How does the European Commission use scientific expertise? Results from a survey of scientific members of the Commission’s expert committees
- 335 Downloads
Given the high levels of uncertainty and complexity of issues considered at the EU level, knowledge from sound and reliable sources of expertise is of a particular importance. To date, literature on the role of scientific knowledge and scientists in EU policy-making is relatively scarce. Furthermore, we know little about the scientists involved in EU policy-making: what attitudes do they hold regarding their contribution to policies shaped and adapted at the EU level? How do scientists perceive their role in EU policy-making? The article relies on new data from a survey of scientific members of the Commission’s expert committees to gain insights into the perceptions held by scientists on how their knowledge is used: the literature on knowledge utilisation suggests that an agent can use knowledge as an instrument to increase its problem-solving capacity (instrumental knowledge utilisation), but also for more strategic purposes such as support for predetermined policy preferences (substantiating knowledge utilisation), or as a way of promoting power and influence (legitimising knowledge utilisation). The study finds that strategic uses of knowledge are not highly prominent in the process of proposal drafting. On the contrary, we find that the instrumental mode is perceived as dominant by scientific contributors. Future research need to show whether this mode of scientific knowledge utilisation is also relevant for other stages in the EU policy-making process.
KeywordsEuropean Commission agenda-setting expert committees knowledge utilisation science policy learning
The article was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Dutch and the Flemish Associations of Political Science in Amsterdam, 31 May – 1 June 2012, the Sixth ECPR-SGEU Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, Tampere (Finland), 13–15 September, 2012 and Ludwig Maximilian University doctoral workshop in Munich, 26–27 November, 2012. The authors thank the participants of these conferences, as well as Berthold Rittberger, Michael Blauberger, Fabio Franchino, Jale Tosun and Sebastiaan Princen for insightful comments and suggestions. Julia Partheymüller deserves credit for methodological advice. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
The article was developed under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union (Marie Curie Action): the Multi-disciplinary Initial Training Network (ITN) on Inter-institutional Cooperation in the EU (INCOOP).
- Barnes, B. and Edge, D. (eds.) (1982) Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2001) European governance: A white paper, COM(2001) 428 Final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf, accessed 23 May 2011.
- European Commission. (2005) Sinapse: Providing scientific information for policymaking, MEMO/05/86, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/86&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en, accessed 9 March 2011.
- Haverland, M. (2007) Methodology. In: P. Graziano and M. Vink (eds.) Europeanization: New Research Agendas. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 59–70.Google Scholar
- Haverland, M. (2009) How leader states influence EU policy making. Analysing the expert strategy. European Integration Online Papers 5, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/article/view/2009_025a, accessed 15 February 2012.Google Scholar
- Hix, S. (2005) The Political System of the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Joerges, C. and Vos, E. (1999) EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
- Morten, E. (2007) The European Commission. In: M. Cini (eds.) European Union Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 140–153.Google Scholar
- Radaelli, C.M. (1999a) Technocracy in the European Union. London: Longman.Google Scholar
- Richardson, J. (eds.) (2006) Policy-making in the EU: Interests, ideas and garbage cans of primeval soup. In: European Union: Power and Policy-making. London: Routledge, pp. 4–30.Google Scholar
- Sabatier, P.A. and Weible, C.M. (2007) The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In: P.A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 189–220.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Van Schendelen, R. (2003) Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
- Weiss, C.H. (1986) Research and policy-making: A limited partnership. In: F. Heller (eds.) The Use and Abuse of Social Science. London: Sage, pp. 214–235.Google Scholar
- Wittrock, B. (1991) Social knowledge and public policy: Eight models of interaction. In: P. Wagner, C.H. Weiss, B. Wittrock and H. Wollmann (eds.) Social Science and Modern States. National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. Cambridge, US: Cambridge University Press, pp. 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar