IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01478-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dutch see Red: (in)formal science advisory bodies during the COVID-19 pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Janne Aarts

    (Wageningen University & Research)

  • Eva Gerth

    (Wageningen University & Research)

  • David Ludwig

    (Wageningen University & Research)

  • Harro Maat

    (Wageningen University & Research)

  • Phil Macnaghten

    (Wageningen University & Research)

Abstract

We analyse the roles, dynamics and logic of science advice in structuring the Dutch response to the COVID-19 pandemic, from January 2020 to December 2020. We address how the Dutch government responded by paying attention to styles of governance and expert advice. We argue that the Dutch response was shaped by the interplay of corporatist, deliberative and neoliberal forms of governance, in particular, how early corporatist tendencies seemed to create consensus during the first phase of the pandemic but quickly led to criticism and tension, most visibly at the onset of the second wave, as corporatist and neoliberal responses conflicted with deliberative and pluralist political engagement. Situating different science advisory bodies in this dynamic, we highlight how science–policy interactions and conflicts that evolved with the dynamics of the pandemic can be understood within this triad and as reflective broadly of the endurance of the Dutch model of polder governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Janne Aarts & Eva Gerth & David Ludwig & Harro Maat & Phil Macnaghten, 2022. "The Dutch see Red: (in)formal science advisory bodies during the COVID-19 pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01478-w
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01478-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01478-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01478-w?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. 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.
    2. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2022. "Author Correction: 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 491-491, June.
    3. Ron Hodges & Eugenio Caperchione & Jan Helden & Christoph Reichard & Daniela Sorrentino, 2022. "The Role of Scientific Expertise in COVID-19 Policy-making: Evidence from Four European Countries," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 249-267, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Paul Cairney & Federico Toth, 2023. "The politics of COVID-19 experts: comparing winners and losers in Italy and the UK," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 392-405.
    2. 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.
    3. Florian Fischer & Julia Wicherski & Myriam Tobollik & Timothy McCall, 2022. "Experiences Shared by the (Future) Public Health Workforce during the COVD-19 Pandemic in Germany: Results of a Survey on Workload, Work Content, and Related Challenges among Students and Young Profes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-16, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01478-w. 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: https://www.nature.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.