LIST OF PANELS

The management of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a central topic for research in policy analysis since its beginning (Colfer, 2020; Weible et al., 2020). These research works studied the decision-making process and showed up the special role of expertise and advisory bodies (Cairney & Wellstead, 2021). Consequently, a special interest developed in not only studying the design, adoption, and implementation of policy responses to crisis, but also how these varied with the policy advisory system that supported policymaking (Galanti & Saracino, 2021; Hadorn, Sager, Mavrot, Malandrino, & Ege, 2022). The aim of this onsite panel is to discuss the specific perspective and added-value of the policy advice approach to study the COVID-19 pandemic.

Policy advice as a research topic investigates how policy actors get support in the conduct of public policy. It looks at both the provision and use of advice by policy actors. Policy advisors can act as agenda-setters or provide useful and relevant information throughout the policy process about the merits of policy options and their potential to deliver the desired outcomes. They can formulate recommendations or opinions about future courses of government action and propose an analysis of problems and/or assessment of possible solutions (Halligan, 1993).

Nowadays, the government policy analytical capacity relies on a policy advisory system which extends far beyond the borders of the public sphere. The policy advisory system is defined as ‘the interlocking set of actors and organizations with unique configurations in each sector and jurisdiction that provides recommendations for action to policy-makers’ (Craft & Wilder, 2017, p. 215), and it encompasses both in-house expertise from the public service, central agencies, and partisan ministerial advisers, and external expertise from consultants, commissions of inquiry, and selected special advisory bodies composed of experts appointed by the government (Squevin & Aubin, 2022).

The panel is onsite and invites papers that describe and analyze national, transnational, or regional policy advisory systems and their role in the COVID-19 pandemic. Papers already bringing a comparative perspective are also particularly welcome.

Papers should build their argument on a sound theoretical argument and/or empirical analysis and confront their results with the current knowledge on policy advice. Contributions can potentially add to other streams of literature, such as policy process research, knowledge utilization, political institutions, crisis and risk management, etc. They will either present the policy advisory system as a whole or focus on a specific issue related to the dynamics of advice.

They can address the influence at all stages of the policy process, including feedback effects; the appointment, profile, and legitimacy of experts; the information that agencies produce or collect; the knowledge and evidence used both by the experts and the government in their argumentation (Blum & Pattyn, 2022; Engebretsen & Baker, 2022); as well as the kind of knowledge used.

Comparative papers can look at the political, institutional, and cultural contexts that influence links between policy advice and public policymaking (Bandelow, Hassenteufel, & Hornung, 2021; Zahariadis, Petridou, & Oztig, 2020) or transnational learning and policy transfer (Petridou, Zahariadis, & Ceccoli, 2020).

In more detail, the specific contributions may address the following issues:

· The creation and composition of advisory bodies and the biography of appointed experts;

· The way actors deal with scientific knowledge;

· The production and use of information and knowledge (evidence-informed policymaking);

· The discretion that governments kept in the decision-making process in creating ad hoc advisory bodies;

· The availability of knowledge and evidence at the moment of decision;

· Lesson-drawing and policy transfers in balance with a search for scientific evidence;

· Trust and mistrust of the government in expertise and public agencies.

Overall, the aim is to gather papers that look at the interrelation between knowledge utilization, policy advice and the policy process within the transnational, national or regional policy advisory systems.

References

Bandelow, N. C., Hassenteufel, P., & Hornung, J. (2021). Patterns of Democracy Matter in the COVID-19 Crisis. A Comparison of French and German Policy Processes. International Review of Public Policy, 3(1), 121-136.

Blum, S., & Pattyn, V. (2022). How are evidence and policy conceptualised, and how do they connect? A qualitative systematic review of public policy literature. Evidence & Policy, 1-20.

Cairney, P., & Wellstead, A. (2021). COVID-19: Effective Policymaking Depends on Trust in Experts, Politicians, and the Public. Policy Design and Practice, 4(1), 1-14.

Colfer, B. (2020). Public policy responses to COVID‐19 in Europe. European Policy Analysis, 6(2), 126-137.

Craft, J., & Wilder, M. (2017). Catching a Second Wave: Context and Compatibility in Advisory System Dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 215-239.

Engebretsen, E., & Baker, M. (2022). Rethinking Evidence in the Time of Pandemics: Scientific vs Narrative Rationality and Medical Knowledge Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Galanti, M. T., & Saracino, B. (2021). Inside the Italian Covid-19 task forces. Contemporary Italian Politics, 13(2), 275-291.

Hadorn, S., Sager, F., Mavrot, C., Malandrino, A., & Ege, J. (2022). Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Politische Vierteljahresschrift.

Halligan, J. (1993). Policy Advice and the Public Service. In B. G. Peters & D. J. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a Changing Environment (pp. 138-172). Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Petridou, E., Zahariadis, N., & Ceccoli, S. (2020). Averting institutional disasters? Drawing lessons from China to inform the Cypriot response to the COVID-19 pandemic. European Policy Analysis, 6(2), 318-327.

Squevin, P., & Aubin, D. (2022). Policy Advice Utilization in Belgian Ministerial Cabinets: The Contingent Importance of Internal and External Sources of Advice. International Review of Administrative Sciences.

Weible, C. M., Nohrstedt, D., Cairney, P., Carter, D. P., Crow, D. A., Durnova, A. P., . . . Stone, D. (2020). COVID-19 and the policy sciences: initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sci, 1-17.

Zahariadis, N., Petridou, E., & Oztig, L. I. (2020). Claiming credit and avoiding blame: political accountability in Greek and Turkish responses to the COVID‐19 crisis. European Policy Analysis, 6(2), 159-169.