OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/1/2019, SPi 9 The Politicization of Evidence-based Policies The Case of Swedish Committees Kristof Tamas Introduction Purely scientifically based research funding in liberal democracies tends to limit the utility of research for policy-making. As a result, part of government- funded research is steered towards policy-oriented studies to cater for the government’s interest as well as, allegedly, that of the public. Over the past couple of decades there has also been a general growth in the interest in producing more evidence-based policies (Davies et al. 2000: 2). Different models have been developed in this regard in terms of organizational, insti- tutional, and funding structures (cf. Hoppe 2005). The Swedish experience of government committees offers interesting examples of the diversity of efforts to make research relevant for policy- making. The Swedish case is also an example of how the research–policy dialogue may suffer from the gap between different research and policy ‘cul- tures’. These need to be bridged through dialogue and exchange in order to avoid the demise of relationships between researchers and policy-makers (Davies et al. 2000: 360). The aim of this chapter is to draw on the Swedish example of government committees to critically discuss the potential oppor- tunities, benefits, and pitfalls when attempting to bridge the gap between research and policy-making. The chapter will also cast some new light on the claim that the research–policy nexus in liberal democracies is character- ized by ‘the simultaneous scientification of politics and the politicisation of science’ (Weingart 1999: 151–61). After a brief conceptual introduction, I will review the Swedish committee system, in general, and the functioning of migration and integration committees Kristof Tamas, The Politicization of Evidence-based Policies: The Case of Swedish Committees. In: Bridging the Gaps: Linking Research to Public Debates and Policy-making on Migration and Integration. Edited by Martin Ruhs, Kristof Tamas and Joakim Palme, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198834557.003.0009 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/1/2019, SPi Kristof Tamas working in the 1970s through to the 1990s, in particular. I then discuss a specific case of a committee where this form of research led to a major public controversy. I also discuss the pros and cons of another approach, whereby policy-makers pick and choose from the menu of interpretations offered by think tanks funded by non-governmental sources, or by academia. The chap- ter concludes by considering alternative forms of policy-driven research in more recent committees. The Research–Policy Nexus It is clear that policy-makers often refrain from taking into account available evidence, or even go against sound evidence provided by the academic com- munity, as ‘many alternative examples of policy initiatives ...seem to either fly in the face of the best available research evidence on effectiveness or, at the very best, are based on flimsy evidence’ (Nutley and Webb 2000: 13). While this may have contributed to more widespread post-factual politics (Villumsen Berling and Bueger 2017: 332–41), the public trust in science varies according to political ideology and interest group, and also according to social class, ethnicity, and gender, which may also lead to political divisions influencing policy-making (Gauchat 2012). Existing research has proposed a range of different conceptualizations and ‘models’ of the research–policy nexus. Hoppe (2005) makes a broad distinc- tion between ‘advocacy models’ and ‘learning models’: In advocacy models, science is considered one among multiple political voices that enable political debate, judgment, and decision. In the learning models, all actors are constructed as ‘inquirers’ engaged in a process of social learning through social debate. (Hoppe 2005: 211) The advocacy models portray the research–policy nexus as a non-exclusive relationship, where researchers compete with other actors attempting to influence policy-makers (Tellmann 2016: 14). Researchers are thus not entirely neutral and objective as ‘each voice in the political arena is considered to be an advocacy plea in favour or against positions defended by other political actors’ (Hoppe 2005: 210). In the learning models, research, and policy communities are regarded as equal participants in a forum for debate in the quest to find acceptable solutions to identified problems. Studies of ‘enlightenment’, ‘knowledge creep’, ‘knowledge shifts’,or‘research as ideas’, have shown how scientific research historically has had various, sometimes unintended, impacts on policy-making. For some researchers, such impacts could probably be welcome if their findings are used as an aid in defining problems and policy options. They could, however, also be detrimental in 128 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/1/2019, SPi The Politicization of Evidence-based Policies: Sweden cases where research is being over-simplified and reshaped into unscientific arguments, or used selectively merely to legitimize predefined political posi- tions (Hoppe 2005: 203; Daviter 2015; see also Weiss 1977, 1980, 1991: 311). While researchers often want to avoid secluding themselves in an ‘ivory tower’ and cannot always control how their output will be used or inter- preted, they need to maintain their autonomy in relation to policy-makers (Villumsen Berling and Bueger 2017: 115–19). Moreover, there are also risks with Wildavsky’s notion of ‘speaking truth to power’ (Wildavsky 1979), as an exaggerated emphasis on the production of knowledge for policy-making as steering primarily through knowledge and experts could be to the detri- ment of open and more inclusive political, democratic deliberations. A further risk would be if the evidence produced for the sake of reinforced policy-making were to end up in the form of empty rituals that policy- makers came to ignore (Ahlbäck Öberg 2011: 764). Assessments of research–policy dialogues have also pinpointed the different ‘cultures’ that need to be bridged through open exchange and improved commissioning of research in order to close the existing gaps. Davies et al. (2000) consider that: policy makers and practitioners complain that research is, among other things, slow, impenetrable, irrelevant, expensive, and inconvenient or uncomfortable. However, to some extent this reflects failures in the commissioning process and failures to understand the nature of research rather than failures of research. (Davies et al. 2000: 360) Finally, research may become politicized, especially in highly contested issue areas such as migration and integration. However, politicization does not necessarily mean reduced utilization of knowledge or evidence in policy- making. It may, nevertheless, shift the position of utilization from instrumen- tal to symbolic. Symbolic utilization either substantiates pre-existing policy positions, or is used to legitimize policy positions (Boswell 2009; Scholten and Verbeek 2015; Chapter 2 in this book). The Swedish Tradition of Government-funded Committees: Functioning and Critiques There is a 400-year tradition in Sweden of relying on committees (similar to those in Norway and Denmark) in order to collect information and research, analyse data and prepare proposals as an input to processes of legislative change and broader policy-making. These committees represent different forms of bridging the research–policy gaps.1 Therefore, they serve as a good case for analysing the extent to which they may be mainly characterized as 129 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/1/2019, SPi Kristof Tamas advocacy models or learning models, and the extent to which they may avoid politicization. Most of the major legislative and policy reforms in Sweden have been based on the report of a committee of some sort (ESO 1998: 57). Committees of inquiry, commissions, more long-standing delegations or expert groups may be led by professional experts, such as professors or legal experts, or politicians within the theme to be covered.2 This is a useful aid since Swedish ministries in international comparison have been small in terms of staffing and resources (SOU 2016: 338). This injection of knowledge and evidence could, in an optimistic scenario, bring more well-founded decisions (Zetterberg 1990: 307; Amnå 2010: 556). The proposals put forward by committees are usually circulated to all concerned stakeholders for input, including government ministries and agen- cies, labour market bodies (employers’ associations and unions), organiza- tions, civil society, and the private sector. Committees, in the sense of Bordieau’s concept of social capital and from a broader research perspective on social trust, may be seen as instruments for political deliberations with the aim of bringing opposing views closer together (Trägårdh 2007: 254, see also 261). In recent decades, there have been important changes in the way that committees have worked and in the way they have influenced policy-making. For example, there has been a relative reduction in the share of parliamentary committees involving both political parties and organized interest groups in relation to inquiries headed by a special investigator (ESO 1998: 57). In addition, Swedish interest groups have noted deterioration in the opportun- ities to influence government policy-making through the committees (Lundberg 2015a: 44, 56; 2015b). There has also been a relative reduction in the share of committees that take on the