LIST OF PANELS

The dynamics and patterns of social-policy pathways through the fiscal and economic crises since 2008 have been everything but straightforward and differ decisively between countries. While welfare states set their course into the 21st century, the current conditions of – in many places yet-reinforced – “permanent austerity” trigger speculations on the future role of the state, its resilience under post-national constellations and the possibilities of governing reforms. Simultaneously, we observe an increasing relevance of epistemic authority: transnational expert networks, think tanks, and public research agencies engage in a “framing contest” on which social policies have proved effective for tackling problems in times of crisis. This “rise of the unelected” (Vibert 2007) is accompanied by a renewed interest in evidence-based policy. Furthermore, with behavioural economics gaining in popularity, the understanding of regulation seems to change, as e.g. modes of behavioural regulation (“nudging”) are developed in fields such as pensions or consumer protection. Overall, this reconfiguration of political and epistemic authority in times of crisis offers us the opportunity to study how expertise and politics interact (and compete for influence) in the transformation of welfare states. Aspects that shall be dealt with include: concepts/theories of political and epistemic authority in the post-crisis constellation, the role of policy knowledge in recent welfare state reforms, policy advisory systems and expert cultures in social policies, new practices of social-policy knowledge (e.g. evaluation modes, experimental practices), changing welfare state discourses/narratives (e.g. libertarian paternalism, social investment, big society), changing instruments and understandings of social policy regulation. We welcome both theoretical and empirical papers from different social science disciplines including sociology, political science, public administration, and science, technology & society studies. Papers addressing varying levels or units of analysis, such as the international, national and subnational level, or addressing different spheres (e.g. health, employment, family policy) are particularly invited. References: Vilbert, F. (2007): The Rise of the Unelected: Democracy and the New Separation of Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The impact of the fiscal and economic crisis on social policy pathways has become a major theme in comparative welfare state research during the last years. As recent studies show, the dynamics and patterns of social policy responses to the global crisis since 2008 are everything but straightforward and differ decisively between countries (Vis et al. 2011; Starke et al. 2013). While welfare states set their course into the 21st century, the current conditions of – in many places yet-reinforced – “permanent austerity” trigger speculations on the future role of the state, its resilience under the conditions of post-national constellations and the possibilities of governing social policy reforms. While some describe the welfare state as reinventing itself as crisis manager, to others it seems that the global economic crisis has once again triggered a political legitimacy crisis, with the overwhelming impression of a loss of democratic control and political authority (Crouch 2011). At the same time, we can observe an increasing relevance of epistemic authority: transnational expert networks, think tanks, and public research agencies engage in a “framing contest” on which social policies have proved effective for tackling problems in times of crisis (Djelic/Quack 2010). This “rise of the unelected” (Vibert 2007) is accompanied by a renewed interest in evidence-based policy. Randomized controlled trials and other experimental methods have become the new gold standard of social policy evaluation. With behavioural economics gaining in popularity, the very understanding of regulation seems to change. The psychological welfare state recognizes the bounded rationality of citizens and consumers by developing scientifically-sound modes of behavioural regulation (“nudging”) in fields such as pensions, consumer protection, nutrition, or employment. Overall, the reconfiguration of political and epistemic authority in times of crisis offers the opportunity to study how expertise and politics interact (and compete for influence) in the transformation of welfare states, thus changing imaginaries of citizenship, redefining regulation and co-producing new modes of social and political order. In our panel, we want to address these configurations of expertise and post-crisis welfare state transformation. This includes analyzing the role of knowledge in recent welfare state reforms, but also more structural questions on welfare-state expertise in the global (post-)crisis constellation. Aspects that shall be dealt with include, but are not limited to: concepts/theories of political and epistemic authority in the post-crisis constellation, national and transnational configurations of welfare state expertise (e.g. epistemic communities, research agencies), policy advisory systems and expert cultures in social policies and their change, new modes and practices of social policy knowledge (e.g. modes of evaluation, experimental practices), changing discourses and narratives on welfare states (e.g. libertarian paternalism, social investment, big society), changing instruments and understandings of social policy regulation. We welcome both theoretical and empirical papers from different social science disciplines including sociology, political science, public administration, and science, technology & society studies. Papers addressing varying levels or units of analysis, such as the international, transnational, national and subnational level, or those addressing different policy areas (such as health, pensions, employment or family policy) are particularly invited.