Figure 1

Technocratic governance

Figure1

Figure 2

Decisionist governance

Figure2

Figure 3

The reflexive model

Figure3

Table 1

Models of scientific expertise for policy-making

Models Dominant actors Key assumptions Criticism Key thinkers
technocratic experts, scientists primacy of expertise, only sound science counts, best available scientific expertise required policy-making can never be decided by facts alone Helmut Schelsky
decisionist leading politicians primacy of politics, separation of science and politics, of scientific evidence and values, separation of expert advice and decision-making does not work Max Weber
reflexive civil society, lay persons primacy of participation and control of experts by civil society, applying precautionary measures de-legitimise scientific opinions, irrational policy-making Ulrich Beck

Table 2

Category-system

category characteristic value
risk assessment role of science in policy making positive, clear and superior to other knowledge T useful for legitimacy D uncertain and fallible R
dissenting scientific opinions dissenting scientific opinions
compulsory scientific hearing yes T no D, R
reaction to hypothetical risks no T, D yes R
ideas for increasing credibility harmonisation and hierarchisation T, D pluralisation and transparency R
risk management principles for risk analysis excellence and quality T independence and effectiveness D transparency and dialog R
institutional design between RA and RM integration T separation D participation for civil society R
possibility to ignore scientific recommendations no T yes D, R
competence for rapid alert system scientists T politicians D both and stakeholders R
precautionary measures no T only as RM principle D yes at all stages R
risk communication role of lay people education T, D dialog R
public access closed T, D open R
institutional competence for RC scientists T politicians D both R

Legend: T = technocratic, D = decisionist, R = reflexive, RA = risk assessment, RM = risk management, RC = risk communication

Table 3

Models of scientific expertise for policy-making of European food safety

Model Dominant actors at EU-level Key statements Counter-arguments/problems
decisionist member states, Standing Committees separation of risk assessment and risk management, no risk management competence for the EFSA an agency without risk management is too weak, the separation leads to inefficient collaboration and is dysfunctional
technocratic Scientific Committees, EFSA utmost importance, best available scientific expertise required, the Commission has never ignored any of the scientific recommendations scientific expertise is not the only source for decision making, the EFSA is not able to produce best available scientific expertise
reflexive EU-NGOs, European stakeholders promote a dialogue with consumers, searching for emerging risks, greater transparency at all levels, applying the precautionary principle laymen must first be educated scientifically for the dialogue, searching for emerging risks and the precautionary principle lead to disproportionate risk regulation, transparency is impracticable due to property rights
©2008 by Robert Fischer
formated and tagged by KH, 20.12.2008