Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis
Peter Aagaard, Sevasti Chatzopoulou, and Birgitte Poulsen
Crisis seems to be everywhere these days. Where there is crisis, there is crisis management. And where there is crisis management, there are experts that advise politicians in decision-making. However, how does this sustained pressure from crises affect relationships between experts and politicians? Has expertise increasingly become politicised? Or do we see more scientisation of politics? And do relationships between experts and politicians vary across different political systems? These are all central questions addressed in our recently published article on Analysing expert advice on political decisions in times of crisis. They are important questions, because they deal with the legitimacy of decision-making and public sense-making in the era of recurring crises.
In our article, we study how a crisis, like COVID-19, affected expert–politician relationships in Denmark, Greece, and the United States. Despite their differences, there were traces of the politicisation of expertise in all three cases. However, experts did not hold sway over elected politicians in any of the countries. In all three countries politicians relied on science selectively (also as partisan expertise) to publicly legitimise their strategies and decisions. The frontstage influence of experts played a minor but significant part across all three cases. Experts were aware of their role in the media during the crisis, often feeling a need to defend their science, perhaps even in opposition to their own government. (Perhaps you remember Fauci?)
Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis.
Peter Aagaard,Marleen Easton, and Brian Head
We are living in turbulent times. Governments have been confronted by multiple interacting crises, like the COVID-19 pandemic, global warming, and economic instability. All over the world, governments face challenges beyond their control, ranging from financial and political disruptions to pandemics, climate change, natural disasters, and threats to national security. These crisis situations are compounded by inevitable gaps in knowledge and uncertainties. This calls for policy advisors. Policy advisors do not just seek to maximise the efficiency of governance during crises. Policy advising also has implications for democratic accountability and legitimacy.
Our article, just published, forms the introduction to a special issue on policy advising during crises. We collect, connect, and provide an overview of the literature in the field, and seek to build on this knowledge, offering new insights.
Studies have shown that racial prejudice in the United States have led to lower levels of public support for redistribution. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased public attention on the essential role of low-income workers in society. During the pandemic, many low-income workers such as janitors were classified as essential to the basic functioning of American society, and they continued to carry out on-site jobs, putting their health at risk. Media outlets have hailed low-wage essential workers as heroes, celebrating them for their selflessness in the midst of a crisis. Has this increased attention on low-income workers fostered public support for redistribution?
In our recent article in Policy & Politics, our study examines whether the increased awareness of low-income workers’ societal contributions increases public support for redistribution. We further investigate whether this increased awareness mitigates racial bias known to inhibit broad public support for redistribution. In order to study this, we conducted two survey experiments in which we varied the information about a hypothetical low-income worker. In particular, we varied the emphasis on the worker’s essential role and the race of the worker to see whether these variations change the way Americans evaluate how deserving this individual is of benefits from various welfare programmes.
Our findings demonstrate that portraying a worker as an essential worker increases survey respondents’ appreciation of the worker’s contribution to society and their support for pandemic-related benefits. However, it did not increase overall support for redistribution. In addition, while we found negative effects of a Latino cue, particularly among white respondents, this effect weakened when information about the workers’ work ethic and other characteristics was provided. Additionally, contrary to well-established findings of the negative impact caused by stereotyping of Black individuals, we found that portraying a worker as Black did not decrease support for redistribution.
Our research makes an important contribution to understanding public support for redistribution. While some evidence suggests the weaker role of social affinity in structuring public support for welfare programmes during the pandemic, our results show that racial considerations are still central to welfare policy preferences, even when welfare beneficiaries were portrayed as essential workers, although the effect varies across different racial groups. Additionally, this study has important implications for public communication about government social welfare programmes, showing that emphasising the characteristics of welfare recipients to highlight their work ethic can be effective in increasing public support for redistribution.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at Hyun Kim, J., Kuk, J., & Kweon, Y. (2024). Did low-income essential workers during COVID-19 increase public support for redistribution?. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024). Retrieved Jan 11, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000008
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read: Calderaro, C. (2023). The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 413-438. Retrieved Jan 11, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16832763188290
Ramírez, V., & Velázquez Leyer, R. (2023). The impact of self-reinforcing and self-undermining policy feedback on Mexican social policy: the end of the conditional cash transfer programme. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 508-529 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16813697853773
by Efrat Mishor, Eran Vigoda-Gadot & Shlomo Mizrahi
Our article, entitled Exploring civic engagement dynamics during emergencies: an empirical study into key drivers, investigates the importance of civic engagement during emergencies. We consider various individual-level factors such as trust, risk cognition, fears about the emergency and cost–benefit analyses of engagement as factors that motivate citizens to become engaged.
We argue that governments should recognise the value of community initiatives and civic engagement in coping with emergencies. Our empirical investigation uses data collected in Israel during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Our results demonstrate that trust in government and interpersonal trust may influence citizens’ perceptions of engagement during emergencies but have no effect on engagement behaviour. However, risk cognition and cost–benefit analyses are better predictors of future engagement intentions during emergencies.
Our recent article published in Policy & Politics sets out its research context by building upon the assumptions of Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET), which state thatpolicymaking in democratic countries tends to follow patterns of long periods of policy stability interrupted by rapid large scale policy shifts, or ‘punctuations’. PET explains this pattern of policymaking as arising from the friction built into political systems and the cognitive limitations of decisionmakers. Friction is necessarily built into democratic political systems to prevent the arbitrary exercise of political authority and, when combined with the cognitive limitations of decision makers, policymaking favours the status quo. Large-scale policy shifts tend to occur sparingly and only after a build-up of political pressure for change.
More recently, punctuated policymaking has been observed to exist in a few autocratic countries with one important distinction—policymaking features more large-scale shifts in autocracies compared to more open systems of government. This is attributable to the limitations in the flow of information through formal and informal mechanisms—press censorship and restrictions on the exercise of civil liberties, particularly expressions of opposition—found in autocratic regimes.
Pandemic politics saw governments repeatedly claim to be “just following the science.” In the face of widespread anxiety and uncertainty, this mantra was meant to reassure the public that decisions about pandemic responses were being directed by the best available scientific evidence. But making policy decisions based only on scientific evidence is impossible (if only because ‘the science’ is always contested) and undemocratic (because governments are elected to balance a range of priorities and interests in their decisions). Claiming to be “just following the science” therefore represents an abdication of responsibility by politicians. Working with colleagues, we advanced these bold claims in a recent article published in Policy & Politics that is part of our long-running research program on public health governance.
The inherent limits of ‘evidence-based’ policy have been repeatedlydescribed and analysed. We know that policy and programme choices are never based solely on the available scientific evidence. So why did politicians claim to be “just following the science,” and what are the implications of doing so?
This quarter’s highlights collection features four articles that examine the use of democratic principles and processes in contexts that are not traditionally democratic, which we hope will resonate with some of the topical debates that are currently playing out on the global stage.
In our first article, author Karin Fossheim asks how non-elected representatives can secure democratic representation. In this important contribution to the literature on representative democracy, Fossheim analyses representation in governance networks. She does this by comparing how non-elected representatives, their constituents and the decision-making audience understand the outcome of representation to benefit constituency, authorisation and accountability. Her research findings conclude that all three groups mostly share an understanding of democratic non-electoral representation, understood as ongoing interactions between representatives and constituents, multiple (if any) organisational and discursive sources of authorisation and deliberative aspects of accountability. All these elements are shown to support democratic representation despite the absence of elections.
DORA, a public declaration launched in 2013 with now over 23,000 signatories worldwide, aims to radically revise the current methods of research assessment. It speaks of an urgent need to improve the ways in which research is currently evaluated by moving beyond the monopoly of the Impact Factor to a more diverse and inclusive set of measures.
At Policy & Politics, we recognise this need very well. So many in our community tell us how their professional lives are dominated by the Impact Factors of journals: from winning funding awards, to getting jobs and promotions. Indeed, many of our authors tell us that’s their main driver for publishing with us. We want to be part of the journey to change this, recognising the value of taking a broader view of how we’re evaluating research quality. But we can’t do it single-handedly. So we stand alongside those in our community in seeking to diversify the ways in which research is evaluated.
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a major social crisis, putting people out of work and unable to satisfy primary needs such as affording food. In response, Italy experimented with a programme of emergency food stamps funded by the national government and delivered by municipalities—a form of assistance never experimented with before in the country. Programme implementation followed the peaks of the pandemic waves; it started with the first lockdown in March 2020, was terminated in the summer when COVID-19 cases approached zero, but was restarted in late autumn when the pandemic struck back. The repetition of the programme over a short time and with the same budget offers a unique opportunity to investigate inter-crisis learning, i.e. if and how lessons from the first wave of implementation contributed to reforms in the second delivery. Did administrations learn from the first food stamp delivery and redesign the second round accordingly? These research questions underpin our recent article published in Policy & Politics entitled Policy Learning in a crisis: Lessons learned from the Italian Food Stamp Programme.
Over recent years and with a rising number of crises and complex policy issues, policymakers are increasingly engaging in systematic and continuous policy learning. These policy learning processes aim at reaching better understandings of policy issues and their contexts. One of the aims of this learning is to develop better ways of solving societal challenges (through forms of technical learning) or consolidating and cultivating political power (through political learning). In other words, policymakers face problems that are difficult to solve, so they seek out knowledge and information from different sources in order to learn how to effectively solve these problems.
With its longstanding tradition, policy learning research has illuminated several aspects, mainly focused on explaining how policy actors learn, what lessons they come out with, and the role that learning processes play in policymaking. During crises, policy learning can contribute to effective crisis responses. However, it can also cause confusion or induce policy failure.
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 