Comparative European Politics

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 430–449 | Cite as

How does the European Commission use scientific expertise? Results from a survey of scientific members of the Commission’s expert committees

  • Dovilė Rimkutė
  • Markus Haverland
Original Article


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.


European 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).


  1. Amara, N., Ouimet, M. and Landry, R. (2004) New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication 26 (1): 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, B. and Edge, D. (eds.) (1982) Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boswell, C. (2008) The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy. Journal of European Public Policy 15 (4): 471–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boswell, C. (2009a) Knowledge, legitimation and the politics of risk: The functions of research in public debates on migration. Political Studies 57 (1): 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boswell, C. (2009b) The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, M.B. (2009) Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA, London: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caplan, N. (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioural Scientists 22 (3): 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobb, R., Ross, J.K. and Ross, M.H. (1976) Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review 70 (1): 126–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delfani, N. (2013) Experts versus politicians: The role of partisan ideology in European Union employment policy. Comparative European Politics 11 (1): 70–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egeberg, M., Schaefer, G. and Trondal, J. (2003) The many faces of EU committee governance. West European Politics 26 (3): 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eichener, V. (1997) Effective European problem-solving: Lessons from regulation of occupational safety and environmental protection. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (4): 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2001) European governance: A white paper, COM(2001) 428 Final,, accessed 23 May 2011.
  13. European Commission. (2005) Sinapse: Providing scientific information for policymaking, MEMO/05/86,, accessed 9 March 2011.
  14. Gornitzka, Å. and Sverdrup, U. (2011) Access of experts: Information and EU decision making. West European Politics 34 (1): 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haas, P.M. (1992) Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haas, P.M. (2004) When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Haverland, M. (2009) How leader states influence EU policy making. Analysing the expert strategy. European Integration Online Papers 5,, accessed 15 February 2012.Google Scholar
  19. Haverland, M. and Liefferink, D. (2012) Member state interest articulation in the commission phase. Institutional preconditions for influencing ‘Brussels’. Journal of European Public Policy 19 (2): 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herbst, S. (2003) Political authority in a mediated age. Theory and Society 32 (4): 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hertin, J., Turnpenny, J., Jordan, A., Nilsson, M., Russel, D. and Nykvist, B. (2007) Rationalising the policy mess? Ex ante policy assessment and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process. Environment and Planning 41 (5): 1185–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hix, S. (2005) The Political System of the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Joerges, C. and Vos, E. (1999) EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  24. Majone, G. (1996) Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Majone, G. (1997) The new European agencies: Regulation by information. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (2): 252–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morten, E. (2007) The European Commission. In: M. Cini (eds.) European Union Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 140–153.Google Scholar
  27. Pollack, M.A. (1997) Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European community. International Organization 1 (51): 99–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Princen, S. (2009) Agenda-setting in the European Union. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Princen, S. (2011) Agenda-setting strategies in EU policy processes. Journal of European Public Policy 18 (7): 927–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quaglia, L., De Franceso, F. and Radaelli, C.M. (2008) Committee governance and socialization in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 15 (1): 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Radaelli, C.M. (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy 2 (2): 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Radaelli, C.M. (1999a) Technocracy in the European Union. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Radaelli, C.M. (1999b) The public policy of the European Union: Whither politics of expertise? Journal of European Public Policy 6 (5): 757–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radaelli, C.M. (2009) Measuring policy learning across Europe: Regulatory impact assessment in comparative perspective. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (8): 1145–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Schrefler, L. (2010) The usage of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies. Governance 23 (2): 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  39. Tallberg, J. (2002) Delegation to supranational institutions: Why, how, and with what consequences? Western European Politics 25 (1): 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thatcher, M. and Stone Sweet, A. (2002) Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West European Politics 25 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tosun, J. (2013) How EU handles uncertainty risks: Understanding the role of the precautionary principle. Journal of European Public Policy 20 (10): 1517–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Schendelen, R. (2003) Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Weiss, C.H. (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 39 (5): 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Weiss, C.H. (1999) The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation 5 (4): 468–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mannheim UniversityMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of Public AdministrationErasmus University Rotterdam, Faculty of Social SciencesRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations