Who Are the Policymakers and What Are Their Interests?

  • Holger StrassheimEmail author
  • Kathrin Loer
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Public Health Policy Research book series (PSPHPR)


Political actors and their interests are significant to policymaking. The chapter gives an overview of the most relevant political actors in public health. But the context of policymaking goes beyond visible political actors. Hence, in a second step the chapter shows which role scientific expertise plays and in what manner it plays this role. The way in which scientific expertise is produced and applied to policymaking by different actors is extremely important in order to understand agenda-setting, the hierarchy of specific policies in public health and ways of implementing those policies in different contexts. This chapter highlights and explains the high degree of complexity that characterises the relationship between policymakers and epistemic authority.


Policymaking Scientific expertise Epistemic authority Stakeholders 


  1. Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2008). Meta-organizations. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boseley, S. (2003). WHO ‘Infiltrated by food industry’. Available at: Last accessed 4 Mar 2018.
  3. Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Clapp, J., & Scrinis, G. (2017). Big food, nutritionism, and corporate power. Globalizations, 14(4), 578–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies, S. (2010). Global politics of health. Cambridge/Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Demortain, D. (2009). Legitimation by standards: Transnational experts, the European Commission and regulation of novel foods. Sociologie du travail, 51S, e104–e116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., et al. (2003). Science in the modern world polity. Institutionalization and globalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fafard, P., & Hoffman, S. (2018). Rethinking knowledge translation for public health policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. Retrieved from
  9. Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy & expertise. Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gieryn, T. F. (1998). Cultural boundaries of science. Credibility on the line. Chicago/London: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. Gilliam, C. (2017). Whitewash. The story of a weed killer, cancer, and the corruption of science. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  12. Greenhalgh, S. (2016). Neoliberal science, Chinese style: Making and managing the ‘obesity epidemic’. Social Studies of Science, 46(4), 485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimm, H.-U. (2017). Information-domination in the European food industry: Focus on Germany. In G. Steier & K. K. Patel (Eds.), International food law and policy (pp. 3–30). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Hawkins, B., & Parkhurst, J. (2016). The ‘good governance’ of evidence in health policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 12(4), 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hendrickx, K. (2017). Working imagination along the food-drug divide. In G. Verschraegen, F. Vandermoere, L. Braeckmans, et al. (Eds.), Imagined futures in science, technology, and society. Oxon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. ILSI. (2016a). 2015 Member and Supporting Companies. Available at: Last accessed 3 Mar 2018.
  17. ILSI. (2016b). Code of ethics and organizational standards of conduct. Available at: Last accessed 3 Mar 2018.
  18. ILSI. (2016c). The role and activities of ILSI Europe. Available at: Last accessed 3 Mar 2018.
  19. ILSI. (2018a). Mission and operating principles. Available at:
  20. ILSI. (2018b). Status of the new activity on ‘consumer behaviour determinants’. Available at: Last accessed 3 Mar 2018.
  21. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Quality control and peer review in advisory science. In J. Lentsch & P. Weingart (Eds.), The politics of scientific advice. Institutional design for quality assurance (pp. 19–35). Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kickbusch, I. (2003). The contribution of the World Health Organization to a new public health and health promotion. American Journal of Public Health, 93(3), 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2010). Governing epidemics in an age of complexity: Narratives, politics and pathways to sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murray, C. J. (2007). Towards good practice for health statistics: Lessons from the Millennium Development Goal health indicators. The Lancet, 369(9564), 862–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nestle, M. (2002). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health (Revised ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research, 14(1), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quack, S. (2016). Expertise and authority in transnational governance. In R. Cotterrell & M. Del Mar (Eds.), Authority in transnational legal theory. Theorising across disciplines. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  28. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rutter, H., Savona, N., Glonti, K., Bibby, J., Cummins, S., Finegood, D. T., et al. (2017). The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. The Lancet, 390(10112), 2602–2604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schattschneider, E. E. (1961). The semisovereign people, A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  31. Stone, D. (2012). Knowledge actors and transnational governance: The private-public policy Nexus in the global Agora. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Strassheim, H. (2015). Politics and policy expertise: Towards a political epistemology. In F. Fischer, D. Torgerson, A. Durnová, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies (pp. 319–340). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  33. Strassheim, H. (2017a). Behavioural expertise and regulatory power in Europe. In M. Lee, A. de Ruiter, & M. Weimer (Eds.), Regulating risks in the European Union (pp. 143–163). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  34. Strassheim, H. (2017b). Trends towards evidence-based policy formulation. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Handbook of policy formulation (pp. 504–521). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strassheim, H., & Kettunen, P. (2014). When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evidence & Policy, 10(2), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vibert, F. (2007). The rise of the unelected: Democracy and the new separation of powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weber, M. (1978 [1922]). Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Weber, M. (2015 [1917]). Science as a vocation. In P. Lassmann, I. Velody, & H. Martins (Eds.), Max Weber’s ‘Science as a vocation’. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Youde, J. R. (2012). Global health governance. Cambridge/Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  40. Zapp, M. (2018). The scientization of the world polity: International organizations and the production of scientific knowledge, 1950–2015. International Sociology, 33(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zürn, M. (2017). From constitutional rule to loosely coupled spheres of liquid authority: A reflexive approach. International Theory, 9(2), 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zürn, M., Binder, M., & Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). International authority and its politicization. International Theory – A Journal of International Politics, Law and Philosophy, 4(1), 69–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.FernUniversität in HagenHagenGermany

Personalised recommendations