scholarly journals Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 13442
Author(s):  
Christoph Kehl ◽  
Steffen Albrecht ◽  
Pauline Riousset ◽  
Arnold Sauter

The global transformation towards sustainability has not only increased the demand for anticipatory and reflexive knowledge to support decision making, but also raises three challenges common to all forms of scientific policy advice: to appropriately consider societal norms and values (challenge of normativity), to integrate different forms of knowledge (challenge of integration) and to organize the participation of stakeholders (challenge of participation). While new forms of scientific policy advice in the field of sustainability research (SR) have emerged in response, the role of established actors such as the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) is increasingly scrutinized. One of the fundamental characteristics of TAB’s model of scientific policy advice is a rigid boundary arrangement between politics and science that places a high value on the objectivity and authority of scientific knowledge. Based on a content analysis of digitalization-related TAB reports spanning three decades, we describe how a rather technocratic institution such as TAB has dealt with the challenges of normativity, integration, and participation, and we compare its approach with that of SR institutions. TAB has partly adapted its working mode to the new challenges, e.g., by trying out new methods to foster a stronger dialogue with stakeholders. However, TAB’s response to the challenges distinctly differs from the forms of transformative research conducted in the SR community. We argue that this is not only a necessary precondition to maintain its reputation as a trustworthy actor towards the Parliament but gives TAB and similar expert-based institutions a special role in the governance of societal transformation.

Author(s):  
Martin Carrier

AbstractI address options for providing scientific policy advice and explore the relation between scientific knowledge and political, economic and moral values. I argue that such nonepistemic values are essential for establishing the significance of questions and the relevance of evidence, while, on the other hand, such social choices are the prerogative of society. This tension can be resolved by recognizing social values and identifying them as separate premises or as commissions while withholding commitment to them, and by elaborating a plurality of policy packages that envisage the implementation of different social goals. There are limits to upholding the value-free ideal in scientific research. But by following the mentioned strategy, science can give useful policy advice by leaving the value-free ideal largely intact. Such scientific restraint avoids the risk of appearing to illegitimately impose values on the public and could make the advice given more trustworthy.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 3-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gebhard Kirchgässner

AbstractBecause economic theory alone does in many situations not provide unambiguous policy advice, most of the time empirical analyses are needed in addition. Thus, today econometric analyses are often parts of reports for political institutions or courts. However, it is not unusual that reports with contradicting evidence are presented by different groups or parties. Using the relation between government size and economic growth as an example, it is shown how such contradicting results are possible even if all scientists involved behave sincerely and adhere to the rules of scientific research. Our second example, studies investigating whether the death penalty serves as a deterrent to homicide, shows that the results of empirical analyses might to a large extent depend on a priori convictions of the scientists. Thus, the process of scientific policy advice has to be organised in a way so that - similar to the genuinely scientific discourse - open discussion and criticisms of methods and results are possible. In order to disclose possible conflicts of interests, this demand transparency of the whole process and, in particular for empirical analyses, that data and programmes are made available for re-estimations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1336-1343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fritz Sager ◽  
Céline Mavrot ◽  
Markus Hinterleitner ◽  
David Kaufmann ◽  
Martin Grosjean ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document