Scientization in Policy-Making: Stakeholder Perspectives on Expert Involvement Across Policy Domains

The COVID-19 pandemic renewed debates on the role of experts in policy-making, with growing public support for technocratic governance. However, key questions remain: What conditions foster acceptance of expert advice? Do preferences vary across policy domains or stakeholder groups? This paper addresses these gaps through a large-scale experimental vignette study involving three key actors: citizens, politicians, and experts.

Using a mixed-factorial design, the study manipulates two factors: the alignment of expert advice with participants’ preferences (favorable vs. unfavorable) and the nature of policy domains (morally-based vs. knowledge-based). Respondents evaluate hypothetical scenarios that explore the acceptability and legitimacy of three types of expert involvement. This innovative approach examines whether stakeholder attitudes differ between morally charged issues (e.g., free speech, LGBTQ+ rights) and knowledge-intensive domains (e.g., economic policy).

By including multiple stakeholder groups, the study moves beyond citizen-focused research to capture politicians’ and experts’ perspectives, providing a multi-actor view of technocratic legitimacy. Additionally, the design isolates whether support for expert involvement depends on issue characteristics or aligns with broader distrust in politicians.

This paper enhances our understanding of technocratic governance by bridging experimental rigor with practical relevance. It provides fresh insights into the factors influencing support for expert involvement, contributing to broader discussions on democratic legitimacy, political representation, and how electoral systems shape the role of experts in policy-making within increasingly knowledge-driven societies.