The ubiquity of experts in contemporary policy-making has been met with enthusiasm in some quarters, but has also faced severe criticism. Beyond the democratic concerns regarding expert power,... Show moreThe ubiquity of experts in contemporary policy-making has been met with enthusiasm in some quarters, but has also faced severe criticism. Beyond the democratic concerns regarding expert power, critics have raised worries about whether experts actually contribute to increasing the epistemic quality of policies, in line with normative expectations. Yet, so far, limited attention has been paid to the specific conditions under which experts involved in policy-making are likely to live up to such expectations. The article outlines a set of such conditions and empirically examines their fulfillment in the case of a real-world expert body. The article contributes theoretically to normative political theory about the proper role of expertise in policy-making; methodologically by linking normative theorizing and empirical analysis; and empirically through a longitudinal analysis based on large-n data of the extent to which the expert body under scrutiny satisfies a set of quantifiable empirical indicators of the proposed conditions. Show less
Politicians need expertise to make public policies, and civil servants are principal and proximate providers of knowledge. Yet, what constitutes relevant knowledge and skills for bureaucrats is... Show morePoliticians need expertise to make public policies, and civil servants are principal and proximate providers of knowledge. Yet, what constitutes relevant knowledge and skills for bureaucrats is regularly contested—both by politicians and bureaucrats—and subject to change. How can we explain the processes of contestation and change in the expertise of policy bureaucracies? The article presents a theoretical framework for analyzing the politics of bureaucratic expertise. It proposes the concept of “expertise bargains” to capture the understanding between politicians and bureaucrats about the knowledge and skills of civil servants. Based on a transactional view of authority in bureaucratic politics, it argues that the terms of this expertise bargain are mutually defined by politicians and bureaucrats through a dynamic bargaining process. The analytical utility of the framework is demonstrated through a comparative-historical analysis of contestation and change in bureaucratic expertise in the field of economic policy. Show less
The expert competences of the public bureaucracy are often seen as crucial for the quality and legitimacy of public policies. Yet, the role of expertise in the state varies greatly across countries... Show moreThe expert competences of the public bureaucracy are often seen as crucial for the quality and legitimacy of public policies. Yet, the role of expertise in the state varies greatly across countries. How can we explain the position of expert competences in the bureaucracy? The paper examines this question through a historical-institutional analysis of the Italian ministerial bureaucracy. Extending the ‘public service bargains’ framework, it argues that the role of expertise in the state is the result of a bargaining process between civil servants and the politicians that they serve. The paper shows how the peculiar position of expertise in the Italian state – the paucity of technical expertise in the permanent administration, the role of ministerial cabinets as politicized providers of expertise, and the dominance of legal training among civil servants – was the result of a chain of political and bureaucratic strategies and responses. Show less
The role of experts and expert knowledge in policymaking has attracted growing public and academic attention. Scholarship on the topic has, however, remained deeply fragmented. It is discussed in... Show moreThe role of experts and expert knowledge in policymaking has attracted growing public and academic attention. Scholarship on the topic has, however, remained deeply fragmented. It is discussed in separate silos of the literature – such as evidence-based policymaking, epistemic communities, and ideas and politics – and this has hindered sustained empirical study. This article argues that to stimulate more systematic research on the role that experts play in policymaking and develop a theoretical understanding of it, we need to foster dialogue across these literatures. To facilitate this, the article critically reviews how the role of expert knowledge in policymaking is conceptualised and explained in existing literatures, and offers suggestions about how to create common ground for future research by reframing research around the question of the influence of experts, and examining more closely the administrative underpinnings of expert influence. Show less
Van Esch onderzocht het gebruik van de expertise van gedragrechtskundigen in 123 soms zware (straf)zaken in zes arrondissementen: Amsterdam, Arnhem, Assen, Breda, Den Bosch en Dordrecht. Ze zag -... Show moreVan Esch onderzocht het gebruik van de expertise van gedragrechtskundigen in 123 soms zware (straf)zaken in zes arrondissementen: Amsterdam, Arnhem, Assen, Breda, Den Bosch en Dordrecht. Ze zag - soms grote - verschillen. Deze hebben betrekking op de gang van zaken bij de inschakeling van gedragsdeskundigen, methoden van onderzoek, wijze van verslaglegging en gebruik van de rapportages tussen de arrondissementen. Het betreft zowel het voldoen aan verplichtingen als het gebruikmaken van bevoegdheden. Show less
