IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v42y2023i3p392-405..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The politics of COVID-19 experts: comparing winners and losers in Italy and the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Cairney
  • Federico Toth

Abstract

This article analyzes the “politics of experts”—or the struggle between scientific advisers to gain visibility and influence—in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and the UK. Modifying classic studies of policy communities of interest groups and civil servants, we classify relevant policy experts in the two countries into the following categories: “core insiders,” “specialist insiders,” “peripheral insiders,” and “outsiders.” Within these categories, we distinguish between “high-profile” and “low-profile” experts, depending on media exposure. The comparison between the UK and Italian cases helps to identify how actors interpret and follow formal and informal “rules of the game.” We identify a contest between experts to influence policy with reference to two competing “rules of the game.” The first set of rules comes from government, while the second comes from science advice principles. These rules collide, such as when governments require secrecy and nonconfrontation and scientists expect transparency and independent criticism. Therefore, experts face dilemmas regarding which rules to favor: some accept the limits to their behavior to ensure insider access; others are free to criticize the policies that they struggle to influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Cairney & Federico Toth, 2023. "The politics of COVID-19 experts: comparing winners and losers in Italy and the UK," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 392-405.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:3:p:392-405.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puad011
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Binderkrantz, 2005. "Interest Group Strategies: Navigating Between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(4), pages 694-715, December.
    2. Mads Dagnis Jensen & Kennet Lynggaard & Michael Kluth, 2022. "Paths, Punctuations and Policy Learning—Comparing Patterns of European use of Scientific Expertise during the Covid-19 Crisis," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 223-247, June.
    3. Anne Binderkrantz, 2005. "Interest Group Strategies: Navigating Between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53, pages 694-715, December.
    4. Allison, Graham T., 1969. "Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 689-718, November.
    5. Ron Hodges & Eugenio Caperchione & Jan Helden & Christoph Reichard & Daniela Sorrentino, 2022. "The Role of Scientific Expertise in COVID-19 Policy-making: Evidence from Four European Countries," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 249-267, June.
    6. Allison, Graham T., 1969. "Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 689-718, November.
    7. Silvia Camporesi & Federica Angeli & Giorgia Dal Fabbro, 2022. "Mobilization of expert knowledge and advice for the management of the Covid-19 emergency in Italy in 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Cairney,Paul & Heikkila,Tanya & Wood,Matthew, 2019. "Making Policy in a Complex World," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108729109, Enero-Abr.
    9. Stefano Sacchi, 2018. "The Italian Welfare State in the Crisis: Learning to Adjust?," South European Society and Politics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 29-46, January.
    10. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2022. "Scientization Under Pressure—The Problematic Role of Expert Bodies During the Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 291-307, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maria Tullia Galanti, 2023. "Expert legitimacy and competing legitimation in Italian school reforms," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 288-302.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miriam Hartlapp & Julia Metz & Christian Rauh, 2010. "The agenda set by the EU Commission: the result of balanced or biased aggregation of positions?," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 21, European Institute, LSE.
    2. Francesca Colli & Johan Adriaensen, 2020. "Lobbying the state or the market? A framework to study civil society organizations’ strategic behavior," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 501-513, July.
    3. Gaurav Sinha, 2015. "Responding to Complexity: Microfinance MIS Service Providers as Complex Adaptive Systems," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 1(2), pages 163-180, July.
    4. Edward H. Kaplan, 2012. "OR Forum---Intelligence Operations Research: The 2010 Philip McCord Morse Lecture," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1297-1309, December.
    5. Ade Muhammad & Utomo S. Putro & Manahan Siallagan & Kyoichi Kijima & Meditya Wasesa, 2021. "System of Diagnostic Systems framework and its application to the disharmony in Indonesian national security," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 31-49, January.
    6. Nutt, Paul C, 1998. "Evaluating Alternatives to Make Strategic Choices," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 333-354, June.
    7. Eben J. Christensen & Steven B. Redd, 2004. "Bureaucrats Versus the Ballot Box in Foreign Policy Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(1), pages 69-90, February.
    8. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Thomas P. Lyon, 2016. "Merchants of Doubt: Corporate Political Influence when Expert Credibility is Uncertain," Working Papers 2016.28, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    9. Max Grömping & Darren R. Halpin, 2021. "Do think tanks generate media attention on issues they care about? Mediating internal expertise and prevailing governmental agendas," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 849-866, December.
    10. Michael Brecher & Patrick James, 1988. "Patterns of Crisis Management," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(3), pages 426-456, September.
    11. Paul A. Raschky & Liang Choon Wang, 2017. "Reproductive behaviour at the end of the world: the effect of the Cuban Missile Crisis on U.S. fertility," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(56), pages 5722-5727, December.
    12. Gunton, Cameron & Markey, Sean, 2021. "The role of community benefit agreements in natural resource governance and community development: Issues and prospects," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Michal Parízek, 2017. "Control, soft information, and the politics of international organizations staffing," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 559-583, December.
    14. Paul DiMaggio, 2017. "Layers of endogeneity—How porous boundaries between state and society complicate institutional change," Rationality and Society, , vol. 29(1), pages 80-90, February.
    15. Arkadiy V. Sakhartov & Timothy B. Folta, 2013. "Rationalizing Organizational Change: A Need for Comparative Testing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1140-1156, August.
    16. Schroeder, Wolfgang & Speidel, Frederic & Zindel, Jannik, 2024. "Mobilität und Korporatismus: Die Transformation der Automobilindustrie und ihre Akteure," EconStor Open Access Book Chapters, in: Handbuch Mobilität und Gesellschaft, pages 1-16, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    17. Heugens, P.P.M.A.R. & Zyglidopoulos, S.C., 2007. "Unfit to Learn? How Long View Organizations Adapt to Environmental Jolts," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-014-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    18. Kendall Moll, 1974. "International Conflict as a Decision System," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 18(4), pages 555-577, December.
    19. Danica Fink-Hafner & Sara Bauman, 2023. "Interest Group Strategic Responses to Democratic Backsliding," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 39-49.
    20. Naciye Bey, 2022. "Configurational analysis of environmental NGOs and their influence on environmental policy in Turkey," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:3:p:392-405.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.