̽����ѡ

Expertisation and Democracy in Europe provides a much-needed account of the role and re-organisation of expertise and expert knowledge in Europe and the European Union in a broad range of policy spheres, contributing to the debate triggered by the recent crises. It brings novel perspectives to debates on technocracy and our understanding of the relations between knowledge, experts and democracy. The book explores and assesses new and old linkages between knowledge, expertise and democracy, and expands and deepens the current debates by addressing questions such as: What is the role of expertise in Europe? How is knowledge of different kinds embedded in and decisive for democratic practice in contemporary democracies? How are we to assess recent transformations of the expert-citizens and government-civil society relationships from the perspective of democracy, and which paths are viable in the years to come? Finally, the book engages with and gives flesh to the notion of expertisation not only as a broad political and societal diagnosis, but also as a multidimensional and deeply contested process that enfolds in concrete practices and institutional settings.

In the past decade, EU research policy has become more central to the EU's political ambitions and its instruments are expanding in scale and scope. Recently there has been mounting apprehension over the EU's R&D efforts, such as the Framework Programmes, and their adequacies in meeting European and global ‘grand challenges’. How European-level and national research efforts interact is a key condition for enhancing Europe's research competitiveness and responsiveness. This paper presents data from Norway indicating that the R&D institutions adapt to European-level priorities directly, whereas the national authorities have a limited impact on the country's European research portfolio. It points to a need for thorough analysis of national path-dependencies, and how the nation states organise and coordinate their participation in European programmes, specifically for facing present and future ‘grand challenges’.

Who provides the European Union with information? This article examines patterns of participation in the large expert group system under the European Commission. It explores competing propositions about the character of the Commission’s information system, and tests four hypotheses about what affects participation in the EU expert group system. The authors distinguish between three kinds of information providers: scientists, societal actors and government officials. The empirical section of the paper builds upon an analysis of a data set covering all of Commission expert groups (N¼1237). Although scientists, and interest groups, industries and NGOs are prevalent information providers for the Commission, the authors show that the informational foundation is strongly biased towards officials from national administrations. They argue that these distinct patterns of participation are significantly affected by inter-institutional and environmental conditions that the Commission Directorate Generals operate under. Access of experts increases the ability of the Commission to anticipate reactions to its proposals and initiatives and hence it impinges on the interinstitutional dynamic of the EU

The role of technocratic and scientific expertise in EU governance is contested. This article examines the degree of involvement of scientists in EU decision making and the conditions that affect their participation. The study uses a large data set on the European Commission’s expert groups. We show that scientists are involved in a large portion of the expert groups under the European Commission (one third), but are rarely the only participants in such groups. We also show that access for scientists is more likely in the early stage of policy formulation and that it is dependent on specific institutional settings. Décisions éclairées ? Le rôle des scientifiques dans la gouvernance de l’UE Le rôle d’expertise technocratique et scientifique dans la gouvernance de l’UE est contesté. Cet article examine le degré de participation des scientifiques dans le processus décisionnel de l’UE et les conditions qui influent sur leur participation. L’étude utilise une base de données sur les groupes d’experts de la Commission européenne. Nous montrons que les scientifiques sont impliqués dans une grande partie des groupes d’experts organisés par la Commission européenne (un tiers), mais ils sont rarement les seuls participants. Nous montrons également que l’accès des scientifiques est plus probable dans la phase d’élaboration de la politique et que leur participation dépend de certains cadres institutionnels.

This paper examines some basic propositions regarding the informational foundation of EU decision making. Who provides the European Commission with information? Are these sources of information biased? If so, in what way, and what can the informational bias tell us about decision making in the Commission and the European Union? The papers examines different competing propositions about the character of the Commission information system with reference to different theoretical conceptions of European governance, as well as to different general notions about the role of information and informational systems in decision-making. We separate between four kinds of information providers: the scientific community, societal actors, governmental officials, as well as a mixed multi-actor model. The empirical section of the paper builds upon a quantitative analysis of all of the European Commission expert groups (N=1237). Our analysis reveals that although scientists, and various interest groups, industries and NGOs play an important role in providing information to the European Commission, the informational foundation is strongly biased towards officials from public administrations and in particular officials from the national administrations.