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.
We are delighted to announce this year’s prizes for award winning papers published in Policy & Politics in 2024.
The Ken Young Prize for the best article judged to represent excellence in the field is awarded to Claire Dupont, Jeffrey Rosamond and Bishoy L. Zaki (University of Ghent, Belgium) for their article: Investigating the scientific knowledge–policy interface in EU climate policy. Well deserved, Claire, Jeffrey, and Bishoy!
Policy & Politics has been publishing innovative works at the intersection of public policy and politics for over 50 years. It is a world-leading, top quartile journal that is committed to advancing scholarly understanding of the dynamics of policy-making and implementation. By exploring the interplay between political actors, governing institutions and policy issues, the journal contributes to building policy process theory; and by reflecting on the evolving context in which these interactions occur, it provides timely and fresh insights into the influence of politics on policy and vice versa.
The journal’s co-editors invite proposals for a special issue that will make a significant contribution to our understanding of the nexus of public policy and politics.The journal only has space to publish one special issue each year, so this is a competitive process.
To be successful, proposals need to offer a coherent set of excellent original research articles that will reframe or develop knowledge on a topic that is at the leading edge of current debates and is clearly relevant to the journal’s worldwide readership. Proposals may include a mixture of theoretical, conceptual and empirical cases and a range of research methods, and must demonstrate how they will make a significant and lasting contribution to the field.
Special issues of this scope generally take at least eighteen months to two years from the acceptance of a proposal through to final publication. In return, we offer constructive and clear editorial guidance throughout the development process to optimise its readership and impact. In addition, we undertake significant article-level marketing for special issues, as we publish one of the most widely read journal blogs in the discipline and have the highest X (Twitter) following of all the journals in this field as well as our more recent presence on BlueSky. Our special issues are also eligible for consideration for publication in book form in the Policy & Politics series published by Policy Press.
The timetable for evaluating proposals is set out below:
Call for proposals open; submit to mailto:sarah.brown@bristol.ac.uk
2nd January 2025
Deadline for submitting proposals to P&P
28th February 2025
Decision on selection of one proposal announced by P&P
Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis
Kennet Lynggaard, Theofanis Exadaktylos, Mads Jensen & Michael Kluth
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, many of us would probably have been a little hesitant on the exact field of work, or even unaware of the existence, of experts such as a mathematical virologist or experimental epidemiologist. Well into the pandemic, after several lockdowns and reopening of societies, highly specialised concepts from virology and epidemiology had entered everyday conversations, just like experts involved in handling the pandemic have become household names and, in many countries, even minor celebrities.
Our article, just published in Policy & Politics, assesses the role for experts during the various stages of the pandemic, based on evidence collected from a survey of comparative politics scholars from 31 European countries in 2022, which you can find more detail on in the book: Governments’ Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic in Europe: Navigating the Perfect Storm 2023. In our P&P article, we analysed the role of experts during the processes of depoliticisation and re-politicisation at each stage of the pandemic, alongside their influence on government responses to the pandemic. We propose a new typology, classifying four different ideal types of roles for experts: leading, antagonistic, managerial, and auxiliary – see figure 1.
Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis
Marleen Easton, Jennifer Yarnold, Valerie Vervaenen, Jasper De Paepe & Brian Head
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the critical role of expert advice in shaping policy responses globally. Beyond health implications, these measures significantly impacted education, economy, law, and various societal aspects. Understanding how expertise was harnessed and adapted during the crisis provides valuable insights for improving policy advisory systems to effectively respond to future challenges. Our research study, just published in Policy & Politics delves into the dynamics of COVID-19 policy advisory systems in Belgium and Australia, drawing on interviews with 34 experts involved during the initial two years of the crisis.
Policy Advisory Systems in Action: In both Belgium and Australia, intergovernmental forums played a key role in aligning national and regional interests within policy advisory systems advising on responses to COVID-19. While Belgium experienced more rapid changes and adjustments in expert advisers, Australia maintained a relatively stable system with occasional additions of non-health sub-groups. The diversity of expert opinions was more pronounced in Belgium, on contrast with Australia where experts tended to be more cautious in expressing critical perspectives publicly.
Policy Learning and Expert Advice: As the pandemic unfolded, policy learning evolved, necessarily drawing on a broader range of expertise beyond the initial health-centric focus. Institutional contexts shaped the provision of expert advice, influencing the actions of policy advisors and decision-makers. Our study sheds light on the evolving priorities within advisory bodies, the relationships between different types of experts and policymakers, and the challenges of communicating scientific knowledge amid uncertainty and stress.
Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis
Cosmo Howard and Bernadette Hyland-Wood
COVID-19 showed the world that statistical data are indispensable for government decision making, especially in times of crisis. Yet, data systems to support public policy were often found wanting during the pandemic.
In our recent article in Policy & Politics, we argue that contemporary data sharing systems often behave like natural ecosystems for several reasons. They can grow and adapt organically, their members are highly interdependent, they are steered by powerful ‘keystone actors’ like government agencies and big tech companies, and they can be harnessed to provide benefits for society. This makes modern data systems different from older models, which relied on a single official statistical agency or a tight network of data providers to supply statistics for policy making. To test the operation of data ecosystems in practice, we investigated how Australia’s infectious disease data ecosystem functioned during COVID-19. We found strong evidence for organic growth and adaptation, but we also saw that keystone actors like government departments sometimes restricted access to data, which hampered the work of some data analysts within the ecosystem. Furthermore, there was often insufficient leadership by keystone actors to ensure that data ecosystems functioned coherently, resulting in disagreements over interpreting the data, as well as gaps in data coverage.
Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis
Claire Dupont, Jeffrey Rosamond and Bishoy L. Zaki
In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, we provide an historical overview of the evolution of some of the knowledge processes and linkages that are involved in EU climate policy. We explore whether developments in these knowledge exchanges reflect shifts in the politicisation of climate change.
To address this question, we outline a conceptual model of politicisation that accounts for two different effects: (i) prioritisation leading to enabling conditions for knowledge exchange, and (ii) polarisation leading to constraining conditions. We analyse the politicisation of climate change in the EU since the 1990s, and discuss two key aspects of how knowledge exchanges develop: formal and informal aspects. Focusing on knowledge exchange with the European Commission, our analysis reveals connections between the development of the formal and informal aspects of knowledge exchange and changes in politicisation over time. We find that when the politicisation of climate change led to a negative or constraining context, informal knowledge exchanges stopped, making it more challenging for multidisciplinary scientific knowledge to be included. However, formal knowledge exchanges remained active, even under constraining conditions.
In this way, our article provides a nuanced assessment of the connections between the effects of politicisation and the potential for meaningful scientific-policy knowledge exchange. It enhances our understanding of both the politicisation of climate change and the development of knowledge exchanges at the policy-science interface.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at Dupont, C., Rosamond, J., & Zaki, B. L. (2024). Investigating the scientific knowledge–policy interface in EU climate policy. Policy & Politics, 52(1), 88-107 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16861511996074
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.
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 