Policy Advisory Systems in Times of Crisis: A Case Study of Slovak Advisory Committees during Covid-19

This paper aims to fill a gap in the understanding of policy advisory systems (PAS) during the Covid‐19 crisis. As governments rely on PAS in uncertain times of crisis, the state of PAS directly impacts the quality of policymaking. This paper studies the changes within Slovak Advisory committees (AC) at the executive level concerning the changes of government during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Slovakia had relatively good results in the first wave of the pandemic but did not utilize any ofthat experience in the second wave, where deadly infection and death rates were higher. The case of Slovak ACs demonstrates a shift towards a more politicized PAS – the new committees, established by the prime minister, were meeting at the expense of already functioning committees at the beginning of the crisis, and their expertise was more political in character. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration & Policy is the property of Sciendo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

When do decision makers listen (less) to experts? The Swiss government's implementation of scientific advice during the COVID‐19 crisis

Under which conditions do politicians listen to scientific experts in a crisis? This study addresses this question by assessing how the Swiss government implemented 186 policy recommendations formulated by the National COVID‐19 Science Task Force (STF) to combat the spread of the virus and alleviate its impact on the health system, society and economy during the first year of the pandemic. Results of multiple regression analyses show that the impact of problem pressure on the propensity of the government to implement experts' recommendations varies over time: it was considerably larger during spring 2020 than afterwards. We argue that this reflects a change in status of the STF during the second phase of the pandemic: it was distanced from the political‐strategic level of the crisis management organization and its epistemic authority was increasingly questioned by political parties and interest groups. Policy scholars should thus give more attention to how rapidly the government's propensity to rely on expert advice can change. (English) [ FROM AUTHOR]

Economics and economists during the COVID-19 pandemic: a personal view.

As was true for many others, my professional life was turned upside down in the early days of the pandemic. The crisis touched almost every field in economics: international supply chains broke down, economic activity was heavily constrained either by non-pharmaceutical measures to fight the pandemic or by voluntary action, and the labour market experienced unprecedented levels of short-time work and huge (temporary) lay-offs. Governments struggled to provide cash and find ways to compensate affected people and businesses. Financial markets tumbled and monetary policy faced new challenges on top of an already tense situation.

Pandemics, policy, and pluralism: A Feyerabend-inspired perspective on COVID-19.

We analyse insufficient epistemic pluralism and associated problems in science-based policy advice during the COVID-19 pandemic drawing on specific arguments in Paul Feyerabend's philosophy. Our goal is twofold: to deepen our understanding of the epistemic shortcomings in science-based policy during the pandemic, and to assess the merits and problems of Feyerabend's arguments for epistemic pluralism as well as their relevance for policy-making. We discuss opportunities and challenges of integrating a plurality of viewpoints from within and outside science into policy advice thus contributing to discussions about normative issues concerning evidence and expertise in policy-making.

Pandemic consulting. How private consultants leverage public crisis management

This forum article discusses how the Covid19-pandemic as a major public crisis is transforming the relationship between governments and management consultants, contributing to the deepening presence of consulting firms in policy-making and governance. It shows how the crisis has entrenched private advice in public policymaking as governments are spending millions of dollars on transnational professional service firms like McKinsey, KPMG, Deloitte and Accenture to coordinate their pandemic responses. Drawing from comparative research of India, Australia, UK, Germany and Canada, we outline how interests have been aligned through both the state's demand for quick advice and the readily available supply of expertise provided by firms seeking to expand their markets. In this context, we note that professional services firms have been able to leverage their scope, scale, speed and networks in deepening their role in governance, moving beyond simply advising governments to providing core administrative functions. We conclude by discussing the implications for democracy and the possibilities for contestation.

Muting Science: Input Overload Versus Scientific Advice in Swiss Policy Making During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

This article explores why the Swiss Federal Council and the Swiss Federal Parliament were reluctant to follow the majority views of the scientific epidemiological community at the beginning of the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. We propose an institutionalist take on this question and argue that one major explanation could be the input overload that is characteristic of the Swiss federal political system. We define input overload as the simultaneous inputs of corporatist, pluralist, federalist and direct democratic subsystems. Adding another major input-this time from the scientific subsystem-may have threatened to further erode the government's and parliament's discretionary power to cope with the pandemic. We assume that the federal government reduced its input overload by fending off scientific advice.

Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy.

This article studies how different systems of policy advice are suited to provide relevant knowledge in times of acute crisis. The notion of evidence-based policymaking (EBP) originated in the successful 1997 New Labour program in the United Kingdom to formulate policy based not on ideology but on sound empirical evidence. We provide a brief overview of the history of the concept and the current debates around it. We then outline the main characteristics of the policy advisory systems in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy through which scientific knowledge-in the form of either person-bound expertise or evidence generated through standard scientific processes-was fed into policy formulation processes before the COVID-19 crisis. Whereas EBP takes place in the form of institutionalized advisory bodies and draws on expertise rather than on evidence in Germany, the system in Switzerland focuses more on the use of evidence provided through external mandates. Italy has a hybrid politicized expert system. The article then analyzes how this different prioritization of expertise vs. evidence in the three countries affects policymakers' capacity to include scientific knowledge in policy decisions in times of acute crisis. The comparison of the three countries implies that countries with policy advisory systems designed to use expertise are better placed to incorporate scientific knowledge into their decisions in times of acute crisis than are countries with policy advisory systems that relied primarily on evidence before the COVID-19 crisis. Supplementary Information: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11615-022-00382-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What Expertise Does Politics Need in Times of Crisis? Notes on the Current Situation in Austria

In the Coronavirus crisis, a slogan became prominent that we know from the climate debate: Follow the science! What is wrong with this slogan and how policy advice should be organized in the crisis is discussed in this text. It is argued that the demands on expertise depend on the type of crisis: While expertocracy is legitimate in acute crisis situations, strong interdisciplinarity is needed in chronic crises. The associated fear of polyphony and disunity in science is wrong. Only expert dissent - albeit institutionally coordinated and well justified - makes it clear what is at stake and what room for maneuver there is for policymakers to make decisions.

[Expert committees in German public health policymaking during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a document analysis]. / Politikberatung durch Expert*innenräte in der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie in Deutschland: Eine Dokumentenanalyse aus Public-Health-Perspektive.

INTRODUCTION: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, policymakers have to make far-reaching decisions that should be supported by scientific evidence. This presents a major challenge, given the limited availability of evidence, especially in the early phases of the pandemic. Decision-makers thus turned to scientific experts to help to convey and contextualize the evidence for public health policymaking. The way in which these experts were consulted varied widely. Some decision-makers called on expert committees in which they convened multiple experts from different disciplines. However, the composition and role of these committees have raised questions of transparency and representation. This study examines whether and how expert committees in Germany were convened at the federal and national level to advise governments and ministries during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We investigated the disciplinary composition, gender representation and the transparency related to the convening of these bodies, work processes and the accessibility of results. METHODS: We performed a multi-stage document analysis. Between May and July 2020, we submitted freedom-of-information requests to the governmental institutions at both a federal and a national level. In addition to analysing the responses to these requests, we conducted a thorough search and analysis of the i) pandemic preparedness plans, (ii) official press releases and (iii) minor interpellations ("Kleine Anfragen") at the federal and state level. We included documents on expert committees in the SARS-CoV-2 context for the period from January to the beginning of December 2020 and carried out a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified a total of 21 expert committees that were established in ten federal states and four federal ministries. In eleven committees, the members were known by name, with women making up 26 % of the members. Biomedical disciplines such as virology, hygiene, medicine, and biology were the most commonly represented. Other disciplines including economics, law and sociology, and non-scientific experts were represented in seven federal states. The members of ten committees were not known by name. These committees covered different thematic areas (school and day-care, civil participation, medicine and care, economic topics), and their members were more commonly practitioners or came from affected populations. DISCUSSION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to an increased consultation of experts in public health policymaking. However, expert committees in Germany are not sufficiently representative and interdisciplinary to take different perspectives into account and ultimately advise politicians in complex pandemic situations. Furthermore, the work of these committees is not sufficiently transparent because access to information is limited. CONCLUSION: Due to this lack of transparency, it is unclear whether and how the expert committees exerted an influence on politics. Transparency of political decision-making processes and the consideration of pluralistic perspectives are considered essential for the legitimation and quality of political decisions in a pandemic and should therefore be strengthened in pandemic management in Germany.

A look into the future of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: an expert consultation.

How will the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic develop in the coming months and years? Based on an expert survey, we examine key aspects that are likely to influence the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The challenges and developments will strongly depend on the progress of national and global vaccination programs, the emergence and spread of variants of concern (VOCs), and public responses to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In the short term, many people remain unvaccinated, VOCs continue to emerge and spread, and mobility and population mixing are expected to increase. Therefore, lifting restrictions too much and too early risk another damaging wave. This challenge remains despite the reduced opportunities for transmission given vaccination progress and reduced indoor mixing in summer 2021. In autumn 2021, increased indoor activity might accelerate the spread again, whilst a necessary reintroduction of NPIs might be too slow. The incidence may strongly rise again, possibly filling intensive care units, if vaccination levels are not high enough. A moderate, adaptive level of NPIs will thus remain necessary. These epidemiological aspects combined with economic, social, and health-related consequences provide a more holistic perspective on the future of the COVID-19 pandemic.