TY - CHAP

T1 - The European Commission’s Expert Groups

T2 - CERiM Annual Conference

AU - Radulova, Elissaveta

AU - Breuer, Johanna

AU - Spendzharova, Aneta

N1 - Conference code: 2

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - Considering the growing contestation of expertise in the public sphere, this chapter explores the institutionalisation of expert groups and how the European Commission (EC) has adapted its use of expertise. Drawing on established conceptualisations about the functions of expertise during the policy-making process, our analysis is two-fold. Firstly, we consider macro level changes and broader trends in the entire Expert Groups (EGs) system. Secondly, we examine the micro level changes of expert advice use in two case studies. Based on new data from the Commission’s register of EGs, as well as on interviews, primary and secondary sources, we find improvements with regard to transparency, conceptualised as improved access to the register. The EC has also specified better the classification of different types of experts. Furthermore, the two case studies of EGs—focusing on financial sustainability and lowering limits of industrial pollution—show that the use of expertise is both instrumental and strategic. Concretely, the strategic (consensus-building) use of expertise helped to narrow down the range of viewpoints. Eventually, this facilitated the identification of compromises and acceptable policy solutions in the policy shaping stage of the EU legislative process.

AB - Considering the growing contestation of expertise in the public sphere, this chapter explores the institutionalisation of expert groups and how the European Commission (EC) has adapted its use of expertise. Drawing on established conceptualisations about the functions of expertise during the policy-making process, our analysis is two-fold. Firstly, we consider macro level changes and broader trends in the entire Expert Groups (EGs) system. Secondly, we examine the micro level changes of expert advice use in two case studies. Based on new data from the Commission’s register of EGs, as well as on interviews, primary and secondary sources, we find improvements with regard to transparency, conceptualised as improved access to the register. The EC has also specified better the classification of different types of experts. Furthermore, the two case studies of EGs—focusing on financial sustainability and lowering limits of industrial pollution—show that the use of expertise is both instrumental and strategic. Concretely, the strategic (consensus-building) use of expertise helped to narrow down the range of viewpoints. Eventually, this facilitated the identification of compromises and acceptable policy solutions in the policy shaping stage of the EU legislative process.

KW - Politics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125497812&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-030-54367-9_5

DO - 10.1007/978-3-030-54367-9_5

M3 - Article in conference proceedings

AN - SCOPUS:85125497812

SN - 978-3-030-54366-2

SN - 978-3-030-54369-3

SN - 978-3-030-54368-6

T3 - European Administrative Governance

SP - 91

EP - 121

BT - The Contestation of Expertise in the European Union

A2 - Abazi, Vigjilenca

A2 - Adriaensen, Johan

A2 - Christiansen, Thomas

PB - Palgrave Macmillan

CY - Cham

Y2 - 20 April 2017

ER -