IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v43y2024i1p11-24..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expert knowledge for global pandemic policy: a chorus of evidence or a clutter of global commissions?

Author

Listed:
  • Diane Stone
  • Anneke Schmider

Abstract

“Global Commissions of Inquiry” have usually been associated with the multilateral initiatives of governments and international organizations. However, various styles of “global commission” have emerged over time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, global commissions have been a key aspect of the COVID-19 international policy landscape, quickly emerging, in 2020 and 2021, to corral knowledge and evidence. These include “formal” commissions, such as the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response and the Global Commission for Post-Pandemic Policy, and “informal” commissions, including the Reform for Resilience and The Lancet Covid Commissions. This paper considers whether these Commissions have been engines for new ideas and global policy knowledge or whether this “chorus” of COVID Commissions represented a “clutter” of ideas at a time when global policy focus was needed. Global Commissions, in general, deserve greater scholarly attention to their design and the construction of their legitimate authority as hybrid and private commissions enter global policy making alongside official commissions.

Suggested Citation

  • Diane Stone & Anneke Schmider, 2024. "Expert knowledge for global pandemic policy: a chorus of evidence or a clutter of global commissions?," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 43(1), pages 11-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:43:y:2024:i:1:p:11-24.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puad022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:polsoc:v:43:y:2024:i:1:p:11-24.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    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.