politics Journal Blog

by Johan Christensen, Stine Hesstvedt, Kira Pronin, Cathrine Holst, Peter Munk Christiansen and Anne Maria Holli

In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Experts in governance: a comparative analysis of the Nordic countries, Johan Christensen, Stine Hesstvedt, Kira Pronin, Cathrine Holst, Peter Munk Christiansen and Anne Maria Holli examine how expert knowledge is channelled into policy making in the Nordic region. They focus on government-appointed advisory commissions as a key institutional pathway for incorporating expertise and explore how the role of academic experts on these commissions has changed over time.

The article situates this question against the familiar view of a distinct Nordic governance model—high administrative capacity, extensive interest-group involvement, and active routes for expert input. The authors argue that, while shifts in the statist and corporatist elements of that model are well documented, the changing place of expertise has been less systematically traced. They address this by conducting a comparative longitudinal analysis of commission membership in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.

Empirically, the study draws on a coordinated set of four national datasets covering more than 6,700 advisory commissions and 73,000 commission members from 1971 to 2018. This large-N basis allows them to compare the extent of academic participation in advisory groups across countries and over time. The core finding is clear: there is significant cross-Nordic divergence in how much (and how) academics take part in commissions.

To account for this divergence, the authors advance a historical-institutionalist explanation. Despite facing broadly similar political, economic and ideational pressures since the late twentieth century, the Nordic countries adapted their commission systems differently, sending the role of academic experts in different directions. In other words, rather than a single, unified “Nordic model” of expert involvement, we see nationally specific patterns anchored in distinct institutional trajectories.

The contribution of this research is twofold. Conceptually, the article refines debates on the politics of expertise and policy advice by treating advisory commissions not as a generic device but as an institution whose composition and evolution can be traced and explained. Empirically, it provides an unusually comprehensive comparative picture of how academic expertise is mobilised in high-capacity states that are often assumed to operate similarly.

Overall, this analysis invites a more nuanced view of Nordic governance. It shows that expert involvement is structured by country-specific institutional legacies and reforms, with implications for how knowledge, power and democratic legitimacy interact within policy processes. For scholars of governance and expertise, the article offers a robust empirical foundation and a compelling argument for taking institutional diversity seriously within seemingly convergent administrative traditions.

…

You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at

Christensen, J. et al. (2025) ‘Experts in governance: A comparative analysis of the Nordic countries’, Policy & Politics, pp. 1–25. doi: 10.1332/03055736y2025d000000079

If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading

Aagaard, P., Easton, M. and Head, B.W. (2024) ‘Policy expertise in times of crisis’, Policy & Politics, 52(1), pp. 2–23. doi:10.1332/03055736y2023d000000016.

Lynggaard, K. et al. (2024) ‘Mapping the changing role of expertise in COVID-19 politics in Europe’, Policy & Politics, 52(1), pp. 44–66. doi:10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000022.

Easton, M. et al. (2024) ‘Expert perspectives on the changing dynamics of Policy Advisory Systems: The COVID-19 crisis and Policy Learning in Belgium and Australia’, Policy & Politics, 52(1), pp. 67–87. doi:10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000014.