LIST OF PANELS

The quality and public accountability of expert advice is important for effective government response to complex problems, as was already shown in recent pandemics. Smart institutional designs of producing and utilizing expert advice that can balance the public needs for transparent, inclusive and professionally independent advice are called for.  The rhetoric of ‘evidence-based policymaking’ shall first and foremost be grounded on the understanding that ‘evidence’ is not norm-free nor politics-free. Instead, the scientific evidence itself has underlying beliefs and paradigms, which are shaped by the slowly evolving political, social and economic institutions.  Similarly, policy learning of different actors in different contexts is also affected by institutional settings for evidence and expert advice, which may range from hierarchical learning to epidemic learning, from political learning to social learning.

This panel welcomes papers that investigates the following questions theoretically and/or empirically:

1. How to design the policy advisory institutions that can manage the tensions between scientific knowledge and value/interests?

2. How to design the policy advisory institutions that can cope with the potential clash between scientific knowledge and layperson’s knowledge?

3. How to design the policy advisory institutions that will take into account the different preferences of policymakers, citizens and experts?

4. What are effective political strategies (e.g. inside and outside advocacy) for expert advisors from various organizations (e.g. think tanks, NGOs, government departments) to persuade policymakers to use the evidence?  

5. What regime/country contexts account for variation in effective institutional design for producing and utilizing high quality expert advice and evidence?

References:

Soss, Joe. 1999. Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning and Political Action. American Political Science Review, 93(2):363-380.

Li, Wei. 2019. A Comparative Analysis of Expert Advisors’ Role Perceptions in Policymaking: The Case of Hong Kong, China.

Li, Wei. 2019. Setting the Stage for Expert Advice? An Analysis of National Expert and Advisory Committees in China. China Policy Journal 1(2): 81-112.

Dunlop, Claire A. 2017. The irony of epistemic learning: epistemic communities, policy learning and the case of Europe’s hormones saga. Policy and Society, May: 1-18.

This panel welcomes papers that investigates the following questions theoretically and/or empirically:

1. How to design the policy advisory institutions that can manage the tensions between scientific knowledge and value/interests?

2. How to design the policy advisory institutions that can cope with the potential clash between scientific knowledge and layperson’s knowledge?

3. How to design the policy advisory institutions that will take into account the different preferences of policymakers, citizens and experts?

4. What are effective political strategies (e.g. inside and outside advocacy) for expert advisors from various organizations (e.g. think tanks, NGOs, government departments) to persuade policymakers to use the evidence?  

5. What regime/country contexts account for variation in effective institutional design for producing and utilizing high quality expert advice and evidence?