IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v51y2018i3d10.1007_s11077-018-9316-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice

Author

Listed:
  • Johan Christensen

    (Leiden University)

Abstract

The growing role of economic expertise in contemporary policy-making has received increasing scholarly attention. Yet, so far, this discussion has only been tenuously linked to relevant debates in public policy and administration, such as the work on policy advisory systems. The article attempts to bridge this gap by examining the changing reliance on academic economic knowledge within policy advisory bodies. It does so by analysing appointments and citation patterns in Norwegian advisory commissions in economic policy over the last 45 years. The analysis shows a marked increase in the number of academic economists appointed to commissions and in citations to economic literature. Moreover, it reveals an orientation towards the most prestigious outlets of the international economics discipline. This development can be interpreted as a scientization of policy advice in the economic field, that is, a growing reliance on academic expertise for analysis and arguments about public policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Johan Christensen, 2018. "Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 291-311, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:51:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9316-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9316-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-018-9316-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-018-9316-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/67ft27s7u58ocangahl1jigu6p is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    3. Marion Fourcade & Etienne Ollion & Yann Algan, 2015. "La superioridad de los economistas," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 17(33), pages 13-43, July-Dece.
    4. M. Fourcade & E. Ollion & Y. Algan, 2015. "The Superiority of Economists," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 7.
    5. Markoff, John & Montecinos, Verónica, 1993. "The Ubiquitous Rise of Economists," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 37-68, January.
    6. Eva Krick, 2015. "Negotiated expertise in policy-making: How governments use hybrid advisory committees," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 487-500.
    7. John L. Campbell & Ove K. Pedersen, 2014. "Knowledge Regimes and the National Origins of Policy Ideas [The National Origins of Policy Ideas: Knowledge Regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark]," Introductory Chapters,, Princeton University Press.
    8. Thurid Hustedt & Sylvia Veit, 2017. "Policy advisory systems: change dynamics and sources of variation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 41-46, March.
    9. Caspar F. Berg, 2017. "Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 63-84, March.
    10. Sylvia Veit & Thurid Hustedt & Tobias Bach, 2017. "Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 85-103, March.
    11. Jonathan Craft & John Halligan, 2017. "Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 47-62, March.
    12. Marion Fourcade & Etienne Ollion & Yann Algan, 2015. "The Superiority of Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 89-114, Winter.
    13. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2022. "Scientization Under Pressure—The Problematic Role of Expert Bodies During the Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 291-307, June.
    2. Yuchen Guo & Ze Zhang, 2024. "Reducing carbon emissions through green renewal: insights from residential energy consumption in Chinese urban inventory districts from an evidence-based decision-making perspective," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Massimiliano Caporin & Mikhail Stolbov & Maria Shchepeleva, 2022. "What drives the expansion of research on banking crises? Cross-country evidence," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(52), pages 6054-6064, November.
    4. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2022. "Special Issue on The Scientization of Public Decision-Making Processes – the Relevance for the Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 215-221, June.
    5. Trym N. Fjørtoft, 2022. "More power, more control: The legitimizing role of expertise in Frontex after the refugee crisis," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 557-571, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas V Maher & Charles Seguin & Yongjun Zhang & Andrew P Davis, 2020. "Social scientists’ testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Caner Bakir, 2023. "The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 419-439.
    3. Donovan, Kevin P., 2018. "The rise of the randomistas: on the experimental turn in international aid," SocArXiv xygzb, Center for Open Science.
    4. Andrew Mearman & Sebastian Berger & Danielle Guizzo, 2016. "Curriculum reform in UK economics: a critique," Working Papers 20161611, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    5. Goddard, Jessica J. & Kallis, Giorgos & Norgaard, Richard B., 2019. "Keeping multiple antennae up: Coevolutionary foundations for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Thoma, Johanna, 2018. "Book review: economics rules," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84173, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Karl Beyer & Stephan Puehringer, 2019. "Divided we stand? Professional consensus and political conflict in academic economics," ICAE Working Papers 94, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    8. Alexandre Truc, 2023. "Neuroeconomics: Hype or Hope? An Answer," Post-Print hal-04719266, HAL.
    9. Jishnu Das & Quy-Toan Do, 2020. "US and them - The geography of academic research," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 111-114, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    10. Joshua Aizenman & Kenneth Kletzer, 2020. "Networking, citations of academic research, and premature death," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 51-55, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    11. Michael E. Rose, 2022. "Small world: Narrow, wide, and long replication of Goyal, van der Leij and Moraga‐Gonzélez (JPE 2006) and a comparison of EconLit and Scopus," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 820-828, June.
    12. Ilan Noy & Shunsuke Managi, 2020. "It’s Awful, Why Did Nobody See it Coming?," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 429-430, October.
    13. Stan Liebowitz, 2020. "Our uneconomic methods of measuring economic research," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 99-104, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    14. Angela Ambrosino & Mario Cedrini & John B. Davis, 2024. "Today’s economics: one, no one and one hundred thousand," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 59-76, January.
    15. Brown, Craig O., 2020. "Economic leadership and growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 298-333.
    16. Florentin Gloetzl & Ernest Aigner, 2015. "Pluralism in the Market of Science? A citation network analysis of economic research at universities in Vienna," Ecological Economics Papers ieep5, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    17. John O’Hagan & Lukas Kuld, 2020. "Multi-authored journal articles in economics - Why the spiralling upward trend?," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 93-98, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    18. Ben Rosamond, 2020. "European Integration and the Politics of Economic Ideas: Economics, Economists and Market Contestation in the Brexit Debate," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(5), pages 1085-1106, September.
    19. Matthias Aistleitner & Jakob Kapeller & Stefan Steinerberger, 2018. "Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond," Working Papers Series 85, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    20. Etienne Farvaque & Frédéric Gannon, 2018. "Profiling giants: the networks and influence of Buchanan and Tullock," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 277-302, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:51:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9316-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.