Cargando…

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 s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hadorn, Susanne, Sager, Fritz, Mavrot, Céline, Malandrino, Anna, Ege, Jörn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8977835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35399336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11615-022-00382-x
_version_ 1784680850364825600
author Hadorn, Susanne
Sager, Fritz
Mavrot, Céline
Malandrino, Anna
Ege, Jörn
author_facet Hadorn, Susanne
Sager, Fritz
Mavrot, Céline
Malandrino, Anna
Ege, Jörn
author_sort Hadorn, Susanne
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8977835
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89778352022-04-04 Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy Hadorn, Susanne Sager, Fritz Mavrot, Céline Malandrino, Anna Ege, Jörn Polit Vierteljahresschr Critical Paper 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. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2022-04-04 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8977835/ /pubmed/35399336 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11615-022-00382-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Critical Paper
Hadorn, Susanne
Sager, Fritz
Mavrot, Céline
Malandrino, Anna
Ege, Jörn
Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy
title Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy
title_full Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy
title_fullStr Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy
title_full_unstemmed Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy
title_short Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy
title_sort evidence-based policymaking in times of acute crisis: comparing the use of scientific knowledge in germany, switzerland, and italy
topic Critical Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8977835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35399336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11615-022-00382-x
work_keys_str_mv AT hadornsusanne evidencebasedpolicymakingintimesofacutecrisiscomparingtheuseofscientificknowledgeingermanyswitzerlandanditaly
AT sagerfritz evidencebasedpolicymakingintimesofacutecrisiscomparingtheuseofscientificknowledgeingermanyswitzerlandanditaly
AT mavrotceline evidencebasedpolicymakingintimesofacutecrisiscomparingtheuseofscientificknowledgeingermanyswitzerlandanditaly
AT malandrinoanna evidencebasedpolicymakingintimesofacutecrisiscomparingtheuseofscientificknowledgeingermanyswitzerlandanditaly
AT egejorn evidencebasedpolicymakingintimesofacutecrisiscomparingtheuseofscientificknowledgeingermanyswitzerlandanditaly